Whatever the Romans might have thought, your alma mater is not your mother. Although private universities in particular have broad range to act "in loco parentis," they are not your parents. And I, for one, would like to say that this is a great thing.
I don't really have a problem with any member of the Duke administration, which may or may not have something to do with the fact that I don't know any of them. However, the very fact that I don't know them makes me very confident that I want them to have as little power over me as possible.
It turns out that this is a pretty stupid desire, akin to hoping that I will wake up tomorrow and discover that the whole world is made of chocolate. As I discovered when looking up "in loco parentis" for this column, in Gott v. Berea College, the Kentucky Supreme Court found that Berea College had the right to expel students for eating at an off-campus restaurant.
This may not be binding in Durham, but it certainly sets the tone for college students across America. Duke is a private institution and if, for example, the administration were to decree that we needed to travel across campus hopping on our left foot while patting our heads with one hand and rubbing our stomach with the other, then the law gives us two choices: comply or drop out.
This is all very well and good: the government should assume that private universities know their own business, after all. However, it does mean that I am immediately apprehensive when someone calls for more University control over me, and incredibly grateful when administrators pass up on the chance.
As The Chronicle reported last Thursday, the North Carolina legislature and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill chancellor have passed legislature and implemented policies, respectively, that will in effect curtail smoking on the UNC-CH campus. Predictably, some voices at Duke spoke up to follow suit.
The advocates of a ban on or severe restrictions to smoking outdoors on Duke's campus (smoking indoors is already banned), generally frame the debate in terms of the risks to nonsmokers posed by second-hand smoke.
They point to research like the Surgeon General's recent report on the issue, which not only noted that around 50,000 people die each year from exposure to second-hand smoke, but also underlined that "the scientific evidence indicates that there is no risk-free level of exposure to second-hand smoke."
The Surgeon General's report, however, also concludes that "eliminating smoking in indoor spaces fully protects nonsmokers from exposure to second-hand smoke." In fact, the report notes that, for the private institutions that adopt "voluntary smoke-free... campus policies.... the policies are typically not primarily intended to reduce employees' second-hand smoke exposure, but to motivate... employees who smoke... to quit."
The bottom line is that we nonsmokers are already safe. Anyone who argues for banning smoking outdoors on the basis of limiting second-hand smoke exposure is either misinformed or willfully stretching the facts in order to promote their agenda: stopping other people from smoking.
It might be worth noting at this point that I have never smoked anything. I spent enough time in America in middle school to get to attend a DARE presentation, and I know all about the carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide, the ash and the tar, the emphysema and the lung cancer that are the byproducts of a smoking habit.
However, I know enough smokers to realize that they are fully aware of this themselves, and to recognize that they are not, in fact, mentally incompetent. As adults, they choose to engage in an activity that they know is bad for them, and who am I to tell them what to do?
I would never presume, for example, to tell someone off for running a marathon after preparing by running only 30 miles per week, in spite of the fact that such runners are at increased risk of heart damage or dysfunction.
While universities certainly have a right to act in loco parentis and prevent students from smoking (for their own good, of course), an institution that insists on acting like adults' parents runs the risk of forever infantilizing them.
This is why I think we should all thank Vice President for Student Affairs Larry Moneta for refusing to assume greater control over students' lives, and publicly advocating a sensible smoking policy last week:
By banning smoking indoors, Duke shields its students, staff and faculty from second-hand smoke exposure; by moving ashtrays and seating areas away from doorways, Duke ensures that smokers will not clump around them, creating clouds of smoke that nonsmokers must traverse with no risk, but considerable annoyance; by standing up for a "my lungs, my choice" policy, Duke helps its students mature into adults, by treating them like adults.
David Rademeyer is a Trinity senior. His column runs every other Thursday.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.