ENC 1101 11550
12 March 2015
Word Count: 869
Binge drinking by college students and sexual violence and abuse on college campuses are currently issues of the government have been considering passing new laws. Two articles, “How Bingeing Became the New College Sport,” by Barrett Seaman, and “Duke’s Sexist Sexual Misconduct Policy,” by Cathy Young, provide their ideas on these concerns. Both authors offer evidence, reasons and examples to make the topics clearer. Seaman claims that the minimum drinking age of twenty one cannot reduce the number of student who are hospitalized or died because of alcohol poisoning, while Young provides her arguments that touching or having sex by the rejection of other are to commit a serious crime, which is mentioned in Sexual Misconduct Policy. Underage students usually start to drink in their dorm room and use hard liquor before parties. This type of drinking “was marked by a shift from beer to hard liquor,” which is more “furtively and dangerously in students' residences” (Seaman 180). This change is not a wholesome tendency; it has a negative impact on our society. According to Seaman, “by the Thanksgiving break of the year I visited Harvard, the university's health center had admitted nearly 70 students for alcohol poisoning” (Seaman 179). Hospitalization of students for alcohol poisoning is not unusual because students try, regardless of dangers, to drink illegally. A college president confirms that “students are hospitalized--or worse yet, die from alcohol poisoning, which happens about 300 times each year” (Seaman 179). This issue requires the government should to establish new regulation because the enforcement of the minimum drinking age of 21 does not work.
Lowering the drinking age to 18 should be considered. Deans and presidents of colleges thought that “the law impeded their efforts since it takes away the ability to monitor and supervise drinking activity” (Seaman 179). They did not feel that the minimum drinking age of 21 helps their efforts to limit the abuse of alcohol on their campuses. Seaman mentioned that students “first arrive, go overboard, exploiting their ability to drink legally; but by midterms, when McGill's demanding academic standards must be met, the vast majority have put drinking into its practical place among their priorities” (180). This permission would reduce the desire to drink alcohol for undergraduates if they have freedom to drink whenever they want. According to Seaman’s opinion, Congress should consider carefully to adjust this policy. Seaman states that “we should let the pregamers come out of their dorm rooms so that they can learn to handle alcohol like the adults we hope and expect them to be” (180). Like Seaman, Young states her ideas by a stronger argument with clear evidence. Young’s view emphasizes that students of both sexes can easily become the unwitting rapists because of their position or intoxicated. Impolite touching to forced sex is considered sexual misconduct in the Duke Harassment policy. The examples of sexual misconduct is “groping an unwilling woman’s breasts,” which “are clearly sexual offenses not just under university regulations but under the law” (Young 101). Any intimacy requires verbal consent; in this case, Duke's policy will be accepted to non-verbal expressions of consent. However, the policy does not recognize that “consent may not be inferred from silence [or] passivity – even in an ongoing sexual relationship”. People have sex with a person, who does not accept, will lead them to become offenders. We should not do anything by our feeling without the acceptance of other. “Consent can be invalidated by various circumstances – not just obvious ones such as being threatened or unconscious, but also being intoxicated to any degree, or “psychologically pressured,” or “coerced” (Young 102). Although Duke's policy established that men and women are both