Always too young

Sometimes at college, it's hard to know whether you're a child or an adult. In the same week that you interview for jobs and write advanced papers, you also receive packages from your parents of food and quarters for the laundry. Unfortunately, the government does the same thing, with an incoherent system of privileges and restrictions. Between the ages of 16 and 35, a whole new world of freedoms and responsibilities opens up to young people. At 16 we can drive, at 18 we can vote, at 21 we can drink, at 25 we can rent a car like a normal person or be a U.S. representative, a senator at 30 and president at 35. At age 18, we can be drafted, prosecuted as an adult and even executed. This discrepancy is unfair and should be remedied. The first issue is the drinking age. Every state has fixed the drinking age at 21. This change, made in 1984, was tied to federal funding for highways. Part of the justification for this measure was the desire to reduce the number of fatalities due to drunk driving among young people. However, the real problem is not the fact that underage people drink, but how they drink. Ruth Engs, a professor of applied health science at Indiana University explains, "Although the legal purchase age is 21 years of age, a majority of college students under this age consume alcohol, but in an irresponsible manner. This is because drinking by these youth is seen as an enticing 'forbidden fruit,' a 'badge of rebellion against authority' and a symbol of 'adulthood.'" She supports lowering the age to 18 or 19 but emphasizes moderate attitudes toward alcohol consumption. Engs says that the current drinking age repeats an ineffective strategy from the past. "As a nation, we have tried prohibition legislation twice in the past for controlling irresponsible drinking problems. This was during National Prohibition in the 1920s and state prohibition during the 1850s. These laws were finally repealed because they were unenforceable and because the backlash towards them caused other social problems. Today, we are repeating history and making the same mistakes that occurred in the past. Prohibition did not work then, and prohibition for young people under the age of 21 is not working now." If you've ever walked down Spruce Street on a Saturday night, you know what she's talking about. In the spirit of compromise, the drinking age should be lowered, while the penalties for drunken and disorderly conduct and driving under the influence should be strengthened. The enforcement of responsible behavior would extend to all age groups, dealing with not just young drinkers, but older ones as well. But the drinking age is not the only issue at stake. The discrepancy between the age of lawmakers and those affected by their laws is perhaps more important. When World War I poet Wilfred Owen wrote, "My friend, you would not tell with such high zest, to children ardent for some desperate glory, the old Lie: Dulce et decorum est Pro patria mori," his complaint was that the old men in government were sending young men out as cannon fodder. Since the people who make laws are significantly older than the people who are sometimes affected the most by them, the wishes of the younger group are often neglected. Age is an imperfect measure of competence. Not all 18-year-olds are mature enough to handle drinking. Similarly, plenty of 30-year-olds are not ready to hold public office. The group Americans for a Society Free from Age Restrictions, which describes itself as "dedicated to protecting and advancing the legal civil rights of youth," seeks to solve the problem of the ambiguity of age limits by imposing a different standard, based on competence. What is it about being 30 - as opposed to, say, 28 - that makes you uniquely qualified to serve as a senator? Nothing more than an arbitrary number. Shouldn't knowledge and experience be the most important factor? This principle should apply to all freedoms. The right to vote, for example, would not be determined by age, but by passing a test similar to that given to immigrants seeking U.S. citizenship. I doubt such a system would be workable any time soon. However, the current system of contradictory age limits for privileges and responsibilities should be reformed to reflect a more coherent schema of expectations. After all, how many 18-year-olds are willing to go to war for a country that won't let them drink or hold office? Edith Mulhern is a senior French, international relations and history majorfrom Ardmore, Pa. Voice of the Sparrow appears on Fridays.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.