|
Editorial  |
|
|
|
Staff Editorial:
Smoking at MHCC to go the way of the Dodo
As students, we are constantly told that the MHCC District board has our best interests in mind, that our voice matters and they make decisions that will be for the benefit of the students.
The board made a decision Wednesday that, starting Jan. 2, 2010, the campus will be entirely tobacco-free.
The process was rapid, to say the least. Only one month ago, the issue of smoking on campus was introduced to the board’s agenda. One person spoke before the board in favor of banning tobacco from the campus. Board member Ralph Yates went as far as to ask why the campus wasn’t already tobacco-free.
The atmosphere was full of agreement from Yates’ fellow board members, as not one defended smoking on campus. The board asked MHCC President John Sygielski to form a committee to investigate the ways and costs involved in going tobacco-free, hence the creation of the Tobacco-Free Task Force.
News flash: It was all pretense. Anyone who wasn’t aware that the board was clearly moving toward making the campus tobacco-free must not have been at the board meeting. The writing was clearly on the wall.
Nevertheless, the task force continued to gather slanted data presenting only the positives of going tobacco-free. Throughout the next month, little to no input was gathered from students or faculty -- until the very last minute.
For those who don’t know, there was a “forum” held Monday in the board room. It would be surprising if students and employees had known since the meeting wasn’t publicized or talked about. The meeting itself seemed a last-minute way to claim that student input was collected.
During this forum, smokers and non-smokers alike gathered to share their views with June Jacobs, head of the Tobacco-Free Task Force, and task force members ASG President Janine Johnston and ASG Director of State and Federal Affairs Danielle Pannell. More than one attendee talked about the fact that the decision was made too hastily and based on slanted information, while a majority spoke of a compromise.
At the forum, the most talked about compromise was the relocation of the kiosks to the outer edges of the college campus. Students, faculty and even members of the task force, such as Pannell, advocated that route. Few suggested that the college become completely tobacco-free, and even then they advised the college do so carefully.
Jacobs said she was taking notes of these comments and recorded the forum for the board.
Given this “forum,” the board’s preconceived notions on going tobacco-free clearly prevailed. From their comments at the meeting, the board expressed that, in the words of board member Dave Shields, they “have been working towards this.” Shields referred to the numerous policies the college has taken against smokers.
Given that the board received minimal student input, it seemed little could be done to change their mind. Despite the turnout at the Monday forum, no one spoke on behalf of a compromise at Wednesday’s board meeting.
While the board already had an idea of their direction, students were unwilling or unable to testify Wednesday night about finding a middle ground. It seems the only resolution is more time. More time to examine the negatives of going entirely tobacco-free. More time to encourage students to speak up. And more time to think about taking this very serious step.