When 100 of the nation’s college presidents came out with a statement that lowering the drinking age should be debated, it set off an firestorm of criticism that we hope doesn’t polarize the issue in a way that prevents a robust debate on an all-too-common problem.

Underage drinking and binge drinking are huge problems on college campuses. The college presidents and their critics, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, acknowledge that. Everyone acknowledges that.

And while the presidents’ statement certainly suggests the current law is seen by many as unfair, they stop short of calling for a lower drinking age and instead ask for “an informed and dispassionate debate.” We are fine with more discussion because, frankly, we still need a solution.

The arguments on both sides are familiar. The presidents say lowering the drinking age may prevent the widespread unrestricted illegal partying and bring it into a more controlled environment like a bar or restaurant. That doesn’t solve the problem of private parties which will exist even with a lower drinking age and with it excessive drinking.

MADD and researchers who’ve studied the issue disagreed with the college presidents, who cited a study that said on raising the drinking age had no impact on reducing accidents or alcohol-related deaths. Much of the research, including some for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, does show lowering the drinking age resulted in more deaths involving alcohol.

The critics charge that the college presidents don’t want to deal with the drinking problems on their campus and others say they’ve just thrown in the towel. MADD warned parents that the schools of the presidents who suggested the debate were not safe and that drinking laws wouldn’t be enforced at those campuses. That’s the kind of polarization we don’t need.

“An informed and dispassionate debate” would be helpful because it appears that what we are currently doing to combat the problem isn’t working. We have seen an acceleration of binge drinking now with high energy drinks being cited as a cause for more deaths. And we all need to remember that alcohol is a drug that can and should be regulated and enforced.

Is age really the issue? Many deaths and problems seem to come from people already old enough to drink.

Is there a maturity difference between 18- and 21-year olds we need to consider? MSU President Richard Davenport and many others seem to think so.

What can we do differently that hasn’t been tried before? Focus on prevention coupled with stepped up enforcement? Educating our youth at a much earlier age than high school?

There obviously is no easy answer. Mankato has already established a task force to study the issue and make recommendations. But little has been heard from the group, and it’s been a good part of a year.

If anything, the college presidents’ statement has focused our attention again on a problem that needs a solution. Easing the regulations is not one of them.