The recently approved policy goes against the philosophic ideas of self-reliance and responsibility among students on campus.
By Laura Sears
Staff Writer
The headline of a past Graphic edition caught my attention: “Smokers corralled to specific areas.” Doesn’t the word “corral” suggest a link between smokers and animals? I’m sure that my reaction to the article as a whole most likely lies in my past experience of smoking, which inevitably makes me biased in favor of other smokers.
The new policy that will go into effect this fall prohibits smoking outdoors in Joslyn Plaza, Adamson Plaza, and the plaza located in front of the Payson Library main entrance, as well as at spectator sports or other outdoor campus events — making it inevitable that anyone who intends to take a smoke break will have to take a hike.
However, I think anyone with common sense and the ability to reason — whether a smoker or not — sees the ridiculousness of the rationale behind the making of the rule, the inconsistency in the view of the students held by the university, and the denial of the students’ freedom of action for which they are ultimately responsible.
To begin with, it’s important to look at the committee that made the rule and its rationale behind it. Well, who is the committee and how were they selected? No one really seems to know. The article names a few figures who participated in the discussion: all adults claiming to make decisions in the best interest of the students.
Shouldn’t the students be consulted when it comes to their best interests?
The rationale behind the new smoking guidelines are equally mystifying. The school believes confining smokers to an area “not yet determined” is for the good of the greater number of people, but students who smoke pay tuition, buy books from the campus bookstore and participate in Pepperdine activities. Shouldn’t their voices be heard too?
John Stuart Mill recognized the need for all views when he wrote,“the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is that it is robbing the human race.”
What consideration is given to smokers in forcing them to go out of their way to have a cigarette, at the same time making them feel like an outcast for doing it?
Dean of Student Affairs Dr. Mark Davis said that “There are those that say that we as a university have a responsibility … to help students realize that this is an unhealthy habit, which is one of the reasons why we decided to strengthen the policy.”
Is there really anyone out there who doesn’t realize that smoking is an unhealthy habit?
It also seems the committee was very concerned that it act in a manner similar to other schools that are actually banning any tobacco use on campus. However, Ralph Waldo Emerson’s essay on self-reliance answers this question: “The great man is he who in the midst of the crowd keeps with perfect sweetness the independence of solitude.”
Pepperdine University can act independently and has no responsibility to make laws similar to the regulations of other schools.
The most problematic issue of the smoking law is the form of enforcing it: self-enforcement. The university agrees smokers as a whole can hold themselves to this rule that they did not consent to or have voice in, but it doesn’t trust that the students know the consequences of the “unhealthy habit” and need a stricter rule to make them realize its negative effects?
Philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre wrote that “man is responsible for everything he does” and that essentially, “we are alone, with no excuses.”
Students on campus are going to make their own informed decisions for which they are responsible regardless of any regulation placed on them.
I understand that many perceive people who smoke to be inconsiderate of their desire to enjoy sitting outside without the smell of smoke. I have encountered many people who are oblivious of their surroundings, or basically just don’t care about the needs of other people.
Does that define all smokers as a group? No. That individual’s inconsiderate action defines him or her to be an inconsiderate person. Sartre states, “There is no reality except in action” and a man is “nothing else but the ensemble of his acts.”
If someone smokes, the act of smoking provides no insight to one’s character other than the fact the person is a smoker. On the other hand, if a smoker sits next to someone who is not smoking and proceeds to invade the non-smoker’s space with the undesirable fumes, that person is individually inconsiderate. He or she does not represent all those who smoke, only himself or herself.
We, as Americans and as human beings, claim to prize our freedom to act in accordance to our will more than anything, yet Pepperdine is attempting to restrict the will of smokers to the will of non-smokers. Man is free to act and defines himself by his actions, and we have to trust that he will act in a way that takes into account his responsibility for mankind as a whole.
Pepperdine may not believe that people who smoke are capable of common decency, but I definitely believe that as fellow human beings, they are.
February 13, 2003