One of the referendum questions on this spring's Duke Student Government election ballot was "Do you favor a residential smoking ban?" With less than half of the campus voting, 57.70% of students said yes and 35.11% said not in favor.
Do you favor a residential smoking ban?

Personal choice--with a roommate's consent--slightly outnumbered the "banners" in our random poll of students, with some prejudice. "As long as your roommate doesn't mind if you smoke, I don't see the problem," said junior Donna Rice, a self-identified smoker. "If it's a conflict, then you resolve it. By the time you get to college, you should be able to resolve conflicts like that. I don't think it's the administration's business."

Tanisha Robinson, a junior, who is "not a fan of smoking," said, "I think a person has the right to smoke in their room. It's not illegal. It's a person's own business if they want to smoke. I am against smoking, but I am also against a smoking ban."

Said freshman, and smoker, Nick Snyder, "I hate it, everyone hates it. If you go to a party on West, everyone is smoking. What are they gonna do? Have police making sure you don't smoke? What's going to be the penalty? I haven't heard much about why we're having this [ban]."

Second-hand smoke was a factor in those favoring the ban. "If there's a health risk to other people by smoking in the dorms, then yes, I'm in favor of it," said junior Jillian Johnson. For first-year student Catherine Roberts, "It bothers me when you can smell smoke in a hall and it infiltrates the dorm rooms. There's no reason you can't go outside to smoke."

Sophomore Gabriel Griffin says he's for the smoking ban. "In general, if individual behavior affects the community in a negative way, I think the community has a right to limit it in some way."

How will the recent pedophilia scandal affect the clergy and laity?

The pedophilia crisis facing the Catholic Church is tragic in its consequences. Those closest to the incidents of abuse are obviously the most seriously affected--especially the victims, their families, and their fellow parishioners. Besides the actual abuse, the hierarchy's handling of the crisis has been scandalous. But there is another victim: the bond of trust that is so essential to clergy-parishioner relationships and to the clergy's moral authority.

Clergy relate to people in the deepest moments of their lives, in moments of profound sorrow as well as great joy. These are often times of great vulnerability, and parishioners need to be able to trust that their vulnerability will not be exploited. Being ordained as one called by God symbolizes that the pastor can be trusted. When, however, clergy engage in pedophilia, in other forms of sexual abuse, or abuse of their position generally, this sacred bond is violated and their moral authority is called into question.

Would that the damage could be limited only to those involved, as serious and painful as this is; yet all priests and laity are implicated. The large majority of exemplary Catholic clergy will suffer the effects of their brother priests' failures, and many Catholic parents will think twice about allowing their child to be an altar boy or girl--regardless of their respect for their priest.

Furthermore, there will no doubt be a spillover effect. The relationships between clergy and laity of other faiths are also likely to be tainted by these events. Public-opinion data from the past two decades revealed that the public's confidence in religious leaders dropped substantially for all age groups and especially among the young. The pedophilia crisis will do further damage.

The poet John Donne once wrote that "No man is an island." Neither is any priest or minister an island. What one does has consequences for all.

----Jackson W. Carroll, Ruth W. and A. Morris Williams Jr. Professor Emeritus of Religion and Society in the Duke Divinity School, and director of Pulpit & Pew: Research on Pastoral Leadership"