For much of the United States’ history, the government has struggled with how to legislate the use of alcohol. From Prohibition to the call to lower the drinking age during the Vietnam War as part of “redefining adulthood” to the current controversy over the drinking age, the United States, unlike other Western countries, is unsure of how to view alcohol.

We cannot deny that the drinking age does affect a significant portion of the Boston College community as it forces many freshmen, sophomores, and even upperclassmen to “binge” drink or “pregame” behind closed doors because they cannot drink in controlled, socially healthy environments such as restaurants and sporting events.

According to Ruth Engs, professor of the applied health sciences department at Indiana University, 22 percent of all students under 21 compared to 18 percent over 21 years of age are heavy drinkers. Among drinkers only, 32 percent of under age, compared to 24 percent of legal age, are heavy drinkers. The drinking age also encourages intoxicated underage students to not seek medical attention for themselves or others on many college campuses – including our own.

Unhealthy drinking habits such as binge drinking will always occur on and off college campuses.  With a drinking age of 18, however, young adults would drink in a much healthier environment. At every bar, restaurant, sporting event, and concert, social norms exist that generally help restrict the alcohol consumed to a more moderate amount. And with availability of alcohol at those events, there will be less of a pressure to pregame.

Opponents of lowering the drinking age argue that the current drinking age has decreased alcohol-related accidents. However, research has shown that alcohol-related vehicular incidents were decreasing before the drinking age was raised and were related to advancements in the field of vehicle safety such as increased air bag and safety belt usage and lower speed limits. And after the raising of the drinking age, these trends showed little change.

After the 1987 law tying the 21-year old drinking age to road improvement funds for states, there has been an increase in the overuse of alcohol by teenagers according to surveys reported by Engs, especially among college students. For example, from 1982 until 1987 about 46 percent of students reported “vomiting after drinking.” This jumped to over 50 percent after the law change. The increase in vomiting after drinking is significant because it demonstrates that a law that was supposed to increase the safe use of alcohol by young adults is actually doing the opposite. Clearly, the law is not achieving its objectives. Although the margin is only 4 percent  and could be considered negligible, the figures indicate that the effects of the law actually move against the law’s very objectives.

The lowering of the drinking age from 21 to 18 would, in general, allow young adults to drink in safer environments and promote healthier drinking habits. However, no law – state or federal – will eliminate the abuse of alcohol as demonstrated by the failure of every attempt to control alcohol consumption. Illegal drinking will always occur.

But it is our responsibility as a society to promote healthier habits. Culturally, we must set boundaries on alcohol consumption by distinguishing between moderation and abuse. If alcohol consumption is seen as a natural part of life, instead of as something illicit and negative, then future generations will not see its abuse as a rite of passage. Rather, it would be a more seamless transition – not one necessitating the consumption of a life-threatening amount of alcohol.

The Gavel presents itself as “the progressive news source of Boston College.” What do we mean by “progressive news source?” How does our definition of “progressive” shape the presence and role of our publication? These are some of the questions we hope to answer for readers and in so doing assert ourselves as a new, independent campus media organization. Continue Reading

While establishing the Society of Jesus, the very organization that would provide as the inspira­tion for the founding mission of Boston College, St. Ignatius outlined one of the major tenants of his new organization, cura personalis. Cura personalis, which translates to “care of the whole person,” instructs Catholics to provide individualized attention to the needs of others as well as a distinct respect for the unique circumstances and concerns of others. With that philosophy in mind, Boston College was founded as a Jesuit institution for higher learning.

However, the motto of cura personalis has at times been ignored by the BC administra­tion as specific parts of our community have been neglected — specifically the GLBTQ com­munity. Steps have been taken by the administration to heed the call of St. Ignatius, but more steps still need to be taken — including the creation of a GLBTQ resource center and the institutionalization of several programs including, but not limited to, “Queer Peers.”

Some in the BC community argue, that as a Catholic institu­tion, any support of the GLBTQ community by the university administration could be perceived as a condoning of homosexual­ity — which contradicts Catholic teachings on the subject. How­ever, in a letter by then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Bene­dict XVI, titled “On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons,” stated that homosexuality “is a proper focus for the Church’s pas­toral care. It thus requires of her ministers attentive study, active concern and honest, theologically well-balanced counsel.”

The words of Pope Benedict XVI have been met with action across the campuses of Catholic universities around the United States. Almost 20 years ago at Fordham University, the then president of the university, Rev. Joseph O’Hare, released a public statement backing the GLBTQ community in which he stated, “Catholic teaching insists that all individuals be treated with respect and understanding as they work to integrate their own sexuality into their personal lives.”

Similar action was taken by the Jesuit-run Santa Clara University as they declared that support for gay organizations is “the Catholic thing” to do.

At Georgetown University, the administration took a similar approach to that of the BC ad­ministration: a silent co-existence with GLBTQ organizations, but a lack of a true involvement in the issue by the university. Then, in October of 2007, two attacks motivated by anti-gay bias, both involving homophobic slurs and physical assault occurred to a Georgetown student. In response, the Georgetown university admin­istration increased their support of GLBTQ students — includ­ing the opening of a GLBTQ Resource Center.

However, the BC community cannot afford to take the same path as the Georgetown com­munity did. We cannot afford to wait for a catalyst, such as a hate crime, to finally motivate the ad­ministration to become substan­tially involved in the issues that the GLBTQ community faces on campus.

The university should be commended for the steps it has already taken to assist the GLBTQ community on cam­pus – including the creation of the GLBT Leadership Council (GLC). However, more action is needed. Recently, GLC has unveiled a rough outline on ad­ditional programs and resources they would like to see made avail­able for the GLBTQ community on campus including a Queer Resource Center, a student-men­torship program, and the creation of a GLBTQ alumni network. Not only does the university need to become a more vocal advocate of solutions to GLBTQ issues on campus, but also, the administra­tion simply needs to show more support for its own students and the problems affecting them.

This past year has seen its share of controversy: the passage of the sexual health referendum, the commotion surrounding the cancellation of Bill Ayers’ lecture, and the Forbes feature that ranked Boston College the 17th worst school for interaction across racial and socioeconomic lines. UGBC leaders have a responsibility to work through such challenges, but this cycle’s candidates took only cursory steps to address them. Despite such shortcomings, The Gavel endorses Charlie Witmer and Courtney Dower for UGBC president and vice president because ultimately, they will be stronger representatives for the student body than opponents Micaela Mabida and Patrick Raab.

Witmer and Dower ran a strong, well oiled operation that placed importance on outreach to students. Their Web site invited comments and suggestions and their door-to-door campaign asked students for input — strengths that are indicative of a positive, open relationship with students if elected. Their complementary problem-solving styles are highlighted both by Witmer’s position as UGBC chief of staff, which provides the experience necessary to implement change, and Dower’s newcomer status, which brings a fresh perspective. The Witmer-Dower platform focuses on a number of achievable goals, such as establishing CabShare and BikeShare programs. Their Spring Weekend plan will help entrench a sense of tradition and cohesiveness of student spirit that any university would find valuable.

We also commend Mabida and Raab for the passion they brought to the election. Their campaign’s greatest strength was its focus on building a connection with freshman and AHANA students. Despite these advantages, they did not reach out to the GLBTQ Leadership Council president or vice president until after the primaries, neglecting to acknowledge an important constituency. They also failed to include any stance at all on the testing of sexually transmitted infections and sexual health at large in their platform. While Mabida acknowledged that their campaign failed to adequately research the issue prior to developing their platform, we feel that a commanding knowledge of the problem is essential to leading UGBC.

Mabida and Raab’s silence on sexual health is symptomatic of the lack of a strong stance in significant areas of concern on both tickets. The referendum that passed last year, with 89 percent of the vote, called not only for affordable STI testing, but also open access on campus to condoms and other contraceptives for students. The student body issued a resounding mandate that has been ignored by the current UGBC administration, and this election presents an opportunity for candidates to finally capitalize on the hard work of BC Students for Sexual Health.

While Witmer and Dower’s approach of incremental implementation of the referendum is preferable to no position at all, the short-term successes they hope to forge should not come at the expense of sustained pressure for progress. For example, although it may be unreasonable to ask the BC administration to provide students with condoms, because such a policy would be in direct conflict with Catholic ideology, it is not an unreasonable goal to fight to decriminalize the on-campus distribution of condoms by BC Students for Sexual Health, who do not ask for university funding. We are disappointed by the lack of interest shown by both campaigns to an issue with such significant student support, especially because it is directly related to physical health. Moreover, without a much stronger showing of solidarity from UGBC, students’ commitment to this initiative will have been in vain.

The campaigns also need to more substantially address academic freedom. The candidates acknowledged that the University’s speaker policy needed revision after last year’s botched Bill Ayers visit, without outlining any specific ways of addressing it. But there is a further failure on both sides to understand that academic freedom is more than guest lecturers — it is the ability of students to explore intellectual curiosities. Freedom to test convictions in the marketplace of ideas is crucial for both a private research university and a functioning, participatory democracy. UGBC’s current push for academic advising is functionally meaningless if university policy precludes a frank and open exchange of ideas between professors and students.

Witmer-Dower and Mabida-Raab did not adequately acknowledge the burden with which many BC students are currently struggling. They expressed support for the Montserrat Coalition, which provides affordable access to campus events for students of lower income, but this is not enough. If the candidates are serious about inclusion, they should work with the University on prioritizing students’ economic concerns.

We realize that reaching these goals will be neither immediate nor easy. They will require years of arduous negotiations and difficult compromises. We fear that because of the enormous obstacles standing in the way of progress, significant policy problems are being shelved for the next generation of students. Generic platitudes in the platforms should not preclude progress on these big picture problems. We caution students against complacency and apathy in light of significant status quo issues – talk to the candidates about your concerns. We endorse Charlie Witmer and Courtney Dower for their energy, genuine desire to connect with and include student voices, and realistically attainable initiatives. We hope that our endorsement will encourage them to stand resolved to fight for meaningful improvements.

Before the trial challenging California’s Proposition 8 began, the Supreme Court issued a temporary ban on broadcasting the proceedings on YouTube. According to the Court, the temporary ban would afford them more time to weigh the merits of allowing a full, online display of the trial. We believe that the Court should allow the trial to stream online. Continue Reading

To the chagrin of movie lovers all over campus, Circle Cinema closed last year, causing students to head to Fenway for their movie nights. Many were shocked to learn that both French Press and College Sub Shop also had closed their doors when they arrived on campus this past September. In order to support the independent enterprises that are frequented by its students, Boston College needs to further its promotion of local businesses. Continue Reading

Shortly after his victory in the 2008 presidential election, Barack Obama, drawing on a common theme from his campaign, stated, “Loving your country must mean accepting your responsibility to do your part to change.” Supporters across the United States, young and old, planned to meet this call to service with excitement. It seems, however, that the initial enthusiasm for service that existed among young people following his inauguration has dwindled. Continue Reading

Another month of intense negotiations between the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and the administration brought much of the same, and yet another month-long contract extension. After over six months of deliberations, the two sides are no closer to resolving the campus labor dispute. Continue Reading

Observing Veterans Day this Nov. 11 and remembering the patriotism, service, and willful sacrifice of the men and women that have served our country is both necessary and fundamental to our role as Americans.

What began in November 1919 as a dedication to those who served in World War I and the first anniversary of Armistice Day was renamed Veterans Day in 1954, thereafter serving as a national holiday for prideful recognition of the American veterans of all wars.

Honoring the commitment of service men and women could not come at a more crucial time, given last Thursday’s mass shooting at the Fort Hood Army Post in Texas.  As the nation mourns the 12 soldiers and one civilian killed in the massacre, reports state that gunman, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, had voiced his strong opposition to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in recent years.  In the wake of this tragedy, it is vital to recognize the immense self sacrifice that comes with military service, and realize the physical and psychological tolls that can come with the realities of deployment.

On Nov. 7 in the Robsham Theater, Mass Humanities held its sixth annual fall symposium, “Soldiers and Citizens: Military Culture in America,” which explored the social gap between military personnel and civilians. The necessary steps for facilitating an open relationship between the regimented ethos of military culture and a self-concerned society that questions figures of authority were considered in a series of panel discussions.  Amidst speculation surrounding such a divisive rift, some veterans from the audience expressed their feelings of alienation ─ their feeling that their military service and combat exposure has led to an inability to neither comfortably nor fully return to a civilian way of life.

In light of this event, it is important to  understand that while civilians may at times feel as though service men and women are of a wholly separate social caste ─ they are family members, friends, and neighbors ─ they are American citizens.  By remembering our veterans, we not only honor their service, but express our deep and sincere gratitude for their selfless acts of courage that have preserved the freedom of our nation and upheld the common good.  This Veterans Day, and every day, it is important to look beyond uniforms and military patches ─ beyond opposition to past and present military action ─ and observe that our present way of life is able to persist thanks to the dutiful service of our nation’s heroic veterans.

The abstinence-only approach to sexual education is akin to putting kids in a backyard with a pool on a sizzling day. Command them to avoid the tantalizingly cool, blue water, refusing to instruct them how to swim, and eventually, when some get hot and go for a dip, their ignorance of safe practices leaves them vulnerable to drown. Continue Reading