By Billy S. Garland
The smoking ban is here. As of Thursday, Nov. 19, student smokers are now required to quarantine themselves to designated smoking areas. Even laying aside the obvious issues with the removal of student rights, the idea that individuals recognized by society as being of adult age should be forced into crowded corners and sequestered off from the rest of the student population is not only absurd, it is dangerous.
There are 18 designated areas scattered throughout the campus, all of which are marked by spray-painted concrete ash trays. While this is a significant number of locations, it does not alleviate the problem of individual students being categorized. Forcing smokers to stay in certain locations places a negative stigma on these students. It is understandable that the action of smoking is labeled negatively, due to its health effects. But by intentionally putting these smokers into these designated areas, you run the risk of unintentionally labeling the smoker as a bad or negative person. The tobacco-smoking community already receives enough downward glances, without the added scorn that could come from the free-roaming non-smoker as they stroll past.
Nonetheless, the smoking ban is here and, so far, it is going well. It is a testament to the planning of our overlording university officials, and the Student Government Association, that the first days of the transition have been remarkably without incident. Other than a small group of agitated protestors in front of the Red Barn, who made a point to openly smoke outside of a designated area, there hasn’t been so much as a peep of dissent from the student body.
University officials have admitted that there have been some reports of students not adhering to the policy, but so far no punishment has been levied against any student, faculty or staff member. This is because there is no system established that would set a standard on how to punish violators, as of now. On the university’s Web site, it clearly states that U of L is not punishing students that smoke outside the designated areas.
“We are establishing the policy, making it clear and expecting our students, faculty, staff and guests to honor the rules,” the Web site states.
On the same Web site, students and staff are encouraged to tell their supervisor if they happen to spot someone smoking outside a designated area, so that the supervisor can “remind” the smoker of the rules. The same rules that, might I remind you, have no established punishment system to support them. Who is actually bored or angry enough to go out of their way to report something like that? Who are these smoking snitches? And who are these supervisors? Clearly, someone had to report the few cases we have already had, and it stands to reason that it was the so-called good non-smoking people on the right side of the proverbial tracks.
How can the university officials expect the student body to follow these mandates, simply on the honor system, when the rights of the student are not being upheld? The entire system is problematic, and eerily similar to the way that the tuition hikes and meal plan were brought into being. U of L’s decision-makers seem to believe that all they have to do is put a policy into place, and eventually the students will comply. To a certain extent, they are right.
The protests that have been held have been incredibly small and ineffective. Kudos to those puffing protestors in front of the Red Barn who actually had the gumption to take a stand. But where were all the others who are affected?
On the side of Gottschalk Hall, the words “Down with Kent State,” painted in the middle of the chaos that was the Vietnam era, can still be read after all these years. This generation is a far cry from our fathers and mothers, who knew what it meant to take a stand. It would seem that the people in power at U of L have judged us correctly. So far we have not taken a stand. Clearly we are willing to turn in other students for crossing some imaginary line. We seem to have become the generation of compliance.
