Junior Evan Schwartz, a Hatchet columnist, reacts to a new policy at Tufts University and discusses why universities should be wary when trying to regulate sexual behavior.
Tufts University recently added a new wrinkle to its residence hall room guest policy specifically prohibiting sex when a roommate is present. The Office of Residential Life claims that they received “a significant number” of calls last year from roommates complaining that their roommates were having sex with a blatant disregard for the sanctity of the room. At the very least these furious fornicators are ignoring most rules on public decency.
Perhaps you should spend less time frosting your article with inappropriate alliteration and misused phrases like “dangerous precedent” and spend more time asking yourself why Tufts decided to do this.
You completely disregard the rights of the non-fornicating roommate, which include being in his or her room without having to be unwillingly exposed to live sex.
It’s sick that so many students at Tufts insist on having sex while their roommate is in the room and it’s just plain sad that it got to such a point where the university had to intervene.
I just love that the author named his article after the fallacy upon which it relies. The fact is that the rule passed at Tufts does not even touch on the content of one’s sexual relationship. The author distorts the scope of this rule and completely blows it out of proportion. What is to stop the University from taking this too far and making ridiculous rules regarding sexual relationships? Common sense.
Possible litigation aside, Universities would face a massive backlash from students and the public. The rule in question does not even touch on the content of one’s sexual relationships, and to imply that it could relies on classical fallacies that undermine any argument the author was trying to put forward.
What separates this type of argument from the arguments used by Republicans to attack health care reform? The government, by creating a public option, is entering the realm of health care. What is to stop them from getting between me and my doctor, rationing care, and killing my grandma? Common sense.
This article is a grasping, knee-jerk, fear-mongering reaction to a common sense rule. It strikes me that the style is akin to crappy political arguments that we all love to hate.
I can’t figure out if this is satire or not. Some parts reek of it, such as the Puritans comment, while other parts seem like genuine outrage.