University of South Carolina Libraries
% Page 8 ? November 16, 1984 Opinion THE GAMECOCK Require curricul It is pre-registra schedule for next s with what USC's Bulletin, has to off reading to your co The reading is "] ing the Potential o It is the final repoi educators who ex higher education, deans and currici make sure they'r students. The report, writi panel and release observations and i aren't exactly car educators. But like points out bad hat The report's rna it worthwhile. It < around, liberal, tri passes on society's the proliferation ol cupational fields, tional arts and sci( or at least aren't develop analytical ; of life-long learnin scores on the GRE missions tests are SAT scare?) Like any worthv some reasons for s tive accreditation p programs that don many horizon-broa jors. A look at the ricula for some U5: macy, for example USC prides itsell many fields. It no\ lead. The Pre Undergraduate Mi: Dean Harry Lights the recomendations and should make Carolina. One place to st; Education recently ing of its curricul most of their ur another university specific education complaints that tc teach, but they teaching. Now the) to teach it. It requi takes a little extra t plan. Expansion < something that ] consider. ?Sen Copy Desk Chief Ron News Editor Jo ! Asst. News Editor At I Entertain. Editor M? Asst. Ent. Editor .. Robert Sports Editor Andi Asst. bports tailor I ret Photo Editor Jennift Asst. Photo Editor .. Josep Copy Editor Susan Copy Editor h Newsroom i Business Office The Gemmock welcomes let i must b? typewritten, triple! Letters should be no looser to one newsworthy subject editorials MUST be signed m dress, cless standing or facul but the writer's neme may b< We reserve the right to ? Address letters and column Columbia, S.C. 29208. 't I d reading for um planners tion time again, time to make a emester. But if you aren't happy academic menu, the University er, you should recommend some liege's dean. Involvement in Learning: Realizf American Higher Education." rt of a blue-ribbon committee of amined the state nf American It would be good reading for ilum committees who want to e meeting the needs of their ten after a ye&r-long study by the ;d last month, contains some recommendations that probably npus-shaking or new to most ; a friend who is also a critic, it )its and suggests remedies, in thrust, if nothing else, makes iddresses the erosion of an allily universal education, one that s~%/ti 11 < /J 1 r /aii rl /-*./-I />/-* T4- /ii atquucu Miuwicugc. n uuitl^csi ? narrow speciality majors in ocwhile leaving behind the tradijnces. Students aren't required, encouraged often enough, to and expressive skills, nor a love g, the report says. And average and other graduate-school adbecoming lower (remember the vhile analysis, the report offers ;hortcomings. It blames restricirnorams for manv nrnnnfltinnal O *t leave students room for very Ldening courses outside their maalmost entirely pre-planned cur>C majors ? nursing and phar? helps bear this out. f on its expanding leadership in v has one more opportunity to sident's Commission on ssions, headed by Law School iey, would benefit greatly from i in "Involvement in Learning/' plans to implement them at art is curricula. The College of underwent a sweeping revampum. Students there now spend idergraduate time studying in department, topping it off with fnnrsps Thf? rhanopc ct#?m frnm ""V.WCVU ?ivtlt UVIII >o many teachers knew how to didn't know what they were r can master a subject, then learn res more total course hours, and :ime to graduate, but it is a good 3f the idea to other majors is Lightsey's commission should mecocK Editor in Chief David Hill Managing Editor Leslie J. Dunson , Brackott Copy Editor Lynn Cusick bn Doinsr Copy Editor Tim Surratt in Fanner Copy Editor Laura Dannhardt rise Porto Copy Editor.: Crystal Chapman O'Connor Copy Editor Kip Botts raw Millar :y Mixson General Manager Ron Emlar tr Woo ten' Ad Manager Doug Truablood ?h Garnett Production Manager . Mark McEwan Llewellyn Graduate Assistant .. Ron Buchanan lal Hewed Adviser BiH Roaart 7777181 Advertising 7774249 7773888 Production 7772833 tters and guest editorials. Al letters and guest edftorials ipeced on a 65 space line. than 300 words and guest editorials should be limited no longer then four typed pages. Letters and guest rith the writer's name, telephone number, mailing adIty position and major. Pseudonyms are imacceptably i withheld upon request if the circumstences warrant, fit guest editorials end letters. * to: Opinion Page Editor, Guimock, Drawer A, USC, v j^Pljp^lhhoie. ' WriBm St .v "*svv/r ' HH J: - - mure on uispe To the Editor: I am writing in response to your recent editorial titled "Raising drinking age doesn't stop DUI" which appeared in the Oct. 31, 1984, issue of The Gamecock. First, I would like to commend your support of and interest in the problem of driving under the influence (DUI) as evidenced by this editorial. However, I would also like to take this opportunity to dispel a few additional myths and correct some of your statements which, I feel, were in error. As indicated in your editorial, the problem of DUI is a complex one to which there are no simple solutions. The State legislature's recent action to raise the legal age required for the purchase of beer and wine to 19 effective immediately and to raise it to 20 effective Jan. 1, 1985, is indeed an important component of the solution. ACCORDING TO "Healthy People: The Surgeon General's Report on health Promotion and Disease Prevention," motor vehicle accidents are the leading cause of death among persons ages 15 to 24. Alcohol consumption is clearly implicated in many of these fatalities, with about one-half of the fatally injured drivers having blood alcohol concentrations (BACs) at or above the legal level for presumed intoxication. For this reason, it is imperative that the legislature look at and enact measures such as this one to directly impact the youthful driving population. Your editorial implies that the effectiveness of raising the legal age is a myth. In recent years, however, many states have looked closely at the impact of raising and lowering the legal age. Research has demonstrated that lowering the legal age has a detrimental impact on highway safety and, conversely, raising the legal age results in positive highway safety outcomes. In Illinois, for example, the legal age was raised to 21 and since this change took effect, a 25 percent reduction in the number of alcohol-related traffic fatalities has been recorded. In New Jersey, the legislature lowered the legal age to 18 in 1973 and has reported that the percentage of 18- to 20-year-old drivers involved in alcohol-related fatal accidents rose from 8.9 percent in 1972 to 16.3 percent in 1973 and to 29.2 in 19*75. These are only two in r CSW,SENHDRGARN,\DUR M1SSK IS ID RETRIEVE SENflDR HELMS AND BRING HIMBCKTO EARTH. I Letters illing drunk-driv stances in which the effect of raising and lowering the legal age has been proven. There are many others. However, the example you cited in your editorial regarding Minnesota's experience with a higher legal age was inaccurate. JOHN WILLIAMS, of the Minnesota House of Representatives research department, has challenged your claim that in Minnesota "traffic fatalities increased four times after the legal drinking age was raised to 19." Williams said that he knows of no study or publication that has made this claim, and according to his research, there has been a steady decrease in the percentage of licensed drivers killed in highway crashes since 1976 when the age was raised. This decrease can be illustrated by looking at the increased number of licensed drivers and the increase number of miles traveled per licensed driver, and comparing this to the number of licensed drivers who were killed in crashes on the highways. Because it has been demonstrated that the positive impact on highway safety becomes greater as the legal age increases, the greatest effect can be expected when the legal age in any given state is 21. Therefore, the South Carolina Commission on Alcohol and Drug Abuse has supported the recommendation of the National Traffic Safety Board to raise the legal age in all states to 21. Studies of 14 states that have raiseo - the legal age have indicated that approximately 380 fewer young drivers have been involved in nighttime fatal crashes each year. Even more lives could be saved if all the remaining states with legal ages lower than 21 nviv iv wuoiiiiviiujr iai3L tilt IU X> 1 throughout the nation. THAT'S A fact, not a myth. I agree with your statement that raising the legal age is not the total answei to the problem. We do need additional tougher laws in South Carolina and in ctc UIAII or O4V(A4?(> V/VI1VI avubvi} I CU> TTVI1 atl ail Itl^l VIII Ui W ment of them. However, I disagree with youi perceived "myth" that the state's legislature feels that, because it has rasied the legal age in South Carolina, it "has done its part in reducing drunk driving." The state legislature has in no way indicated that this measure ring myths alone will solve the problem. In fact, South Carolina's lawmakers have been and continues to be committed to reducing the public threat of > DUI through a variety of actions. In the past few years, for example, the legislature has passed several laws which directly impact the problem. IN ADDITION to raising the legal age, legislation has also been enacted which makes it illegal to kill or injure someone while driving under the influence; prohibits the transfer of alcoholic beverages to minors; prohibits the possession of open containers of beer and wine in moving vehicles; and requires all persons convicted of DUI to successfully complete the state's Alcohol and Drug Safety Action Program (ADSAP), prior td being relicensed by the South Carolina Department of Highways and Public Transportation. Also, there are several DUI-related issues which will be considered during the upcoming legislative session, including a bill which would make driving at a set BAC illegal in and of itself; a Kill iuaiiIH oIIau; fr\r rr\orlcJHp u i/iii TTiiivn nv/uiu auv/TT iv/i i v/auaiuv breath fluid samples to be taken under the current implied consent legislation; a bill which would require the administrative suspension of a drivers's license at the time a person is charged with DUI; a bill which would raise the legal age required for the purchase of all alcoholic beverages to 21; and a bill which would prohibit the transfer of < any alcoholic beverages to persons under the age of 21. In South Carolina, we should feel privileged to have legislators who view the problem of DUI as a serious one. We should appreciate the fact that many of them are willing to fight for tougher laws which would benefit the community and society as a whole, even though thev mav lose the sunnnrt of those individuals and special interest groups who may oppose certain legislation. The South Carolina Commission on Alcohol and Drug Abuse thanks our legislators and your newspaper for working toward our shared goal of public health and safety. William,J. McCord Director South Carolina Cflmtaiisioa en Ateokol and Drug Abuso (