253 lines
18 KiB
Plaintext
253 lines
18 KiB
Plaintext
From dali.cs.montana.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!uunet!stanford.edu!neon.Stanford.EDU!news Thu Apr 25 11:43:48 PDT 1991
|
|
|
|
|
|
What good is it to me, after all, if there is an authority always busy to see
|
|
to the tranquil enjoyment of my pleasures and going ahead to brush all dangers
|
|
away from my path without giving me even the trouble to think about it, if that
|
|
authority, which protects me from the smallest thorns on my journey, is also
|
|
the absolute master of my liberty and of my life?
|
|
--Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America
|
|
|
|
Consider the following scenario. The Virginia Legislature decides that
|
|
universities receiving state funding should no longer tolerate homosexual
|
|
activity on their campuses. They pass a law stating that universities will
|
|
lose their funding by December 1st unless they: 1) clearly prohibit such
|
|
activity on campus and at school functions, and 2) threaten to expel any
|
|
student and fire any faculty or staff member who violates the policy. After
|
|
all, homosexual activity is a felony in Virginia, so why shouldn't the
|
|
government do everything it can to make sure that our young people and those
|
|
who serve as their role models "just say no" to gay sex?
|
|
This scenario is less far-fetched than you might imagine. Virginia's
|
|
anti-sodomy law is not some ancient statute that is accidentally still on the
|
|
books. The legislature rewrote it in 1981 to clarify the previously vague
|
|
phrase "crime against nature" and to differentiate between the more heinous
|
|
crime of forced sodomy (a felony punishable by life imprisonment) and the still
|
|
heinous but not quite so awful crime of consensual sodomy (a mere "class 6"
|
|
felony). The Virginia Supreme Court decided a few years ago that it is not a
|
|
violation of privacy for police to secretly observe and videotape the activity
|
|
in a locked stall of a public bathroom if it helps them to eliminate homosexual
|
|
activity there. Gay bars are illegal in Virginia under a clause that says that
|
|
no bar shall be granted a license to serve alcohol if it is a known meeting
|
|
place for gamblers, prostitutes, drug dealers, homosexuals, or other criminals.
|
|
Getting back to my hypothetical university, suppose that the administration
|
|
caves in and has one of its lawyers draw up a new "campus sexual activity
|
|
policy" that strictly prohibits homosexual sex on campus and at campus events.
|
|
What advice would you give to the students, faculty and staff? Should gay
|
|
people give in and abstain from having sex? And if they refuse, should their
|
|
nongay roommates and friends be required to turn them in? Should RAs and RFs
|
|
be expected to police the dorms and enforce the policy?
|
|
My answer to all of these questions is "no." I firmly believe that
|
|
government has no right to interfere in any activity that takes place in
|
|
private between consenting adults. Sexual activity, for example, may be
|
|
restricted by government only if it takes place in public, or one of the
|
|
partners does not consent to the activity, or a child is involved.
|
|
I do not, however, advocate capriciously disobeying laws. I broke many laws
|
|
in my youth, but in recent years I have tried to be more careful about which
|
|
laws I break. Driving on a public street or highway, for example, is a
|
|
privilege, not a right. When you disobey traffic regulations, you endanger not
|
|
only yourself, but also any others who are driving on the same road. Even
|
|
driving on private property is not an entirely private activity if gasoline is
|
|
burned, because such activity has an effect on the environment and the
|
|
availability of gasoline.
|
|
I could find no rational justification for speeding. The 55mph speed limit
|
|
was intended partially to improve highway safety but mostly to reduce national
|
|
consumption of gasoline. What right do I have to endanger others, to increase
|
|
air pollution, to increase our dependence on foreign oil, and to increase the
|
|
probability of another Exxon-Valdez disaster by driving faster than 55? None.
|
|
As a result, I now drive 55. I am the only person I know who drives 55. But
|
|
my gas mileage has improved significantly.
|
|
What about underage drinking? According to my principle, the government has
|
|
no authority to regulate drinking that takes place in private among consenting
|
|
adults. The key question is whether those under 21 are adults. I think that
|
|
most Americans feel as I do that the age of 18 is a reasonable threshold to set
|
|
for a legal definition of adulthood. Eighteen-year-olds can vote, can be
|
|
drafted, are tried as adults when they commit crimes, and are expected to be
|
|
financially responsible for themselves. It makes no sense to treat them as
|
|
adults in every respect but this one.
|
|
Thus, I believe that government has no authority to prohibit drinking done in
|
|
private by those who are 18 or older. The primary motivation for raising the
|
|
drinking age to 21 was the reduction of highway deaths due to teenage drinking.
|
|
While I think the goal is desirable and the approach is logical, I do not
|
|
believe that the ends justify the means. It is perfectly reasonable for
|
|
government to outlaw drunk driving and to vigorously pursue violators, but it
|
|
may not infringe on personal liberty to do so.
|
|
What about the use of drugs? Again, according to my principle the government
|
|
has no authority to regulate what consenting adults choose to do in private.
|
|
No matter how dire the consequences of drug use might be for an individual, the
|
|
government may not make the decision for an individual.
|
|
The counterargument is that drug use affects more than just an individual
|
|
because it generates crime and addicts. The crime argument is almost entirely
|
|
circular because drug laws generate most such crime. If drugs were
|
|
decriminalized, drug users and drug dealers (except those who sell to children)
|
|
would no longer be criminals, and the violence associated with drug dealing
|
|
would disappear when the dealers found themselves unable to compete with
|
|
cheaper and higher quality drugs being sold along with beer and wine at your
|
|
local Safeway.
|
|
The addict argument is more complex. If you are committed to the notion of a
|
|
welfare state, then you might very well be concerned about the possibility that
|
|
individuals will become addicted to drugs and eventually become a burden on
|
|
your taxes. I would personally rather die than accept government welfare, so I
|
|
find it disturbing that people use this argument to prevent me from using
|
|
addictive drugs.
|
|
I am even more troubled, however, by the fact that this argument has no
|
|
practical bounds. If recreational rock-climbing is dangerous, why can't the
|
|
welfare state ban it so that it does not have to support its victims? If
|
|
eating greasy hamburgers and candy is bad for your health, why can't the
|
|
welfare state ban them so that it does not have to pay the associated medical
|
|
costs? Once you accept the addict argument, you grant the government unlimited
|
|
power to limit your personal freedom. As a result, I reject all such
|
|
arguments. In fact, I think this predicament is one of the best arguments
|
|
against the notion of a welfare state.
|
|
Thus, I disagree in principle with those who want to control highly-addictive
|
|
substances, but I understand the logic behind their reasoning. I feel that the
|
|
federal government, however, in its "just say no" campaign against drugs
|
|
violates not only principle, but common sense as well.
|
|
Most absurd of all is the government's "zero tolerance" of all drugs,
|
|
independent of their particular properties. Crack cocaine is taken to be the
|
|
prototypical drug in setting drug policy, which makes about as much sense as
|
|
deciding how to treat British citizens by assuming they are all like Jack the
|
|
Ripper.
|
|
Consider, for example, marijuana. One if its most desirable qualities is
|
|
that it can be grown at home. Is there a better way to undercut the
|
|
"international drug cartel" and reduce violent crime associated with drug
|
|
dealing than to have individuals produce their own supply of drugs? Yet the
|
|
government uses the crime associated with crack and crack dealing as a way to
|
|
justify its campaign against marijuana users and growers.
|
|
My own personal favorite drug is a substance called MDA. MDA has been
|
|
nicknamed "the love drug" because its primary effects are extreme euphoria and
|
|
a sense of liking everyone. It has been extensively studied, it is not
|
|
addictive, no detrimental long-term side effects have been recorded in the 50
|
|
years it has been studied, it lessens rather than heightens feelings of anxiety
|
|
and paranoia, and it does not bring about significant loss of self-control.
|
|
About the most dangerous thing you might do under the influence of MDA that you
|
|
wouldn't do otherwise would be to hug or kiss someone (in fact, the US Army
|
|
experimented with MDA because they hoped they could use it to incapacitate an
|
|
enemy by sneaking it into their water supply).
|
|
I can find no logic in a policy that outlaws MDA and leaves as the one and
|
|
only legal mind-altering substance a drug that is highly addictive, that causes
|
|
significant loss of self-control to the point of loss of consciousness, that
|
|
increases violent behavior, that can have associated memory loss, and that
|
|
kills brain cells. As a drug, alcohol is one of the worst. I can understand
|
|
why its unique history in this country makes it virtually impossible to outlaw,
|
|
but why wouldn't alcohol's negative properties motivate the government to make
|
|
more desirable alternatives like MDA more readily available, in the hopes that
|
|
people would use MDA instead of alcohol?
|
|
Even though I grant that there is some logic in outlawing addictive
|
|
substances, there is no reasonable justification for outlawing the nonaddictive
|
|
drugs such as marijuana, MDA, LSD, mushrooms, and ecstasy. The government is
|
|
using faulty reasoning when it justifies campaigns against such drugs by citing
|
|
the problems associated with crack cocaine. And to have the only legal
|
|
alternative be an addictive drug that is as dangerous as alcohol is beyond
|
|
faulty reasoning, it's lunacy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That whenever any form of government become destructive to these ends, it is
|
|
the right of the people to alter or abolish it.
|
|
--Thomas Jefferson, The Declaration of Independence
|
|
|
|
In my previous article I described why I believe that government has no right
|
|
to regulate what adults do in private, meaning that laws outlawing the use of
|
|
drugs and laws outlawing drinking for those 18-21 have no authority. In this
|
|
article, I discuss my reaction to the new campus drug and alcohol policy.
|
|
First of all, it would be nice to see a copy, but Stanford doesn't seem
|
|
willing to make available to me a policy that threatens to fire me and that
|
|
I've lived under for the past month. I called the office of its author, Susan
|
|
Hoerger, but was told by her secretary that she didn't want to distribute the
|
|
new policy to "everyone on campus" and that I should get a copy through my
|
|
department chair. I have contacted the chairman's office several times since
|
|
then, but they have no copy of the policy either.
|
|
I have an odd combination of reactions to what I do know about the policy.
|
|
First, while I do not recognize the government's authority to limit drug and
|
|
alcohol use of citizens 18 or over, I do think that Stanford as a private
|
|
institution has the right to expel students or fire staff for such behavior. I
|
|
would try to convince members of the institution to behave otherwise, but I
|
|
don't think I have an inviolable "right" to my job at Stanford.
|
|
But even though I think it is Stanford's prerogative to pass such a policy, I
|
|
do not think it can succeed as an institution of higher learning if it does not
|
|
encourage its students, faculty and staff to take responsibility for their own
|
|
choices and if it does not afford each of them some sphere of privacy in which
|
|
to function. In short, if Stanford becomes a regulatory institution and
|
|
invades the privacy of its students, faculty and staff, it will ultimately
|
|
deteriorate in its effectiveness as a university.
|
|
Most importantly, I think that students must feel that the privacy of dorm
|
|
rooms on campus will not be violated. The university should be indifferent to
|
|
any private activity taking place between consenting adults in a dorm room,
|
|
even if that activity includes underage drinking or use of illegal drugs. I
|
|
believe that this holds even for dorm parties and activity in dorm common
|
|
areas, as long as everyone in the dorm feels comfortable about it. Similarly,
|
|
the university has no business interfering with analogous activity in the home
|
|
or apartment of a faculty or staff member, even if it happens to be on Stanford
|
|
land.
|
|
Furthermore, Stanford should not limit what students, faculty and staff carry
|
|
on their persons while on campus or at campus activities. I, for example,
|
|
often carry illegal drugs in my backpack, and I refuse to work for an
|
|
institution that wants to dictate what personal items I will carry around with
|
|
me.
|
|
What bothers me most about the new policy is that it was not initiated
|
|
because of any perceived problem, but as a reaction to coercion. The federal
|
|
government has no idea of what is best for Stanford's residences and activities
|
|
and I find their interference offensive. I am equally distressed by Stanford's
|
|
response. For all of our talk about being courageous and experimenting with a
|
|
new and better kind of university, we run for cover at the first sign of
|
|
trouble and allow an external entity to make our decisions for us.
|
|
I do not think that the federal government would have made good on its threat
|
|
if we failed to meet its standards. A similar showdown came in the summer of
|
|
1982. The Judge Advocate General of the Army wrote a letter to Harvard, Yale,
|
|
Columbia, NYU, UCLA and Wayne State University warning them that their DOD
|
|
funding would be cut off unless they stopped banning army recruiters from their
|
|
law schools. Those schools refused to allow DOD recruiters on campus because
|
|
the DOD openly discriminates against gays, lesbians and bisexuals. The threat
|
|
was made, the schools refused to change their policies, and nothing happened.
|
|
Stanford missed the entire controversy because, cowering sheep that we are, at
|
|
that time we didn't ban DOD recruiters (our law school now does ban them from
|
|
their facilities, although the administration still uses the DOD threat as an
|
|
excuse for allowing them into the CPPC).
|
|
In my personal life I've found that government most often accomplishes its
|
|
goals by threats it never intends to carry out. For example, when I was
|
|
recently banned from my Northern Virginia high school because I'm openly gay, I
|
|
decided that it was time to challenge Virginia's anti-sodomy law. I presented
|
|
myself for arrest at two different police stations, but they had no interest in
|
|
arresting me (in fact, they refused to arrest me, even though they agreed that
|
|
I was clearly guilty of a felony).
|
|
My advice regarding the new alcohol and drug policy is to defy it and to do
|
|
so as openly as you are willing to do. I encourage students to insist on the
|
|
right to decide whether they will drink or do drugs in their own dorm rooms. I
|
|
encourage RAs and RFs to refuse to enforce this policy and to reserve the right
|
|
to set the social tone for their own dorm. And I encourage faculty and staff
|
|
to deny the university any right to dictate what they will do in their own
|
|
homes and what they will carry with them on campus.
|
|
As for myself, I have done illegal drugs in the past and I will continue to
|
|
do so. I have never taught class or held office hours while under the
|
|
influence of drugs or alcohol, but I have kept illegal drugs in my backpack
|
|
while on campus, and I will do so in the future.
|
|
I know that my attitude about drugs will be shocking to many, especially
|
|
given the recent success of anti-drug propaganda. I don't claim to know
|
|
everything about drug use in America, but I know about my own life. On the
|
|
positive side, drugs have provided many enjoyable and memorable experiences and
|
|
my use of drugs has been an extremely important influence in my emotional,
|
|
intellectual and spiritual development. As for negatives, I have not
|
|
experienced any of the nightmares that supposedly go along with drugs. My
|
|
greatest fear was the loss of conscious control, but in ten years of drug use
|
|
I've never once experienced an uncontrollable lapse in awareness or judgement.
|
|
As for the "dark spiral of drug addiction," I have had literally hundreds of
|
|
friends who used illegal drugs, and not one of them has turned to a life of
|
|
crime or become hopelessly addicted to drugs. As for drug dealers, I have been
|
|
good friends with a half dozen of them, and none have been the least bit
|
|
violent and all felt that selling drugs to children was immoral. In fact, I've
|
|
had more interesting discussions about morality with drug dealers than I've
|
|
ever had with Stanford administrators or government officials.
|
|
In conclusion, let me mention that one of the most important events in my
|
|
development as a human being has been the realization that government has no
|
|
business making my choices for me and the subsequent determination on my part
|
|
to openly oppose any such encroachment. I realize that I might be arrested or
|
|
fired and that nobody will care that I drove the speed limit while breaking the
|
|
drug and sodomy laws, and I fully expect that any such hardship on my part
|
|
would go mostly unnoticed. The only alternative is to surrender control over
|
|
my future to a distant and alien power, and I do not understand how any
|
|
self-respecting individual, or self-respecting institution for that matter, can
|
|
possibly do so.
|