carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (07/23/85)
>More of MIT: Massachusetts just raised the drink age to 21 and now only >about 23% of MIT students are legal. Despite the fact that the MIT >Campus Police have sole jurisdiction on campus, MIT has been going out >of it's way to enforce the drinking age. Nobody really knows why. This >seems to be vogue among colleges now -- following the drinking ages. Perhaps one reason is that injuries, deaths, and property damage have been known to occur at on-campus parties, with alcohol apparently being a contributing factor, and the colleges/universities do not wish to be found liable. Could any legal beagles tell us what the law says about this? In any case, deans do not relish phoning parents at 1 a.m. to tell them their daughter is dead, as happened here a year or two ago when a freshman who had been drinking at a dorm party fell out of a fourth-story window (which was missing a screen) and landed on her head. > "Tank '85" team speed drinking contest at MIT used > non-alcholic beer. Sad. Not so sad, and it has nothing to do with Puritanism (were the Puritans teetotalers, anyway?). One possible reason colleges are banning alcohol is that alcohol abuse is now a very widespread problem among students, and the colleges don't want to foster the problem in any way. To those of you who object to the 21 drinking age: If you can't enjoy your college years and the company of your friends without alcohol or other drugs, you are setting yourself up for serious problems later on. If you think it's tough being 20 and dry, wait till you're 40 and alcoholic. Richard Carnes