There are three major problems with this decree: the method by which it was decreed, the substance of the decree and the wider implications underlying the rational of this decree. While I applaud President Marx in his offer of free nicotine patches, this conciliatory gesture by no means exonerates an otherwise arbitrary decree.
First, I would like to state some observations. I call this decision a "decree" to underscore its status as an unchallengeable executive decision, as students ultimately have no power to alter it. This decree is fully legal and within the rights of the College. Also, the decree will stop few, if any, students from smoking inside or outside of dorms.
The decision to implement this decree was made with minimal student input. While the College Council was "consulted" and subsequently "supported" the decision, only five students, all AAS senators, are on this committee. This sounds more like a rubber stamp than a stamp of student approval. Regardless, this decision reveals the lack of an open and frank discussion between students and administration. Part of the appeal of a small liberal arts college like Amherst is the ability to have unparalleled access to an approachable administration that is concerned with students' rights and opinions. If I wanted an impersonal bureaucratic institution, I would have gone to our neighboring state university across Route 9.
Furthermore, the substance of the decree-the dogmatic ban on smoking-prevents the reasonable exercise of an otherwise legal and private act. Understandably, some people dislike smoke, and no one would disagree with the current designation of smoke-free dorms or possibly even expanding that number. But requiring all smokers in all dorms, without exception, to adhere to a policy that will unreasonably force smokers to stand in the bitter cold will only serve to engender a general disrespect for rules and law, as underage drinking so vividly demonstrates. I'm not sure how rigidly this policy will be enforced, but the possibilities range from outrageous dorm damage charges to burdening an already hard-working police force with "smoke complaints" to simple benign neglect.
Finally, this policy adheres to a doctrine that has been properly discarded as an anachronism of the past -in loco parentis, the idea that the college ought to act in the same role as the parent. This doctrine permitted the use of moral decrees to govern the personal and private life of the student, forbidding the exercise of individuality and independence, stifling growth and the ability to exercise one's autonomy. Such policies included curfews and the enforced separation of genders within dorms. Today, the anti-smoking decree is justified on grounds of "our collective well-being," which certainly constitutes a "slippery slope." How far does it extend? Could it include a ban on alcohol, junk foods or dissent? Moreover, the fundamental assumption underlying this approach is that we as students are not capable of making mature decisions as adults, and therefore deserve no expectation of a private sphere. The price of a free society is that people should have the right to make their own decisions, even if they are not the wisest ones.
I believe that most students who are bothered by this decree are willing to give President Marx the benefit of the doubt; that he was unaware of the widespread discontent his first major act as president would produce. While this may be wishful thinking on my part, I certainly hope that at the least this decree's scope will be reconsidered, and that in the future, matters related to student life can receive a full and fair hearing without preordained conclusions.