<p>No one needed to say it “outright”. It came across loud and clear in what people were willing (or not willing) to do. </p>
<p>I find it contradictory to say that someone values my life, yet is unwilling to do something that will help keep me out of life threatening danger. You either do, or don’t value my life, (complete with it’s unprovoked limitations and issues) even if valuing me means sacrificing one food item, during your four years at college, in one particular location on campus. </p>
<p>Ok, I really hope to be done. I wish all well. Especially fellow allergy families. Keep reading those labels, carrying handwipes and praying for good luck. ;-)</p>
<p>I think steps should be taken to ensure safety for PA students, but the question is, how should the school accomodate those students. Should it be all or none. If it’s one dining hall, how should the students be accomodated. If its multiple dining halls, then it make absolute sense to have at leat one nut free environment. But where does it start and where does it end. If we are just concerned about the dining hall, that would be fine, but how do you regulate personal living spaces, personal property, one’s own peanut breath, campus transportation, desks, books in the library, Work study workspaces, the gym,The list goes on. It has got to be reasonable, not over the top.</p>
It is contradictory. I feel many of the responses in this thread do value the PA’s life, but what they’re willing to do is conditional. For example, somebody is willing to provide an area in the dining hall that is allergen free, but is unwilling to ban peanuts in the entire dining hall. It’s really about viewpoint. The side that is being helped out can believe they’re not being helped, but if accommodations/alterations have been made, they can’t say nothing has been done.</p>
<p>milkandsugar, I was thinking along the same lines. My D would not have a problem with a dining hall ban, but she has PB in her room. I mentioned this upthread,and someone said doesn’t she wash her hands after eating? Not always, and what if she got a trace of PB on the bathroom door handle on the way in to wash her hands? If we are talking this level of sensitivity, it will be very hard to ensure safety.</p>
<p>Agree, DP. And shellz, no one is disagreeing that colleges should designate a dining hall peanut-free if they can. </p>
<p>I do feel strongly that it “takes a village” and that we should all do our part to support each other. But please don’t place the entire burden of “valuing your life” on those of us who disagree with your absolute terms of what that means in terms of your peanut allergy. Of course I, like any reasonable and compassionate adult, would do what I could to help you avoid nut exposure. I just bristle at the suggestion that I don’t “value your life” because I don’t agree with how you think we should go about it.</p>
<p>Also, to point out the obvious, PA sufferers have other risk factors in their lives just like everyone else does. It isn’t only a peanut reaction that can deprive them of a healthy and long life. For young adults, there are all the risks that are higher for their age group. For me to feel sure that all our kids are safe, I want to know that everyone is a good driver who never has an accident; no one walks around with loaded handguns; and no one encourages them to drink to excess or get into compromising positions. Of course, it is not entirely possible to reduce risk to zero. That is the point.</p>
<p>(1) For some PA sufferers, mere contact with peanut products can cause a reaction, which distinguishes their situation from that of your kids, who apparently need to be concerned about ingestion only.</p>
<p>(2) Its all well and good to pack up your food at home and take it wherever you go. For college students, in many cases, the college is their home and the dining hall is their kitchen. Theyre not visiting for an afternoon - theyre living there for months at a time. Sorry, but you cant analogize their situation to that of your kids on a days outing.</p>
<h2>My apologies for not reading the entire thread, so perhaps this was brought up already. Apparently, this is a tiny college if we are talking about one only dining hall. How would your kid feel to be known among his peers as the student who “killed” PB&J? Will this help to make him or her feel “included” and “normal”?</h2>
<p>A side note… Whould you serve your kid this:</p>
<p>“For some PA sufferers, mere contact with peanut products can cause a reaction…”</p>
<p>dodgersmom, in this case, as it has been discussed upthread, making a dining hall peanut-free is not even a half of the solution… If the allergy is so severe, the person needs to be placed in a complete peanut-free environment, which would mean saying no to dorm, gym, etc. and foregoing many college activities because it is impossible to control what the others might do - inadvertently.</p>
<p>Of course my right to eat peanuts isn’t more important than someone’s life. Neither is my right to go on an airplane without stripping stark naked, but I wouldn’t be pleased about being asked to do that either. Similarly, when I go hiking, swim in an ocean, or ride a rollercoaster, I’m not saying that I value any of those things more than my life, even though they all carry some degree of risk. </p>
<p>There is always a balance that needs to be maintained between security and freedom, whether we’re talking about national security, public safety, or the safety of a small minority. Frankly, if we take seriously the notion that what we are talking about here is valuing the peanut over someone’s life, then every single person who supports less than a national ban on peanut products is doing the same, since we’ve established that almost any situation can turn deadly for someone with severe peanut allergies. Or if you support a ban on peanuts, but not a ban, at least in individual schools or workplaces, on apples (to which a friend of mine is deathly allergic), you are valuing the apple more than my friend’s life.</p>
<p>We all draw the line in different places. That doesn’t mean people who advocate slightly less restrictive policies lack compassion or don’t care about kids - or adults, really - with allergies.</p>
<p>Personally, I think DeskPotato’s suggestions to maintain cross contamination are excellent, and I certainly think schools are obligated to make reasonable accommodations (ie, a single with a kitchen) for students with severe allergies, just as they are for students with physical disabilities (under the ADA a school isn’t going to get away with saying "well, we don’t have any handicapped accessible rooms, so you are out of luck). I consider making the single dining hall on a campus entirely peanut free excessive for the reasons others have stated, although instructing dining services to make their prepared food without peanuts, given the frequency and seriousness of the allergy, seems reasonable and not terribly restrictive.</p>
<p>Exactly. This is what I meant about the “terms” imposed by the PA sufferer. Everyone else is supposed to follow the precautions she is establishing to demonstrate that we “value her life,” yet we have no say in what other things we would recommend she do to ensure her safety. When we see a friend or family member behaving recklessly, we speak up. But if we see the PA sufferer who has successfully gotten nuts banned from the dining hall going to a movie theater where the concession stand sells nut-filled candy bars, or at the food court in the mall where the Chinese place has cashew chicken, we have no authority to intervene and remove her from danger. Nor do we have a right to stop her if we see her drinking to excess, smoking, becoming morbidly obese, or doing anything else that also could threaten her life.</p>
<p>Dogersmom- I’m sorry. But ingestion is not our only issue. Please don’t assume. And it’s not in an outing. It’s every day. In our own kitchen and outside. And that means its me that is responsible for the oversight in our home. We do have others in our household that we do not restrict, just for the record. But honestly, it doesn’t really matter. I’m not interested in splitting hairs. My point is that at some point in your life you have to be solely responsible for it yourself. Sooner or later. Having said that, I will reiterate that I respect the situation and the stress and constant concern that comes with it. I live it.</p>
<p>As I indicated above, what level of precautions a college should take requires a cost-benefit analysis. I don’t advocate a campus-wide ban of peanuts to accommodate a single person. But on the other hand, the measures suggested by Desk Potato seem pretty modest and low-cost to me.</p>
<p>But it’s my opinion that one of the benefits of accommodations, and one that I think is not sufficiently valued by some folks, is the benefit of teaching and modeling the idea that we’re all in this together, and that we care for one another, and that we’re willing to make some sacrifices for those around us. I think “personal responsibility” is a good thing, but not when it’s a code word for “devil take the hindmost” or “hey, not my problem.”</p>
<p>We have a reached a point where politically correct minority groups can cause almost any amount of expense for society, and to question their entitlements is deemed a sign of hard-heartedness. For example, in my suburb the cost of renovating the train stations to make them ADA-compliant is costing millions. Would it be more cost-effective to provide free or subsidized taxi services for the few disabled people who would use the trains? You’re not supposed to ask. Another example is the demand for “gender-neutral” bathrooms, disregarding the wishes the of the majority to placate a very politically correct minority.</p>
<p>Not to mention that students with “devil take the hindmonst” or “Hey, not my problem” are precisely the types of students many traditionally residential colleges would prefer to avoid as much as they can as those attitudes can be corrosive to the building of a viable campus community. This is especially the case with LACs and LAC-like universities. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not necessarily if the taxi services could refuse to drive to certain areas, charge higher rates which cancel out the subsidies, or can’t be found when needed.</p>
<p>I saw this in practice many times when accompanying friends who happen to be seniors. Worse, accountability isn’t always guaranteed by laws such as ones in NYC*. </p>
<p>A few taxi drivers have also been known to refuse to stop for customers due to racial factors, perceived inconvenience(i.e. seniors with walkers), etc. There have been complaints filed with the TLC which resulted in more stringent penalties/accountability procedures** to reduce such illegal practices. </p>
<p>*I.e.: Taxi drivers refusing to drive to certain neighborhoods due to perceived high crime rates or more often…because it won’t be as easy to find a customer who wants to make a “paid” return trip to more bustling areas with many more potential customers.</p>
<p>** I.e. Undercover agents from city agencies/journalists.</p>
<p>Access for physically disabled has been law & common sense for some time…
If fcilities need to be redesigned to comply with the law, it seems they are due to be updated anyway.</p>
<p>How many decades have wheelchairs been in use?</p>