These measures are not necessarily flawed. What concerns us is that the administration did not seek student input on substantial parts of the bike plan. When the changes were initially proposed last April, Student Life responded similarly to students at the Senate session by publishing a staff editorial expressing concern about the plan. However, the editorial expressed hope that with student input, the plan could be tweaked to better fit the bike culture on campus and benefit both bikers and pedestrians.

Last April, a focus group was created to facilitate discussion between the administration and students, and we commend this effort to involve the student body. Given the Senate’s reaction to the plan on Wednesday night, however, it appears that more dialogue is needed and that the University must take student input more seriously.

The focus group, which is comprised of less than 10 students, bikers and non-bikers alike, offered a number of suggestions at group meetings. Student input was welcomed on decisions about where to place the nodes and how many bikes they should be able to hold, but opinions were not solicited about the actual implementation of the plan or the rules that would come along with it. Now, the SU representatives in the focus group are trying to slow the plan down, in keeping with the opinions expressed in the Senate meeting last week.

Based on the senators’ reaction, we see a disconnect between the administration and the student body. This echoes the smoking ban implementation of last year, which also lacked student input. The student body was not notified properly about the possibility of the ban and was given very little chance to express its opinions. Initially, the focus group appeared to move away from this trend of disconnect between policy implementation and the opinions of the student body. However, the concerns that have arisen from the process indicate that the same basic problem exists.

Going forward, we want to see greater student input in whatever form possible. Since work on the bike plan has already begun, it will be difficult for students to enact significant change. We encourage the University to solicit real student input on all parts of the plan. Even if it is impossible to affect any changes at this stage in the development, we hope that the University will learn from Senate’s reaction and seek out student opinions on substantial issues in the future.

The decision to prohibit smoking and the use of all tobacco-related products on University property was announced last April by the administration, which framed the ban as a public health initiative intended to reduce the effects of secondhand smoke.

“We’re not passing judgment on what you should or should not do,” said Jill Carnaghi, associate vice chancellor for students and dean of campus life. “We’re saying on our campus we want as healthy an environment as possible.”

Carnaghi’s sense is that most undergraduates agree with the ban. But she feels many who supported it were nonetheless frustrated that the University made the decision without taking student input into account.

“I think there was a good number that didn’t like the way the decision was made,” Carnaghi said. “They were upset with how the process went in the decision, rather than the decision itself.”

Senior Tom Aylmer was one such student angry with how the University implemented the ban.

“The people who implemented it didn’t give the students any say in the decision process,” Aylmer said. “I’d like them to at least inform the students as to how they made the decision, what kind of research they did. They should address why they didn’t give the students any consideration.”

Student Union (SU) also decried the lack of student involvement in the administration’s decision. Last April, SU passed a resolution requesting that the administration reconsider the ban after hearing students’ opinions on the matter.

Student Union Senate Speaker Chase Sackett speaks on the SU resolution last semester decrying the University’s tobacco ban. (Matt Mitgang | Student Life)

Although the University is not currently planning to reevaluate its decision, Carnaghi is leading a committee of around 12 undergraduates in the coming year that will offer student input to the administration concerning the ban and its implementation.

“We’ll pull together a committee to identify what are the issues, what are the concerns and then how do we as a group—which is made up of a lot of students, some I hope to be smokers and some not—move forward with this in a realistic way,” Carnaghi said.

The committee likely will include representatives from student groups that may be affected most by the ban, such as international students from cultures more permissive of smoking.

Carnaghi said the committee also will work to engage the broader undergraduate population through open forums for students to express their opinions.

The administration has created separate committees for working with the rest of the University population. The faculty and staff committee is headed by Alan Glass, director of Student Health Services, and Brad Freeman, associate professor of surgery, while the graduate and professional students committee is headed by Sheri Notaro, associate dean in the Graduate School of Arts & Sciences.

At present, while the University carries forth with its plans, many students continue to express mixed opinions about the ban.

Junior Adeetee Bhide is allergic to tobacco and has been hospitalized for coughing fits after inhaling secondhand smoke. Despite her sensitivity to tobacco, she said she is still able to see both sides of the issue.

“I’m glad that I’ll be able to do my homework outside without having to worry about people smoking, but I do understand that it’ll be a big inconvenience for people who do smoke,” Bhide said.

Bhide has to hold her breath when she walks past the entrances to Olin Library and Seigle Hall, where smokers often congregate. Several times, she said, she has had to relocate from doing work outside after a smoker lit up a cigarette.

Still, she feels that banning smoking altogether on campus is an unnecessary step.

“I think a better compromise would be to have designated smoking areas,” Bhide said.

Student Union Senate Speaker Chase Sackett speaks at Wednesday’s Senate meeting in the DUC. (Matt Mitgang | Student Life)

Student Union Senate passed a resolution on Wednesday night to address the administration’s recent initiative to ban smoking on all Washington University campuses, effective July 2010.

The resolution requests that the University administration reevaluate the tobacco ban with the consideration of the students in mind.

So far, more than 100 students have given their input on the Student Union (SU) smoking ban forum online. Most of those comments express disagreement with the initiative, citing violations of freedoms and not seeking out the student body’s input.

There appeared to be a consensus on SU’s taking a position on the tobacco ban. Concerns were raised as to whether the smoking ban would cause people to quit smoking.

Some senators were worried the smoking ban would effectively outcast members of the community and drive smokers away from central hubs.

Many senators thought that the University’s actions infringe upon student liberties.

“I would not say that Senate definitely supported the ban. We’re careful not to come to a specific conclusion, because it’s been really difficult for us to figure out how the student body feels about it,” said junior Chase Sackett, speaker of the Senate.

The opinions in the room were divided, according to Sackett.

“Some people feel very strongly in favor of the ban, ignoring how it was implemented, ignoring the input issue, and then other students feel very strongly against it,” he said. “I think the really important thing to take from this is not that this is a final statement on the ban.”

Sackett said that in the past the University had been cooperative and collaborative with students on many other issues, such as the bottled water ban, the plan for construction on the South 40 and dining hours.

“While we want to recognize that the administration has had an excellent relationship with us and has done a really great job in the past, this is an anomaly,” Sackett said.

SU President Jeff Nelson believes that a majority of the student body is in favor of the plan, but he echoed the sentiment that the students in the minority against the plan have the right to have their voices heard by the administration.

Sackett said the goal of SU has been to express the interests of the students, rather than individual viewpoints of senators.

“We feel student liberties are important and take our input into account, but we are really concerned with making sure we bring student feeling across,” he said.

SU officials will be presenting the resolution to members of the administration, at which time they will explain the meaning of the SU response.

Nelson, a junior, has indicated that he will sign the resolution.

“The resolution is a step. I would have liked it to be a little stronger. I think the resolution needed to be more clear in articulating why the way in which the decision was made was inappropriate and as a result of that, the decision is flawed,” Nelson said. “We need to be clearer how we want them to rectify the situation.”

Nelson emphasized the importance of the administration including the student body in the process of making decisions which affect students.

“What I’d like to see the administration do is to sign a document that they will include students in every major decision that affects their day-to-day experience,” he said. “The majority of students support a smoking ban. The administration should bring students back to the table. There are a lot of questions that are still on the table; the University should make a commitment to including students in that.”

With additional reporting by Ben Sales