It sometimes feels that, from an institutional standpoint, alcohol is anathema to the Office of Student Life. Bound by state and local laws-and the fiscal consequences if the University's liquor license is revoked-the department is perceived by students to be, for lack of a better term, a "hard-ass," at least when it comes to drinking. There's obeying the law and there's not coming within 10 feet of the law to avoid any possible violation-and Brandeis rarely passes up on the latter.So administrators find themselves in this unfortunate position between not being fined and helping students-we are, after all, the reason why they work in that field (or so it is to be hoped). But by poor luck, or whatever you'd call it, Brandeis is located in a state with lingering strains of Puritanism-can you imagine any other city with so many "young" people shutting down so early? So there's an exaggerated aura of distrust and harshness that's framing this entire give-and-take.

But it is somewhat comforting to know that all this alcohol stuff isn't just an issue at Brandeis, or (charitably) Massachusetts. According to The Chronicle of Higher Education, the president emeritus of Middlebury College has started a campaign for a federal law to allow states to lower the legal drinking age to 18. (The current law is that any state whose drinking age is under 21 loses 10 percent of its highway funding.)

There is, however, a catch, one that is actually at least somewhat reasonable: 18-to-20-year-olds would need a separate "drinking license," much like the provisional drivers' licenses issued to young drivers in many states. If they break drinking laws-by drunk driving, public drunkenness and such-they would forfeit the license and have to wait.

But because of the fervent opposition of such groups as Mothers Against Drunk Driving-whose CEO, interestingly enough, is a man-this movement seems to have only a slightly better chance of success than the one to legalize marijuana use. But the fact remains: It doesn't make sense that an 18-year-old can be conscripted and vote, but not order a glass of wine with dinner.

Back at Brandeis, this seemingly odd duality between personal opinions and professional outlook also exists. A few staffers-I'll leave them nameless out of respect-have, on multiple occasions, joked to me about the topic (mostly on my discomfort over their openly talking about it, but that's another issue entirely). Rick Sawyer, the head of the office, has often said, never this succinctly ("bluntly" would also be appropriate), that his job would be easier if the legal age were 18, as it was when he first came to Brandeis in the early '80s; there were not "unusual problems" then.

Drinking was done primarily "in the open," so the results weren't as messy as they are today, so to speak. As the Justice has harped on in our editorials a few times this year, no one wins in those situations. While fewer 18-year-olds are involved in drunk-driving accidents, I would guess that more are treated for alcohol poisoning than in the past.

Here, at least, the combination of younger students having the opportunity to drink almost whenever and the fear of repercussions results in an unduly unsafe environment.

It's nearly universally acknowledged that college students who want to drink will do so. When they do it unsafely because they are afraid of the very people who are supposed to be their resource-Student Life administrators and staffers-those intended resources have failed.

That's why I'm relieved to see that Student Life has been persuaded to test a less cumbersome alcohol policy at SpringFest next weekend: no beer garden, but wristbands and big X's. Hopefully this will go over well, and students and administrators alike can spend their time worrying about more important matters.