If irony is not what makes the world go around, it must be what keeps the monotonous pattern of days and nights interesting. Take this example .
After I completed my pre-season athletic physical last week I was dealt a handful of leaflets about common health risks. As I strolled out of Marchetti East and made my way toward Grand I read the following: “Don’t try to get a tan. Don’t use tanning salons.” Looking up from the photocopied sheet published by the American Academy of Physicians, my eyes were mesmerized by the blue and white neon sign of SLUTan. How ironic is it, I thought, that in Marchetti East I am warned to avoid tanning salons and in Marchetti West, a mere 139 strides away (Yes folks, Freud would call me anal-I measured), I can bake my skin until my heart is content.
If you get the impression that I am interested in something else besides trite ironies then you are absolutely right. SLUTan should not be allowed to rent university property. If these esteemed doctors warn us that “tanning booths damage your skin just like real sunlight does,” then what they are saying is that “Sunburns and suntans are signs that your skin has been damaged. The more damage the sun (or a tanning bed) does to your skin, the more likely you will get early wrinkles, skin cancer and other skin problems.” I do not think that a Jesuit university, which advocates education of the whole person (and that includes physical well-being), ought to promote a business whose services prove hazardous to their patrons’ health.
Some people may argue that they should be able to do with their bodies as they please. Legally speaking, that is their right, and I am not going to contest it. I am not proposing that Department of Public Safety patrol the West Pine Pools looking to bust people laying out under the palm trees. Nor am I suggesting that tanned individuals should be asked to leave the university. I do find it disconcerting that the university allows this business to make a profit on SLU property, using SLU’s name, through a service which seems detrimental to one’s health.
Further, since SLU collects rent from SLUTan, one could say that even Saint Louis University is making money off of the ultraviolet-ray-scorched backs of these tanners.
One need only read the fine print of last week’s The University News to understand that a precedent was set by the school 10 years ago on a similar issue. In July of 1990, the administration eliminated the sale of cigarettes from vending machines, Busch Memorial Center and the C-Store in Clemens. For some reason, school’s officials decided that commercial vending of tobacco ought to be relegated to off-campus establishments.
Recognizing, however, that smoking is an individual’s choice, the university did not ban smoking on campus. Instead, SLU removed cigarettes as a sign that it no longer promoted or condoned the sale or use of these carcinogenic products.
In a certain sense it seems that the issue of university tenants come down to a simple struggle of ethics versus profit. Of course in terms of economics, a commercial location on SLU property is quite lucrative to the entrepreneur who supplies a good or service that the university community demands. Clearly a tanning salon fits this description, since a good number of students choose to tan, but many other businesses fit this mold too. What about an adult bookstore? I am sure that more students than are willing to admit to it have stashes of pornographic material in their dorm rooms. Or, why not invite Planned Parenthood into the renovated BMC of the near future? Certainly some women have found pregnancy to be an obstacle to earning their degrees or promoting their professorships. (Besides, then those SLU Students for Life wouldn’t have to walk so far down Forest Park to protest on Saturday mornings).
Fine, I am exaggerating, but keep in mind that all of these “services” have legal protection in this nation. The question is whether or not SLU’s standards transcend legal limits and the economic standard of supply and demand. I would like to believe that the university has a more stringent moral course set for itself than the rest of the money-crazed free-market. The university’s Jesuit heritage, mission statement and philosophy allude to an ethical higher-ground. Even its track record on cigarette vending on campus supports these ideals. It is time for the administration to make another bold, counter-cultural statement: “SLUTan and any other business which does not respect the well-being of our community as human persons is not welcome at Saint Louis University.”
A message so simple and succinct, yet profound and radical is already a year overdue.
Pete Mosher is a junior studying physical therapy and Spanish.
