FIRST NATIONAL DEBATE ON LOWERING THE LEGAL DRINKING AGE- College Presidents, Experts, Authors and Associations on the Elite Panel-
WHAT: Manhattanville College hosts the first national debate convened to consider the proposition that it is time to rethink the legal drinking age.
The elite panel will openly discuss the legal drinking age and explore whether or not it should be lowered to 18 years old. The debate is convened by the Amethyst Initiative, which supports informed and unimpeded debate about the current drinking age.
Moderated by Richard Berman, President of Manhattanville College, the debate consists of a presentation from both sides of the panel and the opportunity for each panelist to ask one question to their opponent. The debate will end with a Q & A section from the audience.
Admission is free
WHO: Panelists Include: ·
James C. Fell, Director, Traffic Safety and Enforcement Programs, Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation·
Adrian K. Lund, Ph.D., President, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety; Highway Loss Data Institute·
Graham Anderson at Brown University wrote another excellent voting age column. He makes a lot of key arguments and addresses many key misconceptions about the voting age.
A few gems:
Someone told me that a child would vote based on whether a candidate’s name was funny. But have we not already seen adults who say they will not vote for someone because his middle name is Hussein?
In one argument, parents might force their children to vote for a certain proposal or candidate by withholding anything from food to video games. Following that line of logic, would not the parents of college students, paying upwards of $50,000 a year on education alone, force their children to vote one way with the same threats?
And this great part, really the meat of his argument, that if adults are seen as representing youth, then they need to take that job seriously:
[T]he most reasonable argument given to me in favor of disenfranchising those under 18 was that they are already virtually represented in our government. Parents vote in their children’s interests and thus children are represented, the argument goes.
To believe that children are virtually represented, though, means that your vote is not entirely your own. For virtual representation to actually work as a form of representation instead of just being exclusion, you have to vote partially on behalf of the disenfranchised. You become the representative of the disenfranchised.
This means going beyond passively thinking, “I’ll vote this way because I think it will be good for kids.” You have to actually ask people under the age of 18 how they want you to vote, and substantively incorporate their input in how you vote.
Have you ever done that?
I indeed can not recall an instance when someone asked me how to vote, and certainly not when I was younger than 18. We perceive voting as an entirely individual action - one man, one vote. But if you truly believe that nobody under the age of 18 should have the right to vote and that everyone under the age of 18 is still represented in our government, then you have a responsibility to consult with those under the age of 18 on how you should vote. You have to actually go out and vote, at least partially, on their behalf.
In practice, I think it is absurd to be able to vote partially on behalf of others. But as it stands, we have a responsibility to try and do so. I ask you before voting to call a younger sibling and ask how they want you to vote, or stand outside of a middle school and ask students how they want you to vote.
I am sincere in asking this, and I am sure that by you will gain a greater appreciation of the capacity of minors to help determine how our society is governed.
Obviously no one actually does this. Graham is right to point out the insincerity of this argument. No one really believes youth are well represented by the current system, they just throw this argument out there as they grasp for straws trying to justify the current disenfranchisement of youth. But if they want to be serious about representing youth, then by all means, follow Graham’s advice.
The piece unfortunately focuses on young voters, but certainly the message holds true for voters of any age who are, by and large, uninformed on the issues. While Stossel unfortunately didn’t phrase it this way, the question NYRA asks is why do we let these uninformed people vote when informed individuals under 18 aren’t allowed to vote at all?The segment has attracted a bit of backlash from the group, Head Count, shown in the piece (they’ve done an effective job of spreading that backlash around to other sites too). They made some great arguments:
All Americans - young and old - may not be experts on the every issue, but they are experts on their own lives.
Democracy is for all of us, not just a select few. As a nation, we eliminated the idea of literacy tests decades ago, and rightly so.
Of course those arguments, and many others they made, apply to individuals under 18 just as well as those 18-30.
So basically we have two sides representing two classic arguments about voting. One, represented by Stossel, says that voters should be educated and informed in order to vote. The other says that even the uneducated have a stake in the system and deserve to represent themselves.
Neither argument precludes lowering the voting age. So I wonder whether John Stossel or HeadCount would support lowering the voting age below 18. I wonder whether either side will apply their arguments consistently and without an ageist bias. I will contact them both.
As part of the lengthy, ongoing debate about the voting age on Facebook in response to NYRA-Southeast Florida’s awesome voting age ad, one person (trying to sound much smarter than he is) posted something about women & youth. While this isn’t the best articulated version of this argument it is one that we get quite often as to why youth don’t deserve rights and why it isn’t right to compare the denial of rights to youth to other disenfranchised groups such as women. I’ve probably had a better crafted response to this argument in the past, but I just wrote it out again, so I’ll let you guys read it again.
First though, the original argument:
Since the days of long ago, centuries past, women were not considered the equivelent of men. There obligations were few, and there rights narrow. Women struggled to express there views for hundreds of years. During the middle ages, women were considered the property of the man, and possessed little amenities in life.
In the words Mr. Thomas Jefferson “All men are created equal…and entitled to certain and inalienable rights..” These rights are clearly stated in the Bill of Rights, including the right to suffrage. Although direct intrepetation of this states all men, in was at a later time said that women should and ought to be allowed this inalienable right. This only seems fair, as women are the equivelents as human beings, and as human beings, they are endowed by their very existance to possess certain and inalienable rights. The 18th amendment granted women the right to have a say in the society in which they live.
They underlining conflict that exists in comparing the struggle for womens suffrage in relation to a youth vote, lies in the fact that women were denied for the entirety of their lifetime, to a basic human right– youth however are not. Youth are developing young men and women, maturing and learning. The fact of the matter is that you are not being denied any right whatsoever, contrary to the feelings you may have regarding your place in society. Thus, I may conclude, that should one correctly analyze the history of women in society from the rise of Christianity to the 20th century and study the principles that our nation was founded upon, the youth right, is not the same struggle as women had, and they are not being denied any basic and inalienable right whatsoever.
Best Regards,
Wes
Are youth not human beings? Don’t they also have inalienable rights? Just like men do. Just like women do. Just like adults do.
The only difference you cite is that youth don’t stay young. They will become adults one day. So their status is transitory. So then would you support other restrictions of rights based on transitory criteria? How about these:
- You can only vote if you earn over $100,000 in a year. It isn’t an outright ban on voters, since if you work hard you can earn more money too. No one’s right is being violated then, since they have the ability to change their income. Plus rich people have more of a stake in the system and, statistically are better educated and informed.
- Women who are pregnant, menopausal, or on their period shouldn’t be allowed to vote. Women aren’t as rational, clear thinking or competent during these times in their lives so thus would cast a less reasonable vote. These are all temporary changes, so it doesn’t affect their right to vote. What is the harm in waiting 9 months to vote? They’ll be able to vote later.
- Only individuals who have college degrees can vote. This is just a transitory restriction - like age - no one is denied because they always have the option of going to school and getting a degree. Plus we can be sure that voters are more educated than they are currently.
- Only people who have served in the military can vote. This is another transitory criteria, and shows that these people take on the responsibility for their nation and thus should be trusted with voting. The rest of the dead beats only have to enlist if they want to vote. No rights violated.
Right?
Just because people are able to, one day, exercise a right doesn’t make it unjust to take that right away from them NOW. It is true that, statistically richer voters and college educated voters are better informed and intelligent voters. But we can’t expect them to look out for the interests of their poorer, less educated neighbors. There is no “Right Vote”. Everyone votes based on their current situation, needs, and circumstances.
If I was rich next year I’d probably vote differently than I would if I were poor today. Both votes are valid though. Asking an 18 year old adult to represent the interests of himself at 16 is unjust because that person’s interests have changed.
The only people who can represent 16 year olds are 16 year olds. The issues they are most concerned about and the problems that affect their lives most directly are different from those of 18 year olds or anyone else. So denying a right to 16 year olds as a class is a violation of their rights, even if individuals are able to one day vote when they get older.
Being temporary does not magically transform injustice into justice.
Having just returned from my weekend volunteering at the Renaissance Fair, I’ve realized that something has really been bugging me lately. Specifically, parents who put their children on leashes. They make them look cute: fuzzy teddy bears, big green frogs, or whatever, but with a long tail, firmly Velcro’ed around some helicopter mom’s wrist.
Firstly, do you have that little faith in your children? Have you taught them so poorly the dangers of crowds and not to wander off, that you feel they cannot be out from under your watchful eye? John Holt tells the tale of a boy of fewer than nine years who was free to wander the street in and around a major airport. The blog Free Range Kids tells the tale of a boy of exactly nine who was free to travel a major city on public transportation. Anecdotal evidence abounds of the danger that is NOT present to children in modern society. Indeed, people (especially men, but that is a separate issue) are so terrified of being accused of child abuse or abduction that they would not look twice at a child, even one crying for help (this I have seen with my own eyes!).
So what are people really afraid of? This makes especially little sense in a place like the Renaissance Faire, where the community is such a strong, omnipresent influence, and all of them benevolent! One of the few things absolutely anyone is allowed to seize hold of a walkie-talkie to report (and seek help with) is a lost child. The protocol for helping a lost child is drilled into every new recruit till we can all do it blindfolded. So I ask again, what are you really afraid of?
Secondly, do you have that little faith in yourselves? Do you not trust that if your child yelled “Mom!” every hair on your neck would stand on end, even if she were barely within earshot? It seems to me that these same parents who cannot stand to have their children out from under their watchful eye… cannot be bothered to look! It is always the ones who want to flit about looking at things who put their children on leashes. The attentive parents keep their children in their arms. The trusting parents let their children flit about looking at things themselves! It is only the parents who must have control, with no measure of responsibility, who put children on leashes, freeing themselves to pay attention to everything else, while keeping the children bound to follow.
There is nothing more actively dehumanizing than to force a person into the behavior and trappings of an animal. It is one thing for a person to dress as a faun, or to wear cat ears, in order to channel the cuteness of a cat, or the free will of Bacchus. It is another to put a leash on a child, so that you can skitter about paying no more attention than if it were a terrier on the end of your string. These people would be offended if you suggested the put a collar on their child (or, in the case of some, a muzzle), but see nothing wrong with keeping them on a leash, so long as it looks like a monkey’s tail. At least, I have to hope they would be offended. Can we acknowledge that children are human, at the very least? Toddling about on uncertain feet, these are people who need encouragement, guidance, inspiration, not to be yanked about, literally, by the tail.
Someone on Yahoo Answers recently asked a question to the effect of, “Do you consider 16-year-olds to be adults?”
As of this writing, I’ve not been able to get my rather lengthy response through Yahoo’s wall of technological uselessness to actually post it, but I was rather pleased with myself, and Alex agreed, so I am reprinting it here.
I responded thusly:
Yes.
Sixteen is biologically an adult, which ought to be what matters most.
Most of the thumbs-down I’m about to get will be from people claiming 16-year-olds are too immature to be considered adults. But two questions must be raised. the first is, “What constitutes maturity?” The second is, “Why are people at sixteen immature?”
The answer to the first is, in a very simplistic way, the ability to get along with people and live a productive life. To act properly around other people, to behave kindly and politely, to demonstrate self-discipline, and to speak from one’s experience in an articulate and well-reasoned way. Also, to be able to keep and hold a job (finally legal at age 16 - a cripplingly long wait for some people), to keep up with one’s education (I specifically say education and not schooling - one has nothing at all to do with the other), and to continue to seek self-improvement.
Why, then, do we universally consider 16-year-olds devoid of most of these qualities? Well, this raises two issues on its own.
The first being that sixteen-year-olds are no more universally devoid of these qualities than 25-year-olds, 40-year-olds, or 70-year-olds. There are incompetent, drunken, abusive, obnoxious, irresponsible people of every age. If we required that 100% of the population be mature at any given age, no one would ever be considered an adult.
The second being, why are sixteen-year-olds MORE LIKELY to appear devoid of these defining qualities. The simple answer to this one is, why shouldn’t they be? They are given no incentive to live up to higher standards. Does acting more financially responsible get them access to a bank account of their own? No. Does being well-versed in modern political thought earn them the vote? No. Does holding down a job, continuing their education, and being in all ways a responsible adult guarantee them the freedom to move about their own country, to rent their own home, and to achieve even the smallest measure of guaranteed escape from their parents rule, benevolent or tyrannical may it be? No. After sixteen years of being told that the words of anyone under 18 might as well be spat into the wind, what reason do people have to live up to anything better? They are entrusted with no more responsibility. They gain access to no greater freedoms. In the eyes of law and society someone 16 has more in common with someone 5 than with someone 18.
But none of these things are beyond their grasp. At 16 people have been generals, kings, priests, medicine men, explorers. I read just recently of a five year old girl who is an experienced mountaineer, and just a while before that a man of 18 elected mayor of a not insubstantial Pennsylvania city. The capacities of the young have been grossly underestimated this past century. In societies where the division between childhood and adulthood is neither so artificially prolonged, nor so rigidly enforced, there is a higher incident of mental health, good adjustment, values regarding family, work, and money that we would consider conservative, and a stronger sense of community.
In short, everything that people come out and say is wrong with people at age 16, is caused by people saying there is anything wrong with people at age 16.
While NYRA isn’t in the business of generational warfare, we have seen our share of artillery barrages from older generational warriors. So now and then it doesn’t hurt to peak out from our trenches and fire back. A fascinating new study gives us some nice ammo:
Political science professors Richard R. Lau of Rutgers University and David P. Redlawsk of the University of Iowa say voters in their mid-to-late 60s start to lose their grip on evaluating political candidates. In simulated presidential campaigns, Lau and Redlawsk found that older voters both seek out and recall less information about candidates. As a result, seniors have overall lower rates of what Lau and Redlawsk call “correct voting” — a measure they developed to test how well voters select the candidates who share their positions and ideologies.
More details:
The age effects start showing up in the mid-to-late 60s. As people age, two things are happening. One is that they have a harder time processing new information, so they are learning less quickly than they used to. But as people age, they also have more overall knowledge to draw on. This means they have more established intuitive shortcuts, which means they actually need less information to make a good decision because they better know what information to look for in the first place.
For the first 50 years of one’s voting-age life, then, these two forces tend to balance each other out. But increasing reserves of experience can compensate for declining mental sharpness only until about the mid-to-late 60s. After that, the decline picks up steam. By the time voters turn 90, the scholars’ models predict their correct level of voting will be roughly half of what it was when they were 20.
Quite interesting indeed. Yet would anyone remotely suggest to set a maximum voting age? Not bloody likely. Since voting competence exists on a continuum with lower competencies at either end, why does one end get the vote and the other end is completely disenfranchised?
Bill could give federal oversight to private clinics for children and would require FDA inspections
In a move that could have implications for D.C.’s troubled special education system, a panel of lawmakers Wednesday passed sweeping legislation that gives federal authorities the right to inspect private children’s clinics and schools.
The bill would require the federal Department of Health and Human Services to inspect therapeutic schools, clinics, camps and ranches every two years and to fine or shut down any outfit that fails minimum standards for safety and care. It passed the House Education and Labor Committee by a vote of 27-16.
Proponents of the measure said it would protect children and their families from fly-by-night operators who promise miracle cures to mentally ill or disabled children and then warehouse the children with little regard to their safety or welfare.
Thousands of D.C. kids have been shipped to camps and clinics all over the country for decades. There have been repeated complaints of abuse and low standards, but as The Examiner has reported, D.C. officials were hardly aware of where the kids were, let alone what was happening to them.
It’s a program that will cost taxpayers nearly $210 million this year.
Tom Kiley, spokesman for health committee Chairman George Miller, D-Calif., told The Examiner that the bill was necessary to keep kids out of harm’s way.
“A number of children from the District, like thousands of children from all over the country, have been sent across state lines to residential programs where physical, sexual and emotional abuse has occurred,” he said in an e-mail. “We want to make sure that kids are safe no matter what state or setting they are in.”
The legislation has encountered resistance from trade associations linked to the lucrative private clinic and camp industry.
Opponents of the bill said it’s an unnecessary layer of government interference imposed on an industry that’s capable of policing itself.
Miller’s bill now moves on to the full House floor for passage.
As the article said, the bill passed committee and is now going to the full House. This bill is absolutely critical for the rights of youth and their health and safety as well. All NYRA members are strongly urged to support this bill. Typically NYRA is in a position where we are arguing for rights, equality and freedom against those who are too willing to strip away freedom and equality for the idea of health & safety.
This issue however is one of the rare ones where such interests align. Moreover the issue of abuse in teen residential treatment centers shows quite clearly that denying equal rights to youth does not keep them safe but instead exposes them to more danger, more harm, and more risk. These programs generally paid for by parents who just “want what’s best for their kids” are rife with physical abuse, sexual abuse, emotional abuse and mental abuse of all kinds.
It makes me sick to think that when the country is paranoid about sexual predators lying in wait for our children on MySpace there are dozens and dozens of well documented cases of sexual abuse and much worse at these camps that doesn’t get near that level of public fear and panic. Why? Why does the media focus all their fear mongering on “stranger-danger” and the Internet instead of on real threats like Tranquility Bay, Peninsula Village, Ivy Ridge and all the rest.
I can think of only two reasons: ignorance and control.
It is plausible, and for some time I assumed this was the chief reason, that most in the mainstream media simply hadn’t heard of these programs. Hadn’t heard of the abuse that regularly occurs there. Hadn’t heard of the death, abuse, and trauma that youth are subjected to.
This can no longer be assumed.
Thanks to the amazing work of Rep. George Miller the issue of abuse in the “troubled teen industry” has gotten national press exposure. Victims have had their day in the spotlight testifying in front of Congress. Several victims who I know personally were there to testify. And, to the media’s credit, they wrote stories about the bill and did pieces on the news about it. Yet compared to the coverage devoted to MySpace, video games and any other mythical dangers for our youth this coverage pales in comparison.
So my only thought left is that the main issue here is one of control. If kids are abused, killed, and traumatized for life under the watchful eye of parents or authority figures for their “own good” then society seems to be generally ok with that. Maybe the authority crossed a line, and maybe we should keep a closer eye on what goes on there, but generally nothing to get too upset over.
If, on the other hand, a young person is abused or kidnapped because of their own poor choices, well that’s simply the end of the world. They properly supervised. They weren’t properly controlled. This is the true crime and the true danger that society fears.
This isn’t to say that when left to their own devices youth don’t make bad decisions. They do. Sometimes those bad decisions have very serious consequences. But adults make many bad decisions themselves. Obviously responsible parents, teachers and mentors need to step in to avoid or mitigate the worst and most long lasting consequences that can befall their kids, but for everything else those mistakes and bad decisions are an important part of life. The beauty of bad decisions is that each and every one of them teaches an important lesson. An important lesson that leads to far more good decisions being made in the future.
When you are put in danger by someone else (as opposed to yourself) you don’t learn anything except fear and how to cope.
Misuse of authority is some how less threatening to people than misuse of freedom. While this is no doubt an issue that affects all levels of society and all institutions, it is particularly acute and troubling for youth. Thus we have hysteria over Grant Theft Auto 4 and a passing mention of teen torture camps.
But now is not the time for more doom & gloom worrying. Now is the time for action, now is the time for optomism. While the media and public at large may still be wandering in the wilderness, Congress at least has their head on straight. HR 5876 is the single best youth rights bill in Congress in years. NYRA activists, supporters, leaders and members must do absolutely everything in their power to pass this bill.
MADD just sent out the following e-mail to their supporters. They want to give Grand Theft Auto (GTA) an adults only rating because it features the crime of drunk driving (apparently all the murder, car jacking and other crimes in it are just fine with MADD). “Drunk driving is not a game and not a joke” they say. Apparently only responsible adults should drink and drive. It isn’t appropriate for “youth”.
Oh wait, wasn’t MADD supposed to be opposed to drunk driving for *everyone*? So why then would the game’s rating matter? Why does MADD think it is somehow more acceptable for adults to drink and drive than youth?
Why also do they think limiting free speech is somehow an acceptable tactic in their anti-youth and anti-alcohol crusade?
MADD is encouraging their members to write the retailers below to pull GTA4 from shelves. You’d be surprized what a few pissed off complainers can accomplish. Don’t let MADD have the only say on this subject!
Write those same retailers and tell them that GTA is just a game and they shouldn’t stop selling it because a few mad mothers are upset over it. Write them and tell them to stand up for free speech.
MADD’s e-mail:
Each year nearly 13,500 people die in drunk driving crashes and
another half a million are injured in alcohol-related traffic crashes.
This is why MADD is extremely disappointed by the decision of the
manufacturers of the game Grand Theft Auto IV to include a game module
where players have to drive drunk.
Drunk driving is not a game and it is not a joke. Drunk driving is a
choice, a violent crime and it is also 100 percent preventable. MADD
is calling on the Entertainment Software Ratings Board to reclassify
Grand Theft Auto IV as an Adults Only game, a step up from the current
rating of Mature and for the manufacturer to consider a stop in
distribution if not out of responsibility to society then out of
respect for the millions of victims/survivors of drunk driving.
If you are concerned about the content of Grand Theft Auto IV, please
contact the retailers below and voice your opinion.
Amazon.com
206-266-1000
Online contact form
https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/contact-us/general-questions.html
Best Buy
612-291-1000
Online contact form
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?id=cat12104&type=page
Circuit City
804-527-4000
Online contact form
http://www.circuitcity.com/ccd/genericContent.do?oid=209855&c=1
EB Games and GameStop
817-424-2000
help@gamestop.com
Wal-Mart
479-273-4000
Online contact form
http://www.walmart.com/cservice/cu_commentsonline.gsp?cu_heading=8
SEVEN STATES THINKING OF LOWERING THE DRINKING AGE: They should. And the Federal government should get out of the business of trying to regulate state drinking ages, a subject of no legitimate federal concern whatsoever. it’s also telling that MADD wouldn’t even appear on camera to argue the other side.
Apparently TownHall.com picked it up too (which is where Glenn found it). It is great that he noticed MADD’s conspicuous absense from the piece. Apparently this is their new strategy, ignoring us in hopes that we’ll just go away.
It is a marked departure from their strategy this last fall when they considered this new push to lower the drinking age such a threat they created a coalition specifically to fight us (us being NYRA and Choose Responsibility). They held a press conference and announced their intention to fight to keep the drinking age where it is. It was an amazing tactical blunder.
With all the money, resources, clout and manpower they have, they felt threatened enough by us to go on the offensive. Of course it backfired horribly for them and ended up putting the issue of lowering the voting age into the press even more, giving us lots of free press. The media were surprised too, they couldn’t believe MADD would feel so threatened by this push to lower the drinking age that they’d start up this whole coalition to oppose us.
So now they’ve rethought their strategy and have been refusing to appear on any programs to discuss lowering the drinking age. After giving us tremendous credibility by opposing us directly they hope that they’ll deflate us by ignoring us. Sorry folks, the genie is out of the bottle now, this movement is not going away.
Gandhi had a great quote about this phenomena:
First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win.
MADD is doing things out of order. First they ridiculed us, then they fought us, and now they are ignoring us. One way or another, we are gonna win.
The evidence countinues to mount that the drinking age has been a failure and the denial of equal rights to young adults is too glaring an inconsistency for many Americans. The movement continues to grow, more and more people are becoming convinced that this is the right direction to move into.
MADD is more scared than they’ve been in a very long time.
Even though MADD itself refuses to debate us (because they know they’ll loose) their founder continues to open her big mouth in opposition to us (and in opposition to our troops as well). Hopefully Glenn will take notice of this comment by Candy Lightner on the Mike & Juliet Show.
Stefan had an excellent response to her comment. Also, Marty Beckerman wrote up a good reaction to it on Radar.Maybe MADD does have the right strategy. If their people (or former people) are going to get on national television and stupidly insult all of America’s armed forces (past and present) then it is probably best that they don’t show up to debate us. The more people realize how low their opinion is of Americans, our troops, and our youth, the more people will realize MADD is out of touch and completely wrong on this issue.
Age of Reason is a group blog for the National Youth Rights Association, maintained by our members to help educate and inform the public about youth rights.
No guarantees come with children's liberation. But neither the promise of great benefits to all nor the prediction of great difficulties ahead can serve as the reason for granting or denying rights to children. Rights will be granted because without them children are incapacitated, oppressed, and abused. - Richard Farson
Why don't you 
Comments(1)
