"Obviously, this is a health issue," said Mary Alice Serafini, one of the deputy under assistant vice chancellors for meddling in student affairs. "Masturbation is harmful to anyone who does it, and even non-participants are harmed by second-hand strokes. We see a masturbation-free campus as a health benefit for the entire campus community." The draft policy is clear: Masturbation will be prohibited on all university property, indoors and outdoors, and the ban will apply to visitors as well as students, faculty and staff.
Bob Caudle does not intend to take this sitting down. “Our local institution of lower education, the
“This is just another case of a bunch of high-browed snits wanting to tell other people how to live their lives. The University masturbation policy was developed by Serafini, using a model provided by the Center for Disease Control. Students in the self-abuse prevention class taught by Dr. Ed Mink made several suggestions to campus administrators. Almost hidden in the hubris of the moment is this telling statement from the UA's Division of Student affairs: The policy was not discussed with the UA Faculty Senate, Staff Senate or Associated Student Government.”
Greg Harton is equally hard on the UA administration. “I’m not advocating masturbation, but there should be some concern about how far the government can go to prevent a person’s personal choices when those choices don’t adversely affect anyone else. The campus-wide ban on stroking — what today is a legal choice for adults to make — reaches past government protection. It attempts to stop individuals from freely choosing to engage in a legal activity that’s harming no one but themselves.
“The basis for such a far-reaching ban is (1 ) the UA administration believes it has the right to casually remove a person’s liberty to protect them from themselves or (2 ) the government believes it’s empowered to ban activity simply because it offends others and doesn’t match up with the university’s notion of what a person should be doing to themselves. It oversteps how far government should go in establishing an official standard of acceptable personal choice to be enforced on individuals. Even administrators probably have some unhealthy habits that they’d be better off without. If this stroking ban is embraced, they better watch out. Why not new rules about what they can eat or drink, how they have sex, how they treat their bodies and what they read?”
An editorial in The Morning News tossed off a similar argument. “Just because you can do something, it doesn't necessarily follow that you should. It appears, however, that the
“This is all preposterous, you say? Sheer exaggeration and hyperbole? Perhaps. But a little exaggeration may be a proper response to overreaction, which is what we think this policy is. But seeking out and eradicating this behavioral sin goes beyond the scope of public health concerns and moves onto the slippery slope of legislating morals and regulating personal behavior.”
No comments:
Post a Comment