Today, in the diverse city of Durham, a microcosm of these diverse United States, children will go to bed hungry. Cars will be stolen, houses broken into and fresh graffiti will mar the faces of walls and buildings.
Stores will be robbed, some at gunpoint and women will be accosted, some of them even raped. But today, with less than a month remaining in these 2,000 years since the birth of Christ, the biggest problem facing Durham and its tireless law officials is underage drinking.
I worry about the wrong things at the wrong times. As I studied for a test last Thursday, I was more concerned with my fraternity's semi-formal Saturday. Today, as I struggle to make my column deadline, I am more worried about the three final papers I will have to write when I am finished. To worry is human, but to worry about the right things at the right times is divine.
Divinity certainly cannot be expected of anyone, including officials of the law. In theory, law officials enforce the law insensitive to popular worry; a broken law is a broken law, whether the perpetrator is a murderer or an underage drinker. The law may be wrong or unjust, but it is still the law. Many such laws exist at the state and federal levels, laws that we find unjust and intolerable, and we consequently disobey these laws.
One such law is the speed limit. Undeniably, the speed limit is set at a certain low level to protect us from the deadly machines that anyone and everyone is allowed to operate. But my drive home to New York, should I consider the 55 or 65 mph speed limits, would probably take 12 hours and not the usual nine-and-a-half. I will probably hit 80 or 85 along the way, and I will run the risk of being cited. But I do not expect, nor should there be, an excessive and immoderate number of law officials ensuring that I obey the somewhat ambiguous, arbitrary speed limit. The law enforcement officials have many more important things about which to worry.
Similarly, one would reason that law officials have more to worry about than nabbing underage drinkers. But law officials as of late seem to have nothing better to do than lurk in the shadows of bars, either in uniform or undercover, solely intent on stopping the heinous crime that is underage drinking. If speeding were as strongly and strictly enforced as underage drinking, we would all have our driver's licenses revoked by now.
We are all, in some fashion, college students. We are all, for the most part, at least 18 years old; we can buy cigarettes, lotto tickets and porn, and we can elect the leaders of the city, state and country. We are all, whatever the means, spending $30,000 each year for an education and, maybe more importantly, freedom.
A recent Chronicle article reported an alarming increase in confiscated false identifications. The law and its enforcement have compelled students, in apparent record numbers, to deny their own identities in exchange for identities that will allow them to circumvent the law. How free is a student who, in order to act as a free student, must disavow his or her identity? In the six months until my 21st birthday, I will probably drink, but I would also like to be free to be myself while I am drinking.
Freedom comes with responsibility. The law mandates that 21 is the drinking age. But within this law, as within the boundaries of any consistently inconsistent law, law enforcers have always allowed a certain extent of freedom. One does not expect to get a ticket for doing 70 mph in a 65 zone, just as a 20 year-old should not expect nor truly deserve a $200 citation for drinking a beer. Precedents often outweigh the law. The Supreme Court of our country rules on precedents it has set regarding the law and the constitution.
Comparably, law officials often weigh the consequences of breaking a law on how the broken law was dealt with in the past. While a slap on the wrist often suffices at home, Durham law officials exercise more excessive measures to curb underage drinking, outrageous in comparison to their frequent inability to curb other truly horrendous crimes.
Since my freshman year, I have seen a friend held up at shotgun point a block outside of East Campus. I have seen a friend jumped for the $5 bill in his wallet. I have seen a friend's bike stolen right out from under his seat. Since my freshman year, I have also seen six police cars, lights and sirens blaring, arrive at a party simply to cite and arrest underage drinkers. I have seen four police officers pay a late-evening visit to a friend's room merely to get a statement from him, merely to bust his proverbial chops.
I cannot and would not argue anywhere for law officials to cease doing their job of protecting the people for whom the laws are in place. I would like to argue for an adjustment of worries, for a prioritization of the concerns of law officials.
Moderation needs to be sought in worrying, in drinking and in law enforcement. Law officials are not divine, should not act divine and should not be treated as divinity. But officers of the law do command and should be treated with respect, just as they need to respect our rights, freedoms and precedents they have set.
Does a party need to be broken up by six stocked police cars? Does a statement from an already-scared freshman need to be taken by four police officers? We try to worry about things in moderation, with regard to the effect such worries will have upon us. A shotgun-wielding robber, a brass knuckle-fisted attacker and even a bicycle thief all clearly pose bigger threats to the harmony and well-being of society than does an otherwise law-abiding underage drinker.
Colin Garry is a Trinity junior.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.