Underage Drinking and 'Alco-Pops'

For my final blog entry I’d like to arch back to an issue I first alluded to in my first post, teenage drinking. In that post I discussed how clothing retailers were not-so-subtly encouraging young women and girls to consume alcohol in excess by marketing T-shirts printed with slogans such as “I’m Drunk, You’re Cute,” and “USA Drinking Team.” This week I’ll examine the issue of underage drinking itself more closely. Do such messages affect young people’s decision whether or not to drink and to what degree? What other types of marketing affect similar decision making? Do young girls consume more alcohol than young boys and why? And, what are the consequences of excessive underage drinking? These are the questions I’ll aim to answer in the paragraphs below.

            So how much do high school aged kids drink alcohol? According to the website for SADD: Students Against Drunk Driving, a national organization of high school students which distributes educational material about alcohol’s negative effects, about 72% of students, roughly 3/4, have been intoxicated at least once by the time they graduate. While teenage drinking is anything but a new phenomenon, this statistic, borrowed from a 2009 NIDA report, provides perspective to the current prevalence of the problem.

            It is also widely observed that teenage girls consume alcohol at dangerous levels more than do teenage boys. An article in Newsweek from 2010 reports that “the number of middle- and high-school girls who say they drink has increased by 11 percent in the past year, from 53 percent to 59 percent. Boys have stayed at about the same level, hovering around 52 percent.” But why is this? One reason, as the Newsweek article goes on to point out is that “for years, boys were the focus of underage-drinking intervention.” Once observed to be bigger drinkers than their female peers, boys became the subject of myriad educational campaigns, and their rate of incidence correspondingly dropped. Girls, in turn, outpaced their male classmates in the area of underage partying.

            Another reason for girls’ increased drinking might be the ways in which the alcoholic beverage industry has responded to the interventions targeting teenage boy drinkers. As these business giants saw inroads being made into one of their key demographics, the industry began targeting girls.  The Newsweek article notes a drastic upsurge in the marketing of “more products devoted to making drinking easier and tastier—the sugar-laden beverages known as alco-pops.” These beverages, which proliferated the market during the time when teen boys were the target of prevention campaigns, are heavily marketed to females. 

         Education.com, a resource for teachers and parents of teenagers, reports that “with their sweet, sugary taste, alco-pops have become girls' drink of choice.” Highlighting the associated dangers of the popularity of these drinks, the website points out that “Teen girls also report drinking alco-pops more than other alcoholic drinks. Alco-pops combine a sweet flavor with the kick of malt liquor to create a taste that often appeals to teens…These drinks often contain more alcohol than most beers.”

            This new trend is especially troubling in light of the newest research surrounding the lasting effects of alcohol on the teenage brain. According to an article in the New York Times, “mounting research suggests that alcohol causes more damage to the developing brains of teenagers than was previously thought, injuring them significantly more than it does adult brains.” The research details the higher occurrence of teenage drinkers to experience forms of alcoholism in adulthood as well as lasting neurological consequences such as memory loss.

            While there are some who advocate lowering the drinking age as a means to curbing problems associated with teenage drinking, evidence like that described in the paragraph above will likely hold the legal drinking age securely at 21. But perhaps more protection is needed for teenage girls. The statistical record indicates that the rate of underage drinking went down for boys when they became the target of educational programs, and went up for girls when they became the focus of targeted ad campaigns. Therefore advocates for high school aged girls should work toward creating similar intervention programs for teenage females. At the same time, parents’ groups should work to hold beverage manufacturers accountable for the role they play in intentionally aiding and encouraging young people to break the law and put themselves in danger. 

Student Athletes Celebrate 40 Years of Title IX

In my last post I discussed the immigration and citizenship issue as it pertains to the identity of students. The selection of that topic, as I mentioned in the post, was motivated in part by the issue’s prominence in the current Presidential election. After that post was made, Mitt Romney delivered his now infamous “binders of women” remark during a Presidential debate. He made this remark during a discussion about our nation’s failure to achieve pay parity among men and women which signals gender equality as another major issue in the election. Because of this, I’ve decided to use this post to examine what is arguably the most significant law in American history for achieving gender equality in public schools. I’m talking of course about Title IX.

Back in the summer of this year girls and women’s athletic organizations celebrated the 40^th anniversary of Title IX. The famous law was passed in June 1972 as part of the Education Amendments in the Patsy Mink Equal Opportunity in Education Act. In the decades that followed, one clause in particular proved to be of great importance in the lives of American girls:

“No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance...”

Popularly interpreted to mean that boys’ and girls’ school-affiliated athletic programs must receive equal funding, this sentence changed the narrative for girls about what kinds of achievements are possible. Millions of girls who once would have been denied the opportunity to participate in athletics, were now given the same chance as their male peers.

            In the weeks surrounding the anniversary, organizations like the NCAA held events celebrating 40 years of the law. These events were generally organized in the style of retrospectives, honoring women athletes who have benefited from Title IX. Among these women were tennis legend, Billie Jean King, and basketball coach, Pat Summit. Likewise the media focused on the law’s legacy and outcomes. Maha Atal wrote in Forbes magazine about the effects the law has had on women’s lives which have in turn impacted society as a whole. She says, “that participation in sports at a young age correlates to higher wages, greater educational attainment and overall professional success in adult life.” Title IX was also a hot topic of conversation during the 2012 Summer Olympic Games in London, as a generation of female American athletes broke records with their collection of medals as Ann Killion discussed in Sports Illustrated.

            While the anniversary received a certain modicum of coverage in the press, I would argue that the amount of attention it generated doesn’t fully reflect the monumental impact Title IX has had. Perhaps the law has so effectively changed Americans’ perception of girls in regards to sports that it is now completely taken for granted. This attitude might make Title IX seem less revolutionary in the contemporary context than in did in 1972. What is more likely, in my opinion, is that Title IX’s anniversary didn’t garner more attention because it remains controversial. Perennially voices of opposition emerge and make the bogus claim that the law represents legalized discrimination against males. It is hard for me to understand how this conclusion is formed since the law is characteristically gender-neutral. It is this way of misguided thinking, no doubt, that has also resulted in the national pay-inequality which inspired Romney’s “binder” comment.