Oct. 27, 2015

“The right to swing my fist ends where the other man’s nose begins.” This quote from Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. encompasses the essential idea of American liberty. If an individual action does not hurt another, then it ought to be of no concern to the public.

The university’s tobacco ban, however, violates this principle. It takes away the freedom to engage in a private activity that is legal for all adults on this campus. Students and faculty alike would be barred from engaging in any form of tobacco use, including cigarettes, chew and pens. 

If second hand smoke is what the tobacco ban seeks to eliminate, then limit smoking to designated parts of the campus. Most opponents of this ban would agree second hand smoke does interfere with other people’s rights, so making a policy to restrict second hand smoke exposure in high trafficked areas is acceptable. However, the university’s decision to ban tobacco use outright, rather than limiting its use to designated areas, is where this policy becomes a point of ridicule and dissension.

The issue that makes the ban most egregious of all, is the fact that it has been enacted single handedly by the chancellor without the consent of the student government. Under Wisconsin law, public universities are required to have shared governance. Certainly, a policy that effects such a large proportion of students ought to have been voted on by the student’s representatives. In fact, similar measures in the past have all been rejected by the student government. Therefore, it seems as though the policy was pushed through without a student vote because it fulfills the administration’s ideological goals, in spite of the wishes of the students and faculty.

In a free society, those at the top cannot unilaterally make policies just because it is for the perceived greater good. Participation and consent by the people is crucial. Many more students across the campus would accept a tobacco ban had it been presented to the student government, voted on, and passed. However, without any of those procedures taking place, the current policy lacks legitimacy. If we choose not allow the right of students and faculty to share in administrative policy making in this case, who’s to say this precedent wouldn’t have more severe effects in the future?

Whether or not you agree that tobacco use is wrong or not, forbidding adults from secluding themselves on campus and smoking in private is the antithesis of freedom. Further, enacting a policy that affects such a high number of students without student consent is in clear violation of the shared governance agreement. This campus needs to start treating its students like adults, and let students choose for themselves the best way to live their lives. 

Kyle Brooks

Political Science BA