STUDENT LIFE ‘mdash; Nicotine-addicted campus misanthropes can breathe a collective sigh of relief. Their God-given right to light up at school won’t be compromised by air-purification efforts anytime soon.
Despite Chancellor Marye Anne Fox’s electronic notice last Wednesday that the university is considering a policy revision requiring smokers to remain 25 feet away from buildings before lighting up (the current policy requires ‘mdash; gasp! ‘mdash; five fewer feet), the adjustment doesn’t call for enforcement changes.
The proposal’s purpose is to force us to comply with the minimum standard for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design qualification. Basically, we’d just be changing the language of our policy to become L.E.E.D. eligible.
L.E.E.D. certification makes us more environmentally sustainable, something we evidently pride ourselves greatly on here at UCSD, given the endless press releases touting our national recognition for this very accomplishment.
The significance of the L.E.E.D. smoking qualification lies in its ameliorative effects on air quality. The air on L.E.E.D.-certified campuses is, in theory, superior to that of others, as the 25-foot rule is supposed to ensure the absence of secondhand smoke in learning areas.
But if (read: when) the policy comes into effect, don’t expect to see bloodthirsty RSOs milling about the resident halls with new, five-foot-longer tape measures to assess the crimes of assumed perpetrators. Don’t expect to see campus police issuing fines to those who make the fatal error of whipping out their Camels a mere 24 feet in front of Geisel.
Don’t expect to see anything at all. That’s the beauty of this new policy: its modifications are so insignificant, and they won’t change a thing. The only change to the current policy is the replacement of the digits ’20’ with ’25.’
Meanwhile, the policy’s laughably brief enforcement clause states that ‘the success of this policy depends upon the thoughtfulness, consideration and cooperation of everyone.’ It sets no guidelines, suggesting only that chain-smokers please be thoughtful.
‘ Pressing the backspace key twice and typing ’25’ doesn’t signify greater sustainability efforts. It signifies an eagerness to manipulate policy so we can one day boast that all of our buildings are certified green. If our university possessed an unwavering commitment to environmental sustainability, we wouldn’t be rewording a vague, five-year-old policy on smoking to meet minimum requirements. We’d be assessing the impact of more active changes, like making UCSD entirely smoke free.
Though radical and, in some eyes, unattainable, the prospect of a smoke-free campus may be possible. In the San Diego area alone, Mesa College, Grossmont College, Cuyamaca College and Point Loma Nazarene University have all banned cancer sticks.
According to Stacie Spector, associate vice chancellor of university communication and public affairs, ‘for any further restrictions on smoking to be considered, a discussion amo
ng faculty, staff and students and a written proposal that could be vetted campuswide would have to occur.’
If we were more interested in making UCSD sustainable than in public recognition, we wouldn’t be resting on our laurels.
Smoking causes the release of toxins into the atmosphere and promotes littering through the dispersal of cigarette butts ‘mdash; both of which clearly compromise sustainability. Yet the proposal doesn’t address these concerns. It sacrifices concrete action in favor of hasty rewriting and shows no concern for campus air quality ‘mdash; exactly the opposite of what the L.E.E.D. qualification is designed to do.
Were the U.S. Green Building Council ‘mdash; the organization responsible for determining L.E.E.D. certification ‘mdash; to question our new smoking policy before checking off that precious qualification, how, really, could we defend it? By saying our policy trusts ‘everyone’ to be responsible without providing any means of enforcement? How very convincing.
Maggie Souder, campus sustainability coordinator, said she’s confident smokers will be cognizant of the changes, and attributes most defiance of the policy to the ignorance of its perpetrators. Which is sweet. And optimistic. And unrealistic.
Anyone who has ever strolled down I-Walk on a Friday night knows that with the current policy, there’s no stopping the ennui-afflicted Frenchman from lighting up right outside his door. In order to really address air quality concerns, we need to do more than edit another bureaucratic sheet of paper. We must look into visibly reducing our impact ‘mdash; or we don’t deserve that precious green certification.
Readers can contact Trevor Cox at t2cox@ucsd.edu.