December 9. 2005

To the Editors:

Again, in the Student Referendum, there is a pigheaded proposal pushed on behalf of smokers at Oberlin. Daily, I am appalled by the number of smokers on campus, a much greater number than I see in my home city of San Francisco. My peers know how damaging smoking is, and have been perpetually assailed by this knowledge. I am affronted by the fact that it is nearly impossible to enter a dorm or academic building without coughing on tobacco smoke, and am affronted even more about the arrogance of the smokers when they rebuff and ignore requests to move. Now, they have the arrogance to claim that smoking lounges will encourage “community” and “commingling!” This is an empty claim that excludes a large chunk of the student body, and is quite frankly insulting to non-smokers.

Oberlin is lacking a progressive vision towards a smoke free community, one that is in line with the scientific knowledge on smoking. Already, Oberlin is more advanced than many peer institutions in that it bans smoking in its buildings. We would build on this status by:

Now: Creating a student run organization, similar to SIC, which would provide quitting resources, counseling and subsidized quitting aids to students; it would be highly publicized.

Next year: Vigorously enforcing the current 30 foot rule, by having a greater presence of safety and security personnel, having an apparent and publicized channel for anonymous complaints from students, and shifting responsibilities to confront smokers to professors and other staff.

In a few years: Superceding the 30-foot rule; permitting smoking only in parking lots on campus.

In about five years: Rejecting all accepted applicants who smoke, and putting on probation current students who smoke, giving them a semester to quit and then not being invited back to campus the next unless they have.

Concurrently: Staff would be given a several year period, starting now, to quit smoking, or quit their jobs, and no new professors would be tenured if they smoke.

This process would be transparent, so smokers would have plenty of time to adjust. This would keep smokers from feeling that their “rights” are being unjustly wrested from them, because they can see where, when and why these steps are being implemented. It would also give ample time for students who vehemently oppose these policies to transfer to other institutions.

People are concerned about smoking policy when they apply to college, having a totally smoke-free community would be a unique draw of Oberlin that would draw accepted students who would otherwise go to our peer institutions, and would also encourage more applicants that would be lost. This is another area where Oberlin could be a shining beacon of the progressive values that we hold dear.

–Andrew DeFranco
College sophomore

---

March 10, 2006

To the Editors:

Last semester Andrew DeFranco wrote an editorial [originally] titled “Encouraging Smokers to Quit.” I agree with his underlying notions: smoking is damaging to your health, second hand smoke is damaging to your health, Oberlin should work towards a progressive smoking policy in line with scientific knowledge and resources should be available to students who want to quit smoking.

Beyond these main points, I found many of Andrew’s arguments to be inaccurate and unfounded and hope to clarify a fraction of these errors. First, he states that one of the questions on last semester’s referendum concerning smoking in dorms was a “...pigheaded proposal pushed on behalf of smokers.” I helped formulate this question in order to gather concrete data about students’ opinions concerning smoking in dorms to guide Oberlin’s policy decisions, not to push the smokers’ agenda. 74.91 percent responded that they did not want smoking rooms or lounges in dorms. A similar question on the referendum of spring 2005 asking about the construction of sheltered smoking structures also received an overwhelmingly negative response.

Second, Andrew states that in five years we should begin to reject all new applicants who smoke and force current students and faculty who smoke to quit or be banned. I do not know of any credible institutions (such as The American Lung Association, American College Health Association, etc.) that recommend such policies for colleges.

A number of students responded passionately and creatively to Andrew’s editorial, calling his ideas autocratic and fascist. Again, I agree with them on many of their general points; smokers are not bad people. There is a difference between encouraging people to quit and banning them from Oberlin and tolerance is important. I would like to thank Max Gerboc for being a “conscientious smoker” by smoking away from buildings and non-smokers.

However, I would like to clarify some points that came up. First, both Max and Carl Schreep advocated for the reinstatement of indoor smoking lounges. True, there are rooms that used to be used as smoking lounges in dorms, but they are NOT complete with proper ventilation to prevent the spread of smoke. Secondhand smoke (SHS) is a Group A carcinogen and kills 53,000 people annually (American Legacy Foundation).

According to the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, “At present, the only means of effectively eliminating health risks associated with indoor exposure [to SHS] is to ban smoking activity (June 2005).”

Second, Max also brought the issue of outdoor shelters. Having structures for smoking would eliminate the vagueness of smoking “away” from entrances. However, smokers would probably only use these structures during bad weather. This idea may work if smoking was limited only to the given structures and nowhere else on campus. According to a question on the Spring 2005 referendum, the majority of Oberlin students don’t want to pay for smokers to stay out of the rain.

Third, although smokers have the right to smoke, non-smokers also have the right to breathe clean air. Whenever smokers smoke, whether it is in front of an entrance, in Wilder Bowl or in the Feve, others are negatively affected and prevented from enjoying that space.

Many of the issues I have brought up have to do with misinformation and baseless claims. How many people at Oberlin really smoke? What does our student body really think about smoking policy?

Make your voice heard by filling out the Oberlin College Smoking Survey. This is a survey that I have formulated to gather information about the smoking practices and opinions of our student body to help Oberlin College make informed choices based on solid data.

[The results of this survey are now available at: www.surveymonkey.com/report.asp? U=188967550439.]

–Allison O’Donnell
College senior

---

December 16, 2005

To the Editors:

Daily, I am appalled by the amount of Andrew DeFranco I see on campus, much more than I see in my hometown of Oakton, Virginia. My peers know how irritating Andrew DeFranco is, and have had this confirmed by his letter to the editor last week regarding smokers and how Oberlin should, like, get rid of them.

Well, I am affronted by the fact that it is nearly impossible to enter a dorm or academic building without seeing Andrew DeFranco, and am affronted even more about the arrogance of Andrew DeFranco when he rebuffs and ignores my requests to move. Now, Andrew DeFranco has the arrogance to claim that Oberlin should get rid of its smokers, and that this would be completely rational, feasible and legal. This is an empty claim that excludes a large chunk of the student body and is, quite frankly, insulting to smokers.

Oberlin is lacking a progressive vision toward an Andrew DeFranco-free community, one that is in line with the scientific knowledge of how irritating he can be. Already, Oberlin is more advanced in that one of its dorms, Baldwin, bans Andrew DeFranco from its premises. We would build on this status by:

Now: Creating a student-run organization, similar to SIC, which would provide quitting resources and counseling to friends of Andrew DeFranco; this organization would be highly publicized.

Next year: Vigorously enforcing a 30-foot rule by having a greater presence of safety and security personnel ready and waiting to remove Andrew DeFranco if he should get within 30 feet of any Oberlin College building; having an apparent and publicized channel for anonymous complaints about Andrew DeFranco from students and shifting responsibilities to confront Andrew DeFranco to professors and other staff.

In a few years: Superseding (not superceding) the 30-foot rule; permitting Andrew DeFranco only in parking lots on campus.

In about five years: Rejecting all accepted applicants who admit friendship with Andrew DeFranco, and putting on probation status students who have been seen with Andrew DeFranco in the past, giving them a semester to break all ties with Andrew DeFranco and not inviting them to return to campus unless they can prove that they are no longer friends with him.

Concurrently: Staff would be given a several-year period, starting now, to break ties with Andrew DeFranco or quit their jobs, and no new professors seen fraternizing with Andrew DeFranco would be given tenure.

This process would be transparent, so Andrew DeFranco would have plenty of time to adjust. This would keep Andrew DeFranco from feeling that his “rights” are being unjustly wrested from him, because he would be able to see when and why these steps were being implemented. It would also give students who vehemently oppose the policies, such as (one would assume) friends of Andrew DeFranco and Andrew DeFranco himself, ample time to transfer to different institutions.

People are concerned about Andrew DeFranco when they apply to college; having a totally Andrew DeFranco-free community would be a unique draw for Oberlin. This is yet another area where Oberlin could be a shining beacon of the progressive values that we hold dear.

–Emily Guendelsberger
College senior/smoker

---

May 5, 2006

Dear Students, Faculty and Staff:

One of the main goals of the Student Union is to facilitate the development of an Oberlin College community while also serving as a hub for many different student activities, clubs and other organizations. Recently it has come to our attention that some people are choosing to avoid the Union due to the amount of secondhand smoke present in certain parts of the building.

Cigarette use on the back porch and within close proximity to the building and its entrances causes the air in several offices and rooms to become filled with secondhand smoke on a regular basis, creating a health hazard for building users.

As a result of the indoor and outdoor air quality, many individuals who are sensitive to second hand smoke are prevented from using certain parts of the building, specifically the main lobby, outdoor porch area and south-facing offices.

This is a very tricky issue for the Student Union. There is not a uniform smoking policy that is enforced by the College; however, we feel that it is necessary to take some action to ensure that Wilder provides a healthy environment for its staff, students and visitors. We would like to make some change that will make Wilder more friendly to those sensitive to secondhand smoke. This would likely require some type of regulation for smoking on the back porch and entrances to the building.

As a Student Union it is important that we make every attempt to facilitate the creation of community space for all students. We would like to solve this problem in a manner that is sensitive to both smokers and nonsmokers and would like to hear suggestions from students, faculty, staff and others regarding this issue.

–Student Union Board