By Beacon Editorial Board
With UP President the Rev. E William Beauchamp, C.S.C., soliciting the University's top officers to consider banning smoking on campus, it seems that the current plan is all but certain.
It is for this reason that we at the editorial board are so concerned by this action.
We do not take issue with the general notion of smoking bans. Clearly this is a precedent for hundreds of universities across the country. But at a university that prides itself in following the teachings of Catholic social principles, we do not think that the plans for such a ban, as it currently stands, would fit well with these values.
While the reasons given for banning smoking point to health effects and student support, they seem to not take into account the Catholic values of solidarity, empathy and compassion that we are encouraged to show in our campus community.
For a Catholic university that follows the pillars of Catholic social teaching, the currently proposed smoking ban does little to support, understand or help smokers quit their addiction; actions that should be essential in any UP smoking ban.
Let us not forget that smokers at UP have already been pushed out and away from buildings. We should not be so keen to further preclude their behavior without at least offering a helping hand, lest we be seen as kicking them while they're down.
For a group of students whose activity is already limited to a number of areas around campus, to simply ban their behavior without recourse is not only overly harsh, but in some respects, unchristian.
Another disconcerting proposition of the UP ban is that it would have students resort to using peer pressure to enforce the smoking ban. This act undermines the same sense of community that the University seeks to establish.
Smoking after all is an addiction, meaning that no amount of added peer pressure will expedite their cessation or make the process any easier. If anything, this group needs our help, not our condemnation or scorn.
Some academic institutions noted by UP officials as models for campus smoking bans offer some solutions to this problem.
Portland Community College offers people, resources and tools to help its students quit using tobacco products.
Boise State University, which implements a similar peer-pressure enforcement policy, also provides on-campus facilities and services to students wishing to quit.
It may seem comforting that UP plans to give smokers one year to adjust before the ban is instated, but such an act is once again out of touch with many smokers, as it can take years to successfully quit. What this warning amounts to is little more than a tough-love policy.
Perhaps we can love the person but hate the addiction. This is certainly admissible as many smokers hate the fact that they smoke.
However, where is the support network? Where is the help at the Health Center?
We should not be so quick to condemn the actions of smokers without offering some give on our side.
