A haze hangs over the University of Chicago. No, I am not talking about the encroaching specter of anti-intellectualism, the shady economic outlook for our generation, or even the moral hazard of managing an endowment. No, I am referring to the literal cloud of smoke that forms each day above the smokers outside of Cobb. As they leisurely chat and smoke between classes, so too do their emissions hang in the air. The languid smoke serves as a good metaphor for the practice of smoking at the University of Chicago as a whole: It is visible and acknowledged by almost everyone, but nobody ever does or says anything about it.
According to the American College Health Association, 16 percent of college students smoke. Interestingly, I cannot find a comparable statistic for University of Chicago students anywhere online. Though the University may have this figure, it is not widely available. This is highly anomalous among our peer institutions; casual investigation easily yields that 10 percent of Harvard students and only 4 percent of Stanford students smoke. But a search for “uchicago smoking” yields only news articles about smoking cessation research.
The University’s official policy on smoking is decidedly terse. It states that “the University of Chicago is a smoke-free environment, therefore smoking is prohibited in all buildings,” adding that “Smoking is permitted outside a building but not within fifteen feet of the entrance.” I applaud the University for having a clear and unambiguous policy. But, at the same time, I am rather perturbed by its brazenly lax enforcement. Any student who has been on campus more than a week can attest that this policy is flagrantly violated every day. I challenge the reader to observe the steps of the International House from 8 to 9 p.m. on a weekday. It is almost certain that she will see a group of smokers congregating no more than arm’s length from the door.
It is interesting to note that the University’s smoking policy is in compliance with the 2005 Chicago Clean Indoor Air Ordinance. This ordinance states that individuals face a $100 fine for smoking within 15 feet of a building entrance. Even more noteworthy, however, is the fact that the University itself can be held liable for not enforcing the ordinance. Yet, even though the University has legal and financial liability regarding smoking, it maintains a decidedly complacent attitude toward this ordinance.
It is puzzling that this is the case. In comparison, the University regulates another common vice practically to death. The U of C’s official alcohol policy is almost 2,000 words long. It contains specific proscriptions regarding the serving and consumption of alcohol on campus. Every new student must complete the AlcoholEdu program, and most College houses have clear guidelines regarding “parties.” Ostensibly, this is to shield the University from liability and to promote health among students. If that is the case, it is mystifying that the University does not take similar steps regarding tobacco use. As with alcohol drinkers, student smokers add to University healthcare costs and create a less healthy community. However, the University simply does not have the same risk mitigation protocol in place for smoking.
The University also lags notably behind its peers in not attempting to minimize smoking’s harm. Columbia University offers its students free consultations with tobacco cessation specialists. The University of Michigan has banned smoking entirely on its campus of 28,000. UMich has been joined by other top schools like Emory and UC Berkeley and over 500 other campuses in the United States. Jarringly, in contrast, the University of Chicago has not taken any action beyond what is mandated by law.
It should be clear by now that I am anti-smoking. But I would like to draw a distinction: I am not anti-smoker. Though I disagree with the action itself, there are a number of logically compelling arguments for smoking. Perhaps most salient among those is the opinion that smoking fills a unique social role. A smoke break is a rare, socially acceptable way to temporarily excuse oneself from an engagement. (Last I checked, ducking outside to drink alcohol or shoot heroin was generally frowned upon.) Additionally, it acts as a social lubricant and promotes a sense of camaraderie among those who smoke. Some would say that smoking “socially” is a good thing.
I acknowledge the merit in these arguments. What bothers me, though, is that ideas like these are nowhere to be found in the greater discourse of the University. Simply put, nobody here talks about smoking, a topic that deserves a spot at the top of our collective attention. To me, the silence about smoking runs contrary to the very nature of our school. Instead of probing the social, moral, and cultural realities that have caused smoking—a fundamental modern health issue, and the No. 1 cause of preventable death in the United States—to persist in our society, we are currently content to let them smolder. In light of this university’s robust academic tradition, this just seems wrong.
I believe this can be easily remedied. What the University needs to do is gather definitive statistics about the smoking habits of its students. It should not only come up with a percentage, but also examine the context and motivations of students who smoke. Without critical information like this, a productive dialogue is impossible. The University must also make reexamining its policies a top priority, as the current situation is suboptimal for all parties: Smokers are liable for a fine, the University is in contravention of a city ordinance, and non-smokers are exposed to secondhand smoke. The University must reformulate its policies based on balancing the needs and concerns of smokers and non-smokers alike. This includes taking actions like creating designated smoking zones, strategically positioning ashtrays and more prominently advertising smoking policy. So far, though, the University’s stance on the matter has been wispy and ephemeral, not unlike a plume of smoke.
Taylor Schwimmer is a second-year in the College majoring in public policy studies.
I think this is all rather silly and a waste of time. With all due respect to the author for a well-written article, there doesn’t need to be a “dialogue” about smoking. We already know why students smoke, and it’s for the same reasons anyone does: dealing with stress, fashion statement, cultural reasons, and youthful age with their mortality being the furthest thing from their minds.
Sure, I suppose the 15-feet rule could be better enforced, but smokers are doing it outdoors, and you don’t have to stand around them right outside the buildings. I’m not a smoker, and I never stopped to stand amongst them when I was exiting a building during my 4.5 years at UChicago. It was pretty easy to avoid the second-hand smoke.
The university doesn’t need to spend time and resources to save smokers. They are adults who make their own choices, and cigarette boxes have plenty of warning labels, so if you choose to smoke, that’s your problem only.
I’d say focus on your classes–that should be anyone’s priority at a school like U of C. Probe “social, moral, and cultural realities” in your philosophy class, not of some activity some students choose to do.
“the University regulates another common vice practically to death. The U of C’s official alcohol policy is almost 2,000 words long”
Because word count is a direct reflection of regulation as practiced. Think about how well that alcohol policy is actually enforced before you start getting puzzled by false asymmetries.
I am, to be honest, shocked that you believe that the leading cause of preventable death in the world is justified by a loose sense of “camaraderie” and a means for the socially meek to excuse themselves temporarily. The fact that you’re even looking for justifications of that nature reveals that you entirely miss the point. I should be allowed to smoke solely for the reason that I want to. That’s it. Sure, don’t let me smoke inside, or in a nursery, or a hospital. Before you respond, try to find me a study that shows that second hand smoke raises the risk of lung cancer for people who don’t live or work in confined areas with smokers in a statistically significant way. Until you do, I need no justification, weak and contrived or otherwise. Also, did you pause to consider the myriad ways in which cigarettes differ from alcohol? (hint: the answer includes the phrase “in nearly every way possible.”
I find it hard to take this column seriously when it asserts that UChicago “regulates [alcohol consumption] practically to death.”
In UCPD’s many years of existence, have they ever written a single MIP ticket?
This article completely misses the point. You use the same logic as anti-abortion or anti-gay activists. You do not like something, so you move to eliminate it. As someone above noted, there is little to no evidence correlating second hand smoke encountered outdoors with any sort of malignancy.
In addition, the comparison you draw between alcohol and smoking is tenuous at best. alcohol.edu and other alcohol-related regulation by the UofC is inspired by cases where individuals drinking alcohol have directly harmed others. Misuse of alcohol is (apparently) associated with sexual misconduct and other highly undesirable behavior. Smoking (cigarettes) does not alter mood in a way that inspires smokers to harm others or themselves.
Finally,
(Last I checked, ducking outside to drink alcohol or shoot heroin was generally frowned upon.) ….?
….really?….really? Smoke breaks in social circumstances came about because of indoor smoking bans, not because of smokers’ anti-social tendencies.
Let the market take care of this. If you care about your air so much why don’t you pay the smokers to not smoke near Cobb (or incentivize them in some other way)? If your price/incentive is right, your problem is solved.
shut up alfredo
See, this is why we can’t have nice things.
I challenge you to find a smoker who doesn’t understand the myriad health risks.
But, you do bring up a fantastic point about smoking stats – I would venture to say our smoking population is higher than the other Ivy schools, which begs the question of why? (Did Harvard et al. collect their own stats?? – because it does seem like a waste of money to me…)
The real prob with your piece is that the aesthetic of uchicago is one of gritty, disheveled overworked intellects – not happy Disneyland-esque students – we don’t want to ape these manicured campuses.
UChicago smokers are well aware of the health issues related to smoking.
And we choose to overlook them because of the benefits smoking offers us, among which I’d count relaxation, stress relief, enhanced concentration & visual acuity, pleasure, and maybe even style too.
The trade-off that smokers make to gratify their smoking habit is not unlike the trade-off of writing a Maroon Viewpoints article about a trivial issue in order to gratify one’s vanity.
Smokers, please consider the fact that you support the cigarette industry, which is known for employing child labor: http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=52154. It is totally within your rights to exercise your personal freedoms and intelligence to defend and indulge your vices, but at leaset you should be thoughtful about it.
@Masaryk,
I took that smoking stat from a Crimson article: http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2011/5/23/smoking-smokers-students-harvard/
It appears that a policy research institute at Harvard conducted the study.
When I arrived at the U of C in the fall of 2000, I was assigned to live in Pierce. I was shocked to find that the dorm allowed smoking. My room was routinely filled with second-hand smoke because other students smoked nearby. At the time, the U of C required freshman to live on campus, yet there were no non-smoking areas within the dorms. Effectively, the university was requiring its students to live in an environment known to be carcinogenic. The University also banned certain items in the dorms as a fire risk (including halogen lamps, etc), yet they allowed smoking despite the substantially higher risk that cigarettes could cause a fire. My attempts to change these policies were met with derision, incomprehension, and vague promises to make one floor of the then-under construction Palevsky dorms non-smoking in the future. The U of Chicago was way, way behind the times on smoking back then, and I am not surprised to hear that that is still the case today. Parents beware: the University of Chicago has a pro-smoking culture that is hazardous to your children’s health!