A single new strategic priority focused on environmental justice, sustainability and climate action was approved by the college’s Board of Trustees in 2023. Within the efforts of this priority, we find the new “Smoke- and Tobacco-Free Campus Policy“, which marks a critical inflection point in the college’s understanding of the relationship between health, space and environmental policies with the construction of three new areas specifically designated for smoking. The policy shapes the complex socio-political and spatial dynamics between different members and organizations of the college community.
The smoking areas at Whitman College are not simple interventions in the name of health, but rather they are deeply constructed with symbolic and practical implications for social stratification and identity at Whitman College, which directly impacts how different individuals and groups navigate and experience campus environment. These spaces engage with larger conversations of issues of power, control and inclusion in campus life.
As in many other higher education institutions, smoking at Whitman is a visible activity currently restricted only by Federal and State’s legislations, such as Washington State’s Smoking in Public Places Act. Smoking has been integrated into various individual and communal spaces across campus, including outside dorm buildings and open green areas outside academic halls. That’s why the creation of areas specifically designated for smoking represents a significant cultural and policy shift on campus, driven by the college’s desire to better align with contemporary Western health and environmental standards.
Despite the valid health concerns, the specific locations chosen for the construction of the smoking areas—located at the peripheries of the academic and social spaces on campus—suggest a strategically crafted decision that disrupts the geographical spaces on campus used daily by students, employees and visitors. This decision-making process reflects a contested negotiation of the values held by the college community, potentially reinforcing already existing class and broader societal hierarchies through the segregation of certain behaviors, such as smoking, and by extension, of individuals who participate in these activities.
By designating specific areas for smoking, the policy immediately creates a system of segregation between smokers and non-smokers. This process of classification creates physical, psychological and social boundaries that have the potential to reinforce negative perceptions of smokers, making them “others” who must be contained and controlled under certain limits and conditions.
Nevertheless, the dichotomy created in these new spaces may lead to further stigmatization and social ostracization, affecting the form in which the non-smoking college community may perceive and treat individuals who decide to smoke and vice versa. Such categorizations can foster social environments where identities are negotiated—some being valorized while others are marginalized.
These new spaces do not only serve as sites for smoking. These spaces also become symbolic spaces of class forcibly regulated by health concerns. This may suggest that the new institutional health policies are subtly aligning with the existing social structures and power relations currently present at Whitman College. The spaces selected for the smoking areas are therefore not only a way to promote better health practices in the college, but a natural and expected progression and reinforcement of values and hierarchies already existing at Whitman.
These places embody the values and ideals of a healthy environment, serving as an extension of the College’s domain while also being places for difference and contestation, challenging the uniformity of the campus environment. These spaces challenge the homogeneous application of health policies across communities and may suggest larger contestations between initiatives aimed at improving public health and personal/collective freedoms.
Lastly, these spaces are rooted and constructed under traditional Western scientific models of healthcare; which may underscore a significantly narrow understanding of health and well-being. This practice may inadvertently prioritize a homogenized view of health that puts the individual and not the community, at the center. Under this approach, there is a refusal to actively engage with the complexity of realities that influence the daily choices and behaviors of individuals on campus and elsewhere. If the policy fails to consider these realities, it may have a counterproductive effect, with a reinforcement of the very behaviors that it seeks to change, showcasing a gap between the policy intentions and understanding with its real execution and outcomes.
The new smoking sites serve as a critical reminder that no space is neutral; they are all entangled with power and meaning, shaping the social fabric of institutions and communities.
