The recent smoking roundtable represents a very sad state of affairs for the Georgetown administration regarding the issue of smoking on campus. It is clear from the meeting that the administration—or at least Charles DeSantis, who represented Georgetown’s administration at the roundtable as the founder of GUWellness—has made up its mind in favor of pushing for a smoke and tobacco-free campus, and this stems from the fact that time and again during the roundtable DeSantis decided to step around the issues that surrounded his plan for the upcoming years to ban all smoking on our campus.
The main concern that underpins the smoke-free campus movement is the issue of second-hand smoking. This is no doubt a major issue for the members of our community that suffer from asthma, and it should be addressed.
However, when asked about the fact that the university is pushing for a “smoke and tobacco free” campus (which includes chewing tobacco products), instead of a merely “smoke-free” campus, DeSantis explained that it is all or nothing. He claimed that that chewing tobacco constitutes an environmental hazard, and that he saw “everyday people spitting tobacco on campus.”
If Georgetown indeed does become smoke-free, then we will find that the campus will become even dirtier than it is today, as smokers will not stop smoking because of a policy change. They will instead be forced to throw away their used butts on the ground, as on a smoke-free campus, ashtrays would be removed. When confronted with this possibility , DeSantis merely stated that it was a “point of concern.” Instead of trying to find a way to fix the concerns of those who do not wish to deal with second-hand smoke, DeSantis seemed to indicate that he simply wanted to ban all tobacco use while avoiding answering the legitimate concerns raised at the roundtable.
This proposed smoking and tobacco plan is also simply culturally insensitive. We take great pride in this fact that Georgetown is populated by people of many different cultures from all around the world. In many places, smoking is still seen as a social norm. Indeed, those who would be most affected by a new campus-wide no smoking policy would be international students and members of minority groups, especially students in the English as a Foreign Language (EFL) and graduate programs, as they make up a significant amount of our campus’ smoking population. It was therefore concerning to hear that, according to DeSantis, the fact that Georgetown is “smoke-free” will be advertised on admission brochures, and that it will make aspiring students think about that as they decide whether or not Georgetown is right for them.
Perhaps Mr. DeSantis did not think of all the implications of his statement. However, there is no doubt that advertising the ban to people of disparate cultures would be seen as an alienating microaggression. Since a large part of the Georgetown smoking community are minorities, including first or second-generation American immigrants, and international students (not to mention first or second generation American immigrants), the fact that our university is not tolerant of them will mean that we will be filtering more and more minorities and international students from the pool of people aspiring to join the Georgetown community—as they know they will feel alienated from the rest of our collegiate society.
There is also the fact that the smoking and tobacco ban will directly impact cultural communities on campus, as some cultural clubs host events that center on smoking. Andrew Mualem, a member of the GU Arab Society executive board, told me , “Our club hosts hookah events. If the ban is passed, we will not be able to host these events that bring people involved in our club and culture together.”
Smokers should not be seen as degenerate in the eyes of the administration and our greater Georgetown society. Instead, they should be seen as members of the community who have a rather unhealthy habit that should impact others in as limited a way as possible. By making our campus “smoke and tobacco free,” Georgetown is basically saying to applicants: either conform with our (mostly white American) societal norms, or do not come here.
So can a compromise be made between minimizing the impact of second-hand smoking on nonsmokers while allowing people to feel fully welcome and integrated in the greater Georgetown community?
The narrative that the administration currently takes is that the only viable option is to completely ban smoking and tobacco products (because chewing tobacco, obviously, impacts those in the immediate vicinity around them through second-hand chewing) in order to limit the effects of second-hand smoking. However, a point that those for a blanket ban on smoking and those against can agree on is that if Georgetown simply enforces the current rules of not allowing smoking within a 25 feet radius of any building, we essentially already have a campus that is de facto smoke-free in the vast majority of public places while accommodating those who need to smoke.
But Georgetown is not enforcing those rules. There is an ashtray that sits directly next to Lauinger Library, and there is a “smoker’s pole” directly outside of New South. Both are clearly within the 25 feet limit. If Georgetown cannot—or will not—enforce its current smoking policy, then how does the university expect to enforce a blanket ban? Is it simply symbolic? If so, then we get the worst of both worlds. People will continue to smoke wherever they please, which does not solve the issue of second-hand smoking, while at the same time alienating the people who do smoke due to the university taking an official stance.
If nothing else, the Georgetown administration should at the very least implement the existing rules in high-traffic, high-density areas such as in front of Lau and the ICC in order to limit the effects of second-hand smoking as much as possible while not infringing on people’s cultures.
In the long-term, I do agree on principle with those who propose this policy for Georgetown. I wish to one day see us as a completely smoke-free student body. In the meantime, we should at least find some accomodation. We must continue to try to find a middle ground, because the narrative that certain people are currently pushing forward is that it’s “all or nothing” and that the only “viable” option is for us to go completely and totally smoke and tobacco free. This is simply a false dichotomy, and perhaps, it is even intolerant.
Regarding the upcoming referendum on whether to make this campus smoke-free, I argue that it is in the best interest of our community to vote no. By voting yes, we go for a complete blanket ban that has no room for compromise. By voting no, the Georgetown administration may move to go ahead and try to get a stronger policy against smoking in place, but we will at least leave room for negotiation so that all parties can have their best interests taken into account.
Irsyad Iskandar is a junior in the School of Foreign Service in Qatar. Although a member of the Georgetown University Arab Society, Andrew Mualem’s views are his own.
