On Sept. 1, 2012, the University of Oregon became smoke- and tobacco-free, with high hopes and aspirations for a cleaner and healthier campus. Statistics were cited stating that the university was having to clean up approximately 18,000 cigarette butts in a year. Now that most of those 18,000 cigarette butts per year are not on campus anymore, they must not exist anymore, right? Once smokers realized they are not allowed to smoke anywhere on campus, they surely stopped smoking, right?

This is not the case, and these cigarette butts have to go somewhere. Instead of being dispensed into official ashtrays in a standard smoking area on campus, these cigarette butts are disposed of on the streets and sidewalks of the homes and public areas surrounding campus. Furthermore, the UO has not fixed many smoking, tobacco or litter issues with this policy. All the university has done is shift the burden from themselves, a large well-funded public institution, to the backs of small businesses, other public entities and homeowners that surround the campus.

If the UO truly wanted to become a positive contributor to the campus community, they would take responsibility for the cigarette butts that members of their university community create. If the university was committed to making a smoking-related difference in the community, they would clean the mess, too. A positive step forward would be to reinstate designated smoking areas, though not glamorous, as the surest way to contain cigarette butt litter and to prevent secondhand smoke. If the university cared about secondhand smoke, they would limit the amount of smoke that reaches the Eugene community. Having a designated smoking area, where individuals have the choice to enter into this area, keeps bystanders out of harm’s way.

One’s life choice is stigmatized beyond a health context, often to a personal level, which is what is most concerning about this policy. Smokers are cast off and treated as undesirable people who should not feel welcomed on campus. Not enough personal accommodations are made for smokers; only resources, such as the University Health Center, help stop the smoking habit.

If we are progressive enough to accommodate for community members who are LGBTQA+ by having gender neutral bathrooms, why can we not accommodate smokers?

Although smoking has negative effects on one’s health, having a smoking area on campus will keep the people who smoke on campus closer to resources — which can help them get over their addiction. The UO smoking policies should not be alienating students and should continue to expand resources for smokers who want to quit.

I recently spoke with a UO freshman who said that he feels ostracized from the campus community when he has to walk off campus to smoke a cigarette. Freshmen students who are starting a new chapter of their life can feel separated from the campus community every time they smoke. Our smoke- and tobacco-free campus must be changed to accommodate smokers so that we can be inclusive for people of different walks of life, including those who smoke. If there was an area on campus for smokers to congregate, it could provide the opportunity for freshmen to meet and find common interests.

It may be hard to reverse the campus-wide policy, but the university could create a smoking area at Autzen Stadium, which currently must follow the university’s tobacco and smoke policy. Autzen Stadium draws thousands of fans from across the state and country to its gates every fall. Imposing such an extreme policy on fans, who may not be indoctrinated in UO’s nonsmoking values, may come off as unwelcoming. For many fans, a Duck football game is a time to relax and have fun, and for fans who smoke, this rule may ruin their experience if they are forced into a campus doctrine they do not agree with.  

It is hard to think that the UO would try to push a group of people away from the campus community, but the sad truth of the university’s smoke- and tobacco-free campus policy is that it ostracizes a large group of community members.

The post Sundberg: The University of Oregon’s smoke-free campus policy is disastrous appeared first on Emerald Media.

A man with brown skin is wearing a sombrero at a Halloween party, he has brown eyes and black hair. However, with a closer look, the man is not Mexican; he is of Ecuadorian descent. If we dig even deeper into his background, we will find out that he grew up in a predominately white neighborhood. He is not even a native Spanish speaker, his Spanish is at an intermediate level at best. He is far removed from Mexican culture.

That was a description of myself, as I mulled over a possible halloween costume scenario for this Oct. 31. Although this scenario sounds like a casual Halloween costume, many argue that this is one example of cultural appropriation. It is possible that this could be cultural appropriation due to the fact that I have no Mexican ancestry and my idea of Mexican culture is skewed by Tex-Mex restaurants. However, although I may be able to pass with a Sombrero this Oct. 31 because of my dark skin color, my whiter-skinned friends need to choose their Halloween attire carefully — or else they run the risk of being accused of being culturally insensitive.

An example of students being punished unfairly for cultural appropriation was when a handful of students at Bowdoin College in Maine, threw an “offensive” party earlier this year. For background, it was a “tequila” themed party organized by two student government members. The organizers’ goals were to bring together students from across campus for the night and, going along with the tequila theme, many party-goers were wearing mini sombreros. Unfortunately, other Bowdoin College students and faculty reacted negatively, and the university took action. The students responsible for the organization of the party were eventually impeached from their student government positions.

The incident at Bowdoin College is not an isolated or unique incident. Punishment for cultural appropriation has occured time and time again across the country. Our changing ideas on how we draw the line between “cultural exchange” and “cultural appropriation” present a gray area, at best. How we react and handle these events is imperative to creating a campus community that is strong, beautiful and provides opportunities to experience our differences in constructive ways.

On the other side of the cultural appropriation debate, an author named Lionel Shriver delivered a sobering analysis of the Bowdoin College incident during her speech at the Brisbane Book Festival. Her main argument for cultural appropriation is that we lose the ability to “try on other people’s hats,” because “any tradition, any experience, any costume, any way of doing and saying things, that is associated with a minority or disadvantaged group is ring-fenced: look-but-don’t-touch.”

Though her speech has been called “controversial” it raises the issue about our sudden shift towards safe-guarding our traditions, customs and experiences from outsiders who want to participate. Shriver’s most impactful point is how we are slowly losing our tradition of trying on other culture’s hats — figuratively speaking.

What we define as appropriate participation in a culture is difficult to distinguish. On campus, the best form of participation in Mexican culture, for example, would be to go to the Mills International Center. On the other hand, wearing a sombrero to a Halloween party is not the best form of cultural exchange. However, it is important to note that any form of cultural exchange opens the door for some level of conversation — even if cultures are exchanged in less appropriate and desirable ways. Although some of these Halloween costumes are put on in a mocking way and come with hurtful intentions, we often dismiss this mimicry as a form of hostility and not as a genuine form of flattery.  

Even though some individuals use cultural appropriation as an excuse to be disrespectful, does that mean we should completely shut down lower forms of cultural exchange?

In an ideal world, people would learn the history, customs and small intricacies of other cultures, as well as open up and share their own cultures with others. Unfortunately, we live far from a world like that. It is imperative that our campus community does not criminalize cultural exchange. If we continue to accuse each other of cultural appropriation, we will drive the multitude of different cultures on campus apart from each other.

With that in mind, I think I’m leaning towards wearing a sombrero this Halloween and learning a few things about Mexican culture — and besides, a sombrero might be a great conversation starter.