A Broken Promise

A NEW and promising political partnership is in danger of being extinguished in its infancy, and it is not the fault of the partner you might think. Unless Gov. Michael S. Ducks reverses position on the effort to raise the drunk-driving law to 21, he will seriously impair a new opening he has made to enlist students' help in cutting the number of drunk-driving-related deaths in Massachusetts.

Government officials, of course, have never been particularly solicitous of student opinions in making policy. Students are young, unorganized, and many are not even registered to vote. It is only the odd public figure who consults with students even on issues that directly affect them. So, it is very refreshing that Ducks has actively tried to enlist students in his new effort to combat drunk driving on roads around college campuses.

Yesterday's announcement that Ducks was setting up a student advisory committee on drunk driving is concrete fulfillment of earlier promises by the governor that he wanted the state's many college students to help make policy on the subject. The committee, which is yet to be formed, will have regular access to the governor on matters of drunk driving, especially as they relate to colleges.

Ducks, it is also true, has done an admirable job in making sure his increased security efforts in areas frequented by students will not be interpreted negatively on campuses. He himself made numerous visits to high schools and colleges during prom and graduation time last spring urging students to refrain from drinking and driving. Last week, he summoned student leaders and media from campuses across the state to explain how and why drunk driving roadblocks and police patrols would be increased around college campuses.

Through all these measures, Ducks wants to make sure that his new proposals will not be perceived as police state measures aimed at corralling students--but rather a well-thought-out program to keep the roads free of intoxicated motorists. "We don't want to put people in jail," Ducks said. "We're not saying that after a game you can't get a beer, we're not returning to Calvinist ideals. But when you have a beer, don't get behind the wheel of a car.

ADMIRABLE as Ducks' actions are thus far, he can easily allow his student support to dissipate if he allows the state legislature to go ahead with plans to raise the drinking age to 21. So far, the governor has implemented his drunk driving measures with caution, making sure he consulted with those involved first. His public announcement last week that he would not fight against or vote the hike even though he doesn't support it could reverse all that constructive work.

If the age raise goes through the legislature--as it is expected to do--and Ducks does not veto the measure, he will seriously harm the partnership that has developed between the state and students on drunk driving. Thus far, both parties have worked together in alerting the public to the dangers and penalties involved. The relationship has been mutually beneficial: the state has had an easier time in its efforts to curb drunk driving and students have an opportunity to have a role in shaping positive policies which to a large extent affect them.

Ducks said in a press conference last week that although he favors keeping the drinking age at 20, he will not oppose the bill or veto it because "there is a considerable public sentiment to raise it." By abandoning his principles in search of a few votes from the "locket up" constituency, Ducks is betraying the college students who he has asked to aid him. It is unfair to ask students to be cooperative with his program when he is staying silent on a measure that severely limits their rights without improving the public safety. Figures convincingly show that raising the age to 21 will not substantially cut the number of drunk driving deaths. To the contrary, it will increase the number of fatalities because students will drive across state lines in search of lower limits and return home drunk.

Since Ducks' feelings on the driving age hike have not yet been widely publicized, he has not received due criticism from student groups who have so far trusted the governor on the issue of drunk driving. If he does not change his position and lobby against the measure in the State House, Massachusetts college students should re-think their thus far close cooperation with the governor. Dukakis should realize that he owes the college students who he has been working with on drunk driving a bigger favor than their elders who might want to see a higher drinking age. By supporting the hike, he is stabbing in the back his real partners in the drunk driving program. And in doing that, he would be imperilling his own stated goals--cutting down the too-large number of people who die on the road each year because of alcohol.