This summer, over 125 college and university presidents joined the call for a dialogue about underage drinking and the possible advantages of lowering the legal drinking age. President Skorton was not one of them.

The Amethyst Initiative was begun this summer by presidents concerned with binge drinking on college campuses. Those who signed onto the Initiative joined in asking elected officials to engage in a debate about the effects of the current 21-year-old age limit.

Skorton’s refusal to sign the Amethyst Initiative is baffling. In his tenure at Cornell, he has proven rigorous in promoting the benefits of open discourse and academic research.

Take his stance on research funding as an example. Last spring, Cornell was found to have accepted $1 million from Phillip Morris USA for plant breeding and genetics research. A subsequent New York Times article then reported that a Weil-Cornell lung cancer study was financed in part by Big Tobacco.

In both cases, Skorton defended the sources of research funding. If research can be conducted that might benefit society at large, Skorton argued, it would set an irresponsible precedent to suspend that research based on some moral or political code.

But Skorton has diverged from that philosophy when it comes to the Amethyst Intitiative. In refusing to sign on with his colleagues, he has sent the message that politics are more important than a well-organized and potentially beneficial research effort.

Such an effort is indeed essential if we hope to create the safest possible college environment. Proponents of the switch back to an 18-year-old drinking age argue that the change would limit binge drinking in this country and save hundreds of lives every year. Some of those lives saved may even be right here at Cornell.

Skorton has explained that data do not back up such an argument. His refusal to sign the Initiative signals his deep disagreement with proponents of a lower drinking age and his belief that the current law keeps Cornellians appropriately safe in their time on the Hill.

Skorton may be right. But there is no way to know for sure without unrestricted debate and impartial research. To refuse the Amethyst Initiative is to say that personal belief trumps the value of honest dialogue and consideration. Cornell should be encouraging such dialogue, not resisting it. After all, isn’t that what a university is about?