THIS ARTICLE WAS UPDATED 7:15 P.M. SEPT. 9. IT IS DIFFERENT FROM THE ARTICLE IN THE PRINTED JUSTICE.A coalition of college students advocating for a reduction of the drinking age would hardly be notable -- self-interest is always a powerful catalyst for political action. At the same time, it's also the job of college administrators to be aware of student interests and concerns, even if it means that administrators must reassess the very laws they are obligated to enforce.

Such is the case with the Amethyst Initiative, a group of college presidents who have signed a statement questioning the wisdom of the current drinking age and several associated laws, including one that deprives states of federal highway funds if they set the drinking age below 21. Contrary to many media accounts, the group isn't specifically endorsing a change in the law. Its main aim is simply to encourage discussion about possible solutions to the prevalence of binge drinking on college campuses. It's a tough issue, but the presidents and chancellors who have joined this initiative should be commended for discussing it.

Statistics detailing the issue paint a fuzzy picture. On the one hand, according to CNN, 40 percent of college students show signs of alcohol dependence, and thousands of students per year sustain injuries related to drinking -- all despite the current drinking age. On the other hand, as Mothers Against Drunk Driving argues, studies show that raising the drinking age has cut drunk-driving deaths. Given such statistics, it's debatable whether changing the drinking age is wise, but the importance of the Amethyst Initiative is its willingness to have that debate.

Indeed, the debate itself seems as important as any potential changes in law. At a school like Brandeis, where freedom of speech is a central concern for the student body, it's fair to question whether college administrators truly have the freedom to express their concerns or if certain topics are so stigmatized that discussing them risks provoking an unfair response such as MADD's.

MADD alleges that colleges whose presidents have signed the statement are no longer committed to enforcing existing laws. They suggest that parents should steer their children clear of these schools, saying the presidents are taking the easy way out in seeking to escape their responsibility to enforce laws by working to change them. MADD's reaction amounts to a blacklist against any college president who proposes discourse about a controversial issue, and that's preposterous. Encouraging debate about the effectiveness of a law and neglecting to enforce it are two entirely different positions. Based on the controversy that's ensued, the easy way out would be not to take a stance and to allow underage drinking to continue as a dangerous taboo rather than asking whether legitimizing it might have benefits.

Our own president, Jehuda Reinharz, has not signed the Amethyst Initiative's statement, although when asked about the issue he stated in an e-mail to the Justice that he would support some reduction in the drinking age to enable the University to better educate students about responsible drinking. While students may not always enjoy the University's enforcement of drinking restrictions, the University's position is actually fairly progressive. Its policy focuses on student safety and recognizes that student parties are a major part of college social life. More drunk students are picked up by Brandeis Emergency Medical Corps than by the police, and the presence of "No drinking under age 21" signs at parties reinforces the idea that students have a right to throw parties and are smart enough to self-regulate.

Given these relatively balanced policies, Reinharz should sign the Initiative's statement to affirm the importance of the debate. This action wouldn't be in support of underage drinking, but rather showing a wilingness to discuss it. At a school where student rights are considered paramount, the president and the University as a whole should consider and discuss whether drinking is a right and responsibility that 18-year-olds should have.