I believe that all members of the Reed community, as well as guests, visitors, and CSOs doing their work, should be able to enjoy and take full advantage of what Reed has to offer without being required to be exposed to secondhand smoke. I believe that people who smoke should be able to engage in that activity without an unreasonable set of restrictions. And, I believe that these two beliefs are not necessarily in opposition. I am confident that the members of our community who are responsible for making policy (faculty and students) will find a way to capture these ideas in writing. My concern is this: regardless of the content of our policy on smoking, it is all but certain that I will be tasked with overseeing “enforcement.”
I do not like enforcement. I like engagement, I like enlightenment, and even the occasional intellectual entanglement—but not enforcement. And, the need for enforcement derives solely from people choosing to act in contrast to our community standards. I use this construction because, by definition, our policies are “community standards” in that they cannot become such without the approval of both the faculty and the students of the college. Indeed, staff (such as myself) can neither propose nor vote on policy. As an example, the current policy on dogs sets out Community Safety as the enforcement mechanism for a policy that was created by faculty and students: “The Office of Community Safety may be charged with the enforcement [emphasis added] of penalties imposed through the judicial system of the community” (Faculty Handbook, VIII. G. Dogs). There are ample additional examples in policy of requiring the Community Safety team to enforce community standards.
While I do not like enforcement, I accept that it is typically—unfortunately—a common part of what I must do within the large context of my job at Reed, and my profession generally. That said, I strive for alternatives to enforcement at every opportunity. Again, with the policy on dogs as example, a search of the Reed web site for “dog policy” will yield both the Faculty Handbook, and the Community Safety guidelines for how CSOs are expected to “engage, educate, and encourage” people who have chosen not to follow the community standard for dogs. Our goal is a safe campus and for CSOs to use their engagements with people who are in the company of dogs to engage with them in solicitous conversation, educate them about the policy, and encourage them to abide by the community standard. Indeed, it is only when there is an objective safety risk, or blatant and repeated recalcitrance, that “enforcement” becomes necessary.
I believe that a policy (aka: community standard) that codifies the ideas I mentioned above is possible, necessary, and likely. What is also necessary is for those who smoke to make choices that adhere to that standard—whatever it ends up being. Absent this, others in the community will be required to endure unwanted exposure to secondhand smoke, or have their ability to enjoy the benefits of Reed constrained. And, the CSOs on my team and I will be expected and required to “enforce.”
I do not like enforcement, and I hope that the final outcome of this discussion does not require it of me.
Gary Granger is the Director of Community Safety.