A few days ago, a college student was standing in front of John Kerry at a college in Florida and questioning him in regards to his possible involvement in a secret society during college. Several moments later, the student was being arrested despite Kerry’s vocal requests to let him answer the question. Just moments after he was escorted from the microphone, that same student was on the ground being handcuffed and tazed in the middle of a crowded room.
While the student may have been overreacting and being somewhat melodramatic at first, there is no question that the police in the situation were also overreacting. The only difference between the two were that the police had tazers. Link to this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bVa6jn4rpE. Colleges are institutions of learning. Academic debate and the exchange of thoughts, opinions and the generation of new ideas should be commonplace. These event in Florida, however, beg the question of how much that exchange is really allowed to happen anymore.
From political and ideological differences to issues of race, religion and socio-economic backgrounds, there is no question the wide variety of perspectives and approaches to the issues we discuss in our classrooms and halls on campus can cause tension.
While this example is certainly an extreme one, we do wonder how free students feel they can speak their mind. For this reason, we are opening up the editorial pages of the statesman’s blog site to the students and staff of UMD. Please join the discussion, and tell us: Can people truly speak their mind at UMD?
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Thursday, September 13, 2007
New Smoking Ban Goes Too Far
University of Minnesota - Duluth Chancellor Kathryn Martin is inviting violators of the new campus-wide smoking ban to sit down and have a conversation with her – literally. In summer interviews with the Duluth News Tribune and the Minneapolis Star Tribune, Martin extended the invitation in response to questions about the enforceability of the new smoking ban, which prohibits smoking anywhere on campus – including outside.
Lacking any apparent statutory power to enforce an outdoor ban – or ticket its violators – it seems fitting to suggest that Chancellor Martin’s “invitation” is indicative of the problems that plague this ban from its enforcement to its very foundation.
While Martin describes her decision to extend UMD’s smoking ban to include the outdoors as a “no-brainer,” perhaps a deeper analysis of the intent behind the ban, the feasibility of enforcing it, and the various other ways in which the same cause can be advanced are in order.
The most vocal supporters of the ban expansion have been those concerned about the health of non-smokers. Groups and individuals worried about the health effects of second-hand smoke have a legitimate concern, but we must also remain concerned about protecting civil liberties.
The primary intent of any smoking ban needs to be protecting the health of non-smokers. Everyone knows that smoking and second-hand smoke can be deadly. However, so long as it does not infringe upon the rights of non-smokers to be free of second-hand smoke, smoking must continue to be allowed as a personal choice as long as it is legal.
Prior to expanding the ban, the policy prohibited smoking within 25 feet of any door, window, or ventilation vent. Since it seems improbable to assume that a properly enforced 25-foot rule can still be cause for serious health concern, there is simply not a legitimate reason for extending the ban to include all outdoor areas.
While other reasons for expanding the ban may be well-intended – such as a concern for the health of the smoker – they must be recognized as what they are, the allowance of a paternalistic community and the infringement of personal rights and liberties.
Chancellor Martin must think about repealing the ban. This is an adult and academic institution where, rather than patronizing conversation “invitations,” we need well-thought policy and proper enforcement of current ones.
Lacking any apparent statutory power to enforce an outdoor ban – or ticket its violators – it seems fitting to suggest that Chancellor Martin’s “invitation” is indicative of the problems that plague this ban from its enforcement to its very foundation.
While Martin describes her decision to extend UMD’s smoking ban to include the outdoors as a “no-brainer,” perhaps a deeper analysis of the intent behind the ban, the feasibility of enforcing it, and the various other ways in which the same cause can be advanced are in order.
The most vocal supporters of the ban expansion have been those concerned about the health of non-smokers. Groups and individuals worried about the health effects of second-hand smoke have a legitimate concern, but we must also remain concerned about protecting civil liberties.
The primary intent of any smoking ban needs to be protecting the health of non-smokers. Everyone knows that smoking and second-hand smoke can be deadly. However, so long as it does not infringe upon the rights of non-smokers to be free of second-hand smoke, smoking must continue to be allowed as a personal choice as long as it is legal.
Prior to expanding the ban, the policy prohibited smoking within 25 feet of any door, window, or ventilation vent. Since it seems improbable to assume that a properly enforced 25-foot rule can still be cause for serious health concern, there is simply not a legitimate reason for extending the ban to include all outdoor areas.
While other reasons for expanding the ban may be well-intended – such as a concern for the health of the smoker – they must be recognized as what they are, the allowance of a paternalistic community and the infringement of personal rights and liberties.
Chancellor Martin must think about repealing the ban. This is an adult and academic institution where, rather than patronizing conversation “invitations,” we need well-thought policy and proper enforcement of current ones.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Editorial: Ness Playing Politics with Student Housing
When it comes to the Duluth City Council, no member is more widely known at UMD than Councilor-at-Large Don Ness. A self-described advocate for students, Mr. Ness’ campus popularity has been built by being a reliable voice for the many collegiate bodies in the Duluth city.
It is precisely because of the trust that Mr. Ness has built with students that makes his recent support for a new rental ordinance so appalling. The ordinance, which passed in a 6-3 Council vote, has the impact of restricting the number of rental houses to one or two per city block and goes into effect on Sep. 23.
The extraordinarily negative impact the ordinance will have for the off-campus student housing situation in Duluth cannot be underestimated. One only needs to think of the thousands of college students living in the central hillside area to see how the gradual elimination of most rental units in that area will be catastrophic for students in search of affordable housing within a reasonable distance to campus.
The ordinance also has the effect of limiting growth in rental units in other nearby neighborhoods, such as Woodland, Congdon Park, and Kenwood areas. This means that the likelihood that UMD students will have to find housing in the Lincoln Park, West Duluth and even Superior areas will increase dramatically as each year passes.
Mr. Ness has responded to recent criticism for his August 13th vote by stating that he is in favor of creating a student housing district, consolidating students to one area of the city. Such a district would supposedly be more convenient and affordable for students, and attractive of an idea for city residents.
There are many problems with the councilor’s response. One of the largest reasons students are attracted to the Duluth-Superior area for college has to do with various geographical and environmental wonders students have the opportunity to live amongst. Also, quarantining students into a single district of the city is not needed for the same reasons it is often required in larger cities such as Minneapolis. The transportation, economic, and safety issues present in those cities are not nearly as prevalent in Duluth.
While Mr. Ness has voted to support the new rental ordinance, pushed by older, richer (and more likely to vote) residents of the city, he has yet to solidify plans for any conceivable student housing district. Thus, it seems Mr. Ness’ recent change-of-position and unusual nonalignment with college residents seems to be conveniently positioned near his mayoral primary election next Tuesday.
The discrimination-laden ordinance that Mr. Ness has chosen to support has left UMD students without the voice they thought they had. Perhaps it is appropriate to suggest then, that UMD students should think twice about providing a voice for Mr. Ness at the polls on Tuesday.
It is precisely because of the trust that Mr. Ness has built with students that makes his recent support for a new rental ordinance so appalling. The ordinance, which passed in a 6-3 Council vote, has the impact of restricting the number of rental houses to one or two per city block and goes into effect on Sep. 23.
The extraordinarily negative impact the ordinance will have for the off-campus student housing situation in Duluth cannot be underestimated. One only needs to think of the thousands of college students living in the central hillside area to see how the gradual elimination of most rental units in that area will be catastrophic for students in search of affordable housing within a reasonable distance to campus.
The ordinance also has the effect of limiting growth in rental units in other nearby neighborhoods, such as Woodland, Congdon Park, and Kenwood areas. This means that the likelihood that UMD students will have to find housing in the Lincoln Park, West Duluth and even Superior areas will increase dramatically as each year passes.
Mr. Ness has responded to recent criticism for his August 13th vote by stating that he is in favor of creating a student housing district, consolidating students to one area of the city. Such a district would supposedly be more convenient and affordable for students, and attractive of an idea for city residents.
There are many problems with the councilor’s response. One of the largest reasons students are attracted to the Duluth-Superior area for college has to do with various geographical and environmental wonders students have the opportunity to live amongst. Also, quarantining students into a single district of the city is not needed for the same reasons it is often required in larger cities such as Minneapolis. The transportation, economic, and safety issues present in those cities are not nearly as prevalent in Duluth.
While Mr. Ness has voted to support the new rental ordinance, pushed by older, richer (and more likely to vote) residents of the city, he has yet to solidify plans for any conceivable student housing district. Thus, it seems Mr. Ness’ recent change-of-position and unusual nonalignment with college residents seems to be conveniently positioned near his mayoral primary election next Tuesday.
The discrimination-laden ordinance that Mr. Ness has chosen to support has left UMD students without the voice they thought they had. Perhaps it is appropriate to suggest then, that UMD students should think twice about providing a voice for Mr. Ness at the polls on Tuesday.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)