Student Council recently discussed the possibility of making Grounds smoke-free. To do so would be a massive infringement on personal rights and liberties.
There are many reasons for instituting a smoke-free Grounds. However, there are also alarming red flags anytime a discussion similar to this one comes up. There are straightforward reasons for instituting this policy: cleaner air, better public health, cost-cutting associated with actually purchasing tobacco products and reduced risk of fire or damage to Grounds. The reasons for resisting such a charge are inherently much more complex because of our commitment to protecting civil liberties.
First, the University, no matter how unique or privileged historically and academically compared to other public Universities, is still a publicly funded university. As a public university, it has strict obligations regarding student rights and privacy compared to restrictions private universities are allowed to impose on their students. As a public school, the University can be considered an extension of the state into the educative sphere. If smoking were prohibited on Grounds that action would reveal to the rest of Virginia that we as a student body believe our present interests in clean air and public health are more important than the ideas of representation and due process which a ban through the state legislature would rely on.
Furthermore, it would be highly inappropriate for a group like Student Council to make the decision for the entire University regarding this issue, which affects everyone. To act from the platform of an inherently illiberal institution is to marginalize those people on Grounds who are already the most isolated and underrepresented: the workers both directly employed by and subcontracted by the University. These are the people who have no representation in Student Council. These workers are generally less affluent than the average student at the University and when you take into account the well-established inverse relationship between income level and smoking rates, it becomes clear that workers, and not students, will be the ones most drastically affected by the proposed ban on smoking. They would be driven to the periphery of Grounds to be able to smoke, which would require longer breaks and lower productivity, and a higher chance of issues or accidents.
Additionally, the potential for abuse gets exponentially larger if students allow Student Council to make such an important decision regarding on-Grounds privacy. I recently wrote a column in which I highlighted the potential for abuse of privacy by the University with regard to email. I have a similar set of fears when it comes to students’ rights to privacy regarding legal consumption of substances that are deemed dangerous by the University and others. If the first step is banning smoking, the next logical step is to ban smokeless tobacco and after that could be banning drinking alcohol on the Lawn, an activity many students enjoy.
I reject the logic of a ban on smoking being a public health issue because there is no comprehensive public health system and therefore it is not in the interests of all to save money and reduce costs by reducing smoking rates. The University does not provide a fully covered insurance plan for workers or contracted workers and as such does not have the moral or economic authority to consider banning smoking. Every smoker makes that choice personally without affecting others and as such it can be considered a private health issue, in this circumstance.
Instead of considering a ban on smoking, there are alternative options. For example, the recent sexual assault and alcohol wise modules that were required for students to complete could have been substantially more effective at improving student health if they had a large and well-researched tobacco component. A special course or section dedicated to the dangers of tobacco would have been very effective at making students realize how corrosive it is for their health. Reaching out to faculty, including workers and educators, would also help improve the air of the school without banning it.
The idea behind the movement to make Grounds smoke-free is admirable in intent. However, the potential for abuse of power as well as the oppressive illiberal manner of instituting the ban would drastically reduce the effectiveness and the legitimacy of going smoke-free.
Sawan Patel is an Opinion columnist for The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at s.patel@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
EDITORIAL: Scapegoating students will not stop hazing
By Editorial Board | 2 hours agoInstead of retroactively responding to extreme hazing allegations, we, and especially the University, must begin asking more probing questions about the role of fraternal organizations on Grounds.
EDITORIAL: Celebrating and reflecting on The Cavalier Daily’s independence
By Editorial Board | 6 days agoOur independence grants us the ability to ask the hard questions and to say what University representatives cannot.
ARRAS: U.Va. must revise the Sexual Assault Prevention Training module
By Aoife Arras | April 17, 2024In addition to its failures in interactivity, the module lacks details specific to the University and discusses key concepts in universal terms.
