Let's look at the facts. The Amethyst Initiative signed by the college presidents states:
We call upon our elected officials:
To support an informed and dispassionate public debate over the effects of the 21 year-old drinking age.
To consider whether the 10% highway fund “incentive” encourages or inhibits that debate.
To invite new ideas about the best ways to prepare young adults to make responsible decisions about alcohol.
We pledge ourselves and our institutions to playing a vigorous, constructive role as these critical discussions unfold.
Mrs. Dean-Mooney goes into alarmist mode and preys on parent's fears regarding the safety of their children. The college presidents are supporting study to determine if the current LDA is the answer or not. If MADD is so sure of its "facts" why are they so critical of this call for public debate? One would think they would welcome the study, instead of relying on emotional blackmail in an attempt to stop it. If the leaders at these colleges had given up on enforcing the laws, they wouldn't be calling for public scrutiny of the issue.
No one can deny that underage and binge drinking are serious issues, and drinkers of all ages need to be educated on alcohol use vs. abuse. The national minimum drinking age of 21 has been "enforced" by the withholding of highway funds since 1985. Yet, by MADD's own admission, "drinking, binge drinking, drinking and driving and other alcohol-related problems continue to be a major health and safety problem on college campuses." The growing number of signatories on the Amethyst Initiative shows that college presidents are concerned about the problem, concerned enough to stand up and risk being subjected to MADD's vitriol. Instead of burying our heads in the sand, it's time for serious study of the problem, and to come up with real, working solutions. The attitude of MADD can only serve to delay any constructive progress on bettering the situation.
Choose Responsibility's response to MADD's tactics is here.