<p>I would like to apologize if any of my prior posts offended the true oppressed minority–the selfish.</p>
<p>As for the facts, they are that nut allergies are pretty common, and are life-threatening for a substantial portion of the people who have them. As I tried to state several times, it’s all about figuring out what level of accommodation is cost-effective. But we keep getting arguments against total bans, and slippery slope arguments about bans on other substances, and so on. Obviously, some people won’t give up their PB&J sandwiches until they are pried from their cold, dead hands. I would suggest that such people should go to colleges where a sense of community is not highly valued–they might feel more comfortable there.</p>
<p>I’ve seen many here advocate that the student with the severe allergy attend a college where she can live in an apartment and cook her own food. But that severely limits her choice of school. Instead, we have a school that has chosen to keep peanut products out of the food service program. If it’s OK for the student with the allergy to have to research colleges, why is it terrible to ask other students without allergies to do similar research? If they absolutely must have access to peanut butter as part of their meal plan, then they should be the ones doing some research into colleges that will guarantee access. It doesn’t matter what percentage of students have allergies, or how severe they are - if a private college wants to ban peanut butter, whether to protect particular students, or to reduce their own liability, that is their choice.</p>
<p>The argument that someone has to adapt during their 4 (or more) years of college life works both ways. At the college in question, a decision was made to have only one dining facility, to foster a sense of community. Do they then isolate a small number of students who can’t eat there? What would we say if that one dining facility was not handicapped accessible, but they offered to excuse the student in a wheelchair from the meal plan? </p>
<p>Thankfully none of my children are allergic to peanuts, though my oldest was as a toddler. But we’ve dealt with many other allergies. Students with these allergies already make sacrifices on a daily basis. Why do we need to ask them to make yet another major sacrifice? I suspect that access to peanut butter is not quite as high a priority for those who want it, compared to those who need a peanut free environment.</p>
<p>We cannot provide a 100% safe environment for students with food allergies, but I find it completely appropriate to teach all that part of being a member of a community is accommodating the needs of other members of the community. Sometimes that means the larger group making a small sacrifice, so the single member doesn’t need to make a huge sacrifice. What is the point of attending a small liberal arts college, known for its community spirit, if you can’t participate in that community?</p>
<p>Isn’t it just as selfish to use cost-effectiveness as a factor in determining what level of accommodations are appropriate? If we truly “value people’s lives,” should we not spend every cent necessary to demonstrate that commitment? Also, why is it unreasonable to consider bans on other items to which people might be deathly allergic? I guess I don’t know what you are arguing here.</p>
<p>To many, it’s all about numbers. To us, it’s about people we love. Put in these unenviable shoes, I’d wager some of you might see things a bit differently. Maybe not, but walking a mile in someone else’s shoes can do funny things to previously held convictions.</p>
<p>Asking for students to help a fellow student eliminate a huge source of stress in this ONE place, during this ONE season in their lives --a stress that is inconceivable to most–is not unreasonable. It’s called community, compassion, and kindness. I do believe that most students, when given the opportunity to reach out and do something benevolent and selfless, would do it.</p>
<p>I’m not loving the sanctimoniousness of some of these posts. Can we possibly disagree about what is and is not a reasonable accommodation without suggesting that everyone who opposes the precise measures that you deem acceptable is selfish and doesn’t value community - or even the lives of others?</p>
<p>I don’t think people with peanut allergies should be limited to CCs. But since the vast majority of colleges in the country have multiple dining halls, and I’m not sure if anyone here is objecting to designating one dining hall peanut free, what we are actually saying is that maybe the small minority of people whose allergies are so severe that only a totally nut-free environment will do can’t go to a relatively small number of LACs - or, at least, can’t use their dining halls. </p>
<p>I actually agree that a high enough risk might warrant what might otherwise seem to be an excessive level of restriction. I don’t, however, see evidence that the risk is that high, or that having the small number of schools with a single dining hall go peanut free would meaningfully decrease it. We’re dealing with an allergy that affects about half of one percent of the population. Not all of those people have anaphylactic reactions, and not all of the people who do have anaphylactic reactions are so allergic that someone else eating peanut butter at the next table would trigger it. In the US, there are 10 deaths per year from peanut allergies, most of which, is all likelihood, come from actually ingesting a peanut product that was not properly labeled. I’ve never heard of one of these deaths occurring at a college dining hall (which doesn’t mean it hasn’t happened, but I would be shocked if it had happened more than once or twice in the entire history of modern college dining). I suspect many of the ones that do occur in restaurants and other public food facilities could have been avoiding by taking some of the less restrictive measures that the cruel, heartless pro-peanut folks are suggesting. </p>
<p>I’m curious if those of you who support peanut bans also want to return to prohibition. While prohibition wasn’t terribly effective in eliminating alcohol, I suspect, if implemented today, it would cut down on more than ten drunken driving deaths each year. Sounds to me like anyone who opposes such an action values their martinis more than human life.</p>
<p>We are talking about one college (or maybe one of a small number of colleges). It seems to be OK to limit the food choices at one our of several dining facilities. Why can’t we then expand on that to say that food choice is now limited at one of several colleges. Looking at the big picture, this allows the student with allergies that choice of a 4-year private college. Not the choice of ANY 4 year private college, but the option of at least one.</p>
<p>In thinking about the boy with the AXE allergy, I think it is appropriate for the school to do what it can to accomodate him. If we are going to compare his situation to a disability, then we need to treat it as such. Under federal law, he is entitled to a free and appropriate public education, and it should be delivered in the least restrictive environment. That means 5 hours of private tutoring a week doesn’t cut it. If he can be educated in a regular classroom setting, he should be in a classroom with other students. The school district has a few choices - ban AXE and other allergens from the school, or pay tuition for him to attend another school that does. Those same parents whose children continue to wear AXE to school will probably be the same ones who wonder why their school district must “waste” money sending this boy to a private school. They probably also don’t realize how much that 5 hours of tutoring per week is costing taxpayers.</p>
<p>If we’re going to say it is not the responsibility of others to change what they wear for his benefit, then perhaps we should expand upon that thought. Why should my daughter not be allowed to wear a sun dress on a hot day? Sure, it’s a distraction to the boys, but they should just concentrate on their work. We all have to make small sacrifices to be part of the community.</p>
<p>I dislike the whole “You value peanuts over my loved one’s life.” argument. It’s an illogical argument filled with assumptions and overreactions.</p>
<p>CTScoutMom, I’m not seeing the logic of your first paragraph. If - as I think is reasonable - schools with multiple dining halls designated one of them as peanut free, students with peanut allergies would ALREADY have the choice to go to most colleges without needing to implement a ban in any campus with a single dining facility. Is it really that restrictive to tell someone not satisfied with the measures Swarthmore or Williams is taking to protect him (which may or may not be rational on his part) that he is “limited” to all eight Ivies, Johns Hopkins, Northwestern, Stanford, and MIT, not to mention every flagship public in the nation?</p>
<p>“She has no need for the ENVIRONMENT to be gluten-free as long as she has a gluten-free option.”</p>
<p>Pizzagirl, your D might actually benefit from gluten-free environment, because, according to some reports, even tiny amount of gluten (e.g., from someone’s fingers touching bread then touching her food) undermines the efforts to keep it out of the diet. For example, the Mayo Clinic has this warning:
<p>Sorry if this was mentioned and I missed it, but isn’t it a bigger liability concern for a college to publicize its dining hall as peanut-free, but somehow peanut products might make their way in (employee error, for example) causing injury, than if they didn’t provide peanut-free zones at all?</p>
<p>apprenticeprof, what I’m suggesting is to look at the big picture. We’re not talking about ALL small LAC’s with a single dining hall going peanut free, but some. The student with an allergy is still limited, just not as limited in choice. </p>
<p>If we look at the argument, it could be extended the other direction - why restrict the options at ANY dining facility? Sure, there are other facilities available, but what if the restricted facility is the most convenient? That inconveniences the students that would otherwise choose to eat there. The small colleges have the right to have only one dining facility, and they also have the right to restrict what is served there. Students who don’t like those restrictions have the option of going somewhere else - just as a student with an allergy has the option of choosing another college if their top choice won’t accommodate their needs.</p>
<p>Because those other items don’t need to be prohibited from ALL people – the person can choose not to eat them. Honestly, I don’t know why we keep lumping in gluten and shellfish and all other kinds of allergies along with peanut. There is a fundamental difference between something that you’re allergic to that you can manage by simply not eating it, and something that you’re allergic to that you can’t be in the vicinity of.</p>
<p>In the case of my D’s college (which has, I think, maybe 4 dining halls, not sure) - having one peanut-free eating hall seems to make perfect sense. It is hardly some major hardship. Students can eat at any given hall, but those with peanut allergies get first dibs on that dorm, which is eminently fair IMO. What’s so unreasonable about that?</p>
<p>And at one point you have to live in reality. They provide gluten-free breads (and a separate toaster) and gluten-free meal options that are reasonably separate from the gluten-containing foods. That’s a reasonable accommodation, IMO. But again, you can’t compare gluten to a peanut allergy. If she eats a trace amount of gluten, she gets an upset stomach. She isn’t going into anaphylactic shock and needing to be rushed to the hospital. We really need to stop comparing the two.</p>
If we had 0.5% of the population who was deathly allergic to shellfish or guten and could not touch it, we should ban all shellfish or gluten from the dining halls correct?</p>
<p>They talk about a “national conversation” and a paradigm shift in how to prevent things like this from happening. A good thing, to get folks talking. </p>
<p>We may not be able to fix this problem to everyone’s liking, or prevent 100 % of accidental nut exposures, but taking small steps in the right direction is better than nothing at all, IMHO.</p>
<p>Could not TOUCH it, or could not even BE IN THE SAME ROOM with it? </p>
<p>Because we keep conflating the distinction between can’t eat it, can’t touch it - which are easily accommodatable and require little or no “sacrifice” from others – and can’t even breathe the same air. </p>
<p>But yeah, if gluten and shellfish allergies were LIKE PEANUT ALLERGIES – then sure, maybe the same thought process would apply. But since they aren’t, what’s the point?</p>
<p>Pizzagirl, that stomach upset is actually compounding damage to the intestines that can lead to much severe problems later in life. Of course, it is not as dramatic as a person with severe PA going into anaphylactic shock to make the headlines, but it is a slow, silent killer. Do not dismiss it just because it is “not like PA”. I have a family member who is dealing with the consequences of such " it is just an upset stomach".</p>