Just the other day, I saw this sign on each of the entrance doors of Pray-Harrold Hall. The rather direct warning seemed to have the intended impact: all the smokers were dutifully away from the building. Of course, it’s easier to obey a “no smoking near the building” warning when it is sunny and (for February) on the warm-side of things, but still….
|
|||||
A sign of the times?31 comments to A sign of the times? |
 |
||||
|
Copyright © 2010 EMUtalk.org - All Rights Reserved |
|||||
This was put up without permission by a disgruntled staff member who has absolutely no power to punish anyone. But still… no matter your smoking preference, it is really awful to walk into the building in the morning and then leave the building in the evening inhaling other people’s nasty smoke.
There is actually a university policy forbidding smoking within a certain distance of building entrances on campus. I can’t remember what it is, but it is at least 25′ from entryways. As we all know, as we endure smoke as we come in and out of buildings, it has not been enforced at all.
Oh, and BTW, I recognize that there are some people who are unaware of the policy, despite the 15′ x 5′ steel signs posted at the entrances to PH. For those who kindly move when asked, Thank You. And I hope you continue to be considerate and keep your distance when no one is around to ask.
Dear “ard” – Look on the back of your EMU ID. Any University Official (read: employee as per Health and Safety and Student Judicial Services) has the right to ask for your ID if you are breaking University policy. If you refuse to show it, you can be escorted off campus by DPS.
As for “having no power to punish anyone.” I’m sorry, but you’re wrong. Three different students have been identified who were smoking by the doors on two different nights, and Student Judicial Services will be contacting them.
I really don’t understand why this is even an issue. It is EMU policy.
It’s not bad enough that an ambulance had to be called Monday evening for someone with an asthma attack as a result of having to walk through a cloud of smoke to exit the building.
Have some courtesy and just stay away from the building entrances. The arrogant smokers who keep breaking policy are the ones YOU can blame (and others can thank) for EMU becoming a totally smoke-free campus.
The policy also states that there is no smoking allowed in outdoor seating areas. That includes the picnic tables outside the Student Center, the new gazebo on the hill, etc. . .
EMU tobacco Policy:
http://www.emich.edu/uhs/tobaccopolicy.html
And BTW, I recognize that there are some people who are unaware of the policy, despite the 15′ x 5′ steel signs posted at the entrances to PH. For those who kindly move when asked, Thank You. And I hope you continue to be considerate and keep your distance when no one is around to ask.
the asthma/ambulance/2nd hand smoke story strains credulity. disgruntled, you have some spare time on your hands. must be nice.
Check the police logs for Monday night if you don’t believe it, Susan. Case number 0900000360 filed by Officer George Boyce. 2/16/2009 8:20pm.
And a story from a year ago reported by Reuters and appearing on MSNBC about a fatal asthma attack triggered by secondhand cigarette smoke:
http://smokefreestl.org/smoky-bar-triggered-fatal-asth.html
The MSNBC article has expired and is no longer available, although the title still appears.
I would expect a member of EMU faculty to set a better example than to berate someone online for something you obviously have no knowledge of.
The 25 feet policy at EMU is a joke, in my opinion. I’ve even seen high-level staff members breaking it regularly. As a non-smoker, I find it very annoying to have to breathe in a ton of smoke just to go to class. Not to mention the fact that the buildings reek in the entryways because of it. As a business student, what are employment recruiters going to think of EMU when our building reeks and they have to walk through a cloud of smoke to get in and out?
Why isn’t it enforced? I’ve noticed that the university tends to be hesitant to enforce rules in the spirit of “retention.”
I applaud the effort at trying to stop folks from smoking anywhere, particularly right next to the air intakes and doors of Pray-Harrold. And I think it’s pretty funny that these signs (allegedly) were “fake;” they look pretty darn official looking to me.
However, I have to come out against vigilante justice in all of its forms.
Personally, I wouldn’t mind seeing a DPS person/security person working the doors once in a while to chase some smokers away. It might not be a bad idea to paint a line where the “smoking zone” ends/begins. Or maybe we can do what they used to do in my high school 25 years ago: there used to be a big square painted in a parking lot outside where it was okay for students to smoke. If you got caught smoking anywhere else in school (e.g., the bathroom), you were in serious trouble; if you smoked in “the square,” you were part of a particular social group.
Here’s how to report people, according to a DPS official:
“The University policy clearly states who enforces: Staff can be reported to Dave Trakul in HR and it’s a class 1 offense; students can be reported to Student Judicial Service, Jesus Hernandez. People should start reporting these offenders when they can identify them.”
> However, I have to come out against vigilante justice in all of its forms.
Requesting a student, or other member of the University Community, or a visitor to abide by University policy is not “vigilante justice.” It is utilizing an existing responsibility that is not used as often as it should be.
So I respectfully disagree with any characterization of trying to enforce the 25-foot no smoking zone as “vigilante justice.” I’m not sure if that was your intent, so please accept my apologies if I misunderstood.
Vigilante justice would be replacing someone’s tobacco cigarettes with candy ones, or ripping the cigarettes out of someone’s mouth as you zip by on your bike.
For those readers who may be asking “what’s the big deal?” I’ll throw out an analogy.
Imagine that whenever you came to or left from work, you were randomly presented with door handles equipped with sharp spikes that would undoubtedly make your hands bleed and hurt should you try to open the door. That is essentially what is happening to anyone with respiratory illnesses who are forced to inhale cigarette smoke (or truck fumes or any similar pollution) in order to report for their jobs, or to leave for home.
Most people with asthma or related diseases make conscious choices NOT to go to establishments in which there will be their “triggers,” such as cigarette smoke. In this instance, we don’t HAVE a choice.
EMU should make violation of the policy a ticketable offense. Think of the revenue! Bustin’ smokers and maybe even bustin’ all the people that blow through the stop signs in the parking lot.
Otherwise, get rid of ANY policy that’s not going to be enforced. Unless this is yet another “smokescreen” for a “Golden Child” to pad a CV to try to land a job elsewhere. Or another feeble marketing ploy.
I think the “vigilantism” here is one person taking it upon themselves to put up a sign and enforce a rule on their own. I appreciate the problem here, but I think a better way of dealing with this would be to complain to DPS, your union, the dean (who is supposed to have some authority of the building, right?), etc.
As for tickets: yeah, I’d support that. And I actually got pulled over by a campus cop one time for his interpretation of my lack of stop. I would have disputed the issue, but that’s another matter.
Not sure about the CV padding, Kirk…. I’m not sure exactly what kind of job putting up signs against smoking would get you….
It’s hard to believe that a staff member is considered a “University Official.”
I like smokers. Smoking brings people together in social situations and they have the best stories. If your friends smoke, it’s nice to have shared interests. If more students smoked, they wouldn’t be living isolated lifestyles playing video games in their dorm rooms so much. Campus would be a friendlier place. Students would study together more and smoke together, creating lifelong friends and learning in the process. In fact, we should have a smoking dorm, smoking rooms in the library for study and a smoking section in the dining commons.
> I think the “vigilantism” here is one person taking it upon themselves to put up a sign and enforce a rule on their own
> I think a better way of dealing with this would be to complain to DPS, your union, the dean (who is supposed to have some authority of the building, right?)
Done, Done, and Done (the lattermost was the first line of attack)
So how long should one wait for the administration to do it for them? One month? (passed that) Two months? (passed that) Three months? (passed that) We’re at four months, and no discernible changes, despite some very simple suggestions (including better signage) and offers of help.
Would you rather people display the kind of apathy that has permitted this behavior to continue (remember the current version of the policy has been in place for almost 4 years)? Why have a policy if it isn’t enforced? Why not just make it an all-smoking campus again? Because that’s essentially what you’re suggesting. Would you rather the administration wait until someone has a worse health emergency because of the failure to enforce this policy? Shades of Laura Dickinson.
C’mon. I fail to see how getting involved is “vigilante justice.” Should we just leave the bleeding man on the side of the road or should we try to help? It’s pretty pathetic if this is how the University chooses to operate, and even more pitiful if the stewards of the university (as in students and employees – those with a vested interest) choose to behave with apathy.
> It’s hard to believe that a staff member is considered a “University Official.”
Ask:
Student Judicial Services: 734.487.2157
DPS: 734.487.1222
Health and Safety: 734.487.0794
and from The Eagle’s mouth:
“A school official is a person employed by the University in an administrative,
supervisory, academic or research, or support staff position (including law
enforcement unit personnel and health staff); a person or company with whom
the University has contracted (such as an attorney, auditor, or collection
agent); a person serving on the Board of Regents; or a student serving on an
official committee, such as a disciplinary or grievance committee, or assisting
another school official in performing his or her tasks”
So, yes, ARD, you are considered a University Official. If you find me violating a policy, please call me on it. I’ll be happy to show you my ID and take whatever lumps it is I deserve.
>> It might not be a bad idea to paint a line where the “smoking zone” ends/begins.
Another excellent idea already suggested that landed on deaf ears.
DPS has informed us that they have no authority greater than that of the ambiguous “University Official.” Unless the party refuses to respond to their request to move, then they can cite them for refusal to obey a police officer or something like that.
Idea. Round up all the smokers and put them in a smoking gulag!
I really am too busy to spend time on this. Frankly, I just don’t care much about this issue — though it is nice to see that I can still stir things up.
But the professor in me just won’t let two things slide. I have here a “teachable moment”! And you all are going to get the benefit — or you can just observe how long this response is and just skip over it.
Number 1 “teachable moment”
Ad hominem argument reflects badly on the person using it.
An ad hominem argument is one where a disputant attacks “the man” (i.e., the opponent) rather than the argument. In any context where intellect is more important than passion, an ad hominem argument is laughable. Here’s the ad hominem from the comments above: “I would expect a member of EMU faculty to set a better example ….” Moral of the story: don’t use ad hominems unless you’re surrendering. Or unless you are Dr Gregory House.
Teachable moment #2: What is critical thinking? Critical thinking, in part, is analyzing the reliability of a statement in light of one’s own experience and knowledge. Here’s my reaction to the claim that a person was sent to emergency because of walking through smoke: “… strains credulity …”
“… strains credulity … ” means “hard to believe”.
Why would I say that?
(1) While particulates do trigger asthma, I have not yet seen anyone smoking in an enclosed place on campus. Could happen, sure, but not very often. It is likely that the “cloud of smoke” was outside.
(2) If the “cloud of smoke” was outside, it would be much tougher to collect a large density of particulates. Could happen, sure, but not very likely.
(3) Someone who is hyper-sensitive to 2nd hand smoke almost certainly knows of his hyper-sensitivity. It could happen that he doesn’t know it already, but not likely.
(4) Someone who knows he is hyper-sensitive to 2nd hand smoke is unlikely to endanger himself by purposefully walking through “a cloud of smoke”. A fool would I suppose, once in a while; this is somewhat likely, knowing human nature.
(5) Someone who knows he is hyper-sensitive to 2nd hand smoke won’t take a second breath. It is entirely possible that someone is sensitive enough that a single breath will set off a life-threatening reaction, but not likely. Discomfort is likely. Life-threatening much less so.
So, there is the *possibility* that 2nd hand smoke set off this particular asthma attack. It’s possible. Because of the probabilities involved, though, I have to suspect hyperbole or other significant (though unstated) factors.
Critical thinking: don’t take what is told you at face value. Use your own experience and knowledge to be suspicious of blanket statements.
Oh, and even the information that there is a police report here doesn’t do a whole lot for my doubt. Sure, that’s a piece of supporting evidence. How often is a police report just wrong? Not very often. That supports the assertion.
However, how often does the police report just record what the witness said — pretty much always unless there is contradictory physical evidence.
I’m going to add one more comment and leave this depressing topic.
There has been a lot of comment on how to deal with people who are violating the university’s anti-smoking policy.
I would like to know if the person posting the signs is going to be disciplined for violating the university’s anti-posting/grafitti policy.
I would like to know if university resources were used to produce the signs (which would be in violation of university policy, as well as theft).
I would like to know if a staff member created or posted the signs while being paid to do university work (violation of university policy as well as theft).
Just askin’.
Steve, Steve, Steve,
Sometimes you can be quite the naif. Not a criticism, mind you, it’s one of your endearing qualities.
When applying for muckety-muck-type jobs in higher ed, an applicant is often asked “What kind of impact did you have at your current gig?”
Hence, ambitious types, upon landing a new job, will always look for something easy to do, highly visible, low-to-no-impact, and nearly cost-free (only a cynic would add “useless”) to get a leg up on the next job somewhere else.
So, hypothetically, a newly hired provost wanting to be a president someplace else could “reorganize” something within whatever passes for our Academic Affairs by shuffling programs around within, hypothetically, the smallest college. Maybe change some reporting lines around. Anything goes, as long as it’s not substantive. Or effective.
A department head wanting to be a dean somewhere else might change a word in the department’s name (again hypothetically and for instance..ummmmm. let’s say substituting “Technology” for “Industrial” (or “Vocational”)) and pretend that that substitution is emblematic of dynamic and visionary leadership.
So, just for the sake of argument, it might be conceivable that someone in a nonacademic organizational entity might be looking for greener pastures elsewhere. Getting an absolutely ineffective smoking policy enacted would look great on paper, and as long as the prospective employer doesn’t do anything sane like ask about effectiveness, would probably get the applicant hired. If not, well, nothing has really changed within that person’s current gig anyway.
I believe a perfect example of ambitious faculty types has been covered in earlier posts.
I do believe that people absolutely have the right to commit slow and ghastly suicide by smoking. Smoking has certainly whittled down the number of years I have left. But there is a huge difference between voluntary self-inflicted damage and the thoughtless, knowing damage inflicted upon the innocent.
What would we do without teachers to educate us ignorant dolts! For instance, Susan states:
“In any context where intellect is more important than passion, an ad hominem argument is laughable. Here’s the ad hominem from the comments above: “I would expect a member of EMU faculty to set a better example ….”
So, here’s another example:
“disgruntled, you have some spare time on your hands. must be nice.”
“However, how often does the police report just record what the witness said — pretty much always unless there is contradictory physical evidence. ”
Did you have a conversation with the responding officers, or the two passers-by who assisted and witnessed the incident, who could still smell the cigarette smoke? What about the EMTs who responded? No, your life experience apparently counts for more than the evidence since you are so quick to make baseless accusations of “incredulity.” Another element of critical thinking – evidence!
But thanks for educating those of us who don’t know an ad hominem from a hyperbole in the ground.
No EMU Staff, that second example would not be an example of an ad hominem argument. The second example, “disgruntled, you have some spare time on your hands. must be nice,” is *not* a response to an argument. It is simply a snarky comment.
See the difference?
If University resources were used to generate signs stating University Policy, it is a much better use of resources than students running off flyers for the latest “Miss Fill-In-The-Blank Bikini Contest.”
And if punishment for posting “unapproved” flyers related to University business will be meted out, then hopefully, all parties (e.g., Department Heads posting unapproved signs for the latest class that is dragging in enrollment, or a Study Abroad program) will be dealt with. Not to mention the barrage of non-university sanctioned events.
Susan, I think your approach here is an argument that makes a false distinction– that is, the idea that an “ad hominem” argument is completely different from a “snarky” one is specious.
And Kirk, show me someone who is touting the success of a smoking policy on their CV in an effort to get an administrative job and I will show you someone who does not advance in her or his career.
Clearly, smoking policies are a hot-button issue. The science behind second-hand smoke is very real, which is at least one way in which smoking crosses over from “doing something bad to myself” into “doing something that is bad for others.” And it is very easy for me to imagine someone having an allergic reaction to cigarette smoke. I have allergy-induced asthma (mostly pollen and ragweed types of things, and my asthma is mild– nothing that allergy meds can’t take care of), and I can tell you that there are lots of things that don’t cause reactions in “normal” people that cause reactions in people with allergies. When certain things are in bloom, I am not a happy camper even with meds. And asthma can be pretty scary. So, while the smoke outside Pray-Harrold is nothing that will set me off personally, I’m not willing to dismiss it as a health threat to others out of hand.
Besides all that, I’m a former smoker– gave it up 15 or more years ago– and we are the worst kinds anti-smoking kinds of people. I think it is INSANE that smoking is still legal in restaurants and bars in this state, and would cheerfully support a complete ban of smoking on campus. But short of that, I see nothing wrong with actually enforcing the policy we have about not smoking near the doors of buildings.
disgruntled, you have some spare time on your hands. must be nice
=
I would expect a member of EMU faculty to set a better example
EOM
UMich is going smoke free: http://www.hr.umich.edu/smokefree/
I just heard a story on Michigan Public Radio about this, and it noted that Indiana University and my own University of Iowa are other Big T11en schools that have gone smokeless. My thinking is that a smoke-free EMU and MAC is not far behind….
@ sitedad.. the issue of ‘tobacco free EMU’ was raised a few years ago by student government. It was passed during an election but the student government didn’t want to ‘carry the torch’ thus it was never acted upon…
It’s sad to me really, when we had a chance to be one of the first, we dropped the ball and now we will be one of the last …
At some point, we need to do what’s right for EMU and not WAIT for peer institutions to do it first..
Having led the smoke-free initiative at EMU a few years ago, it was my understanding that the president at the time was very interested in making the policy happen, until an unfortunate turn of events in the fall of 2007 turned away his focus, and there was never a good opportunity to bring it back up. We were really, really close.
EMU Housing was opposed to the idea as they sited it as being a safety concern for residents… doom and gloom prophets were saying “if we do this, enrollment will drop”..
I don’t think that would have been enough for a president to say “well, in that case”..
Now that UM has made the bold step forward one can only wonder how much longer until EMU does it..