The Observer, October 19, 2007
Volume XL, Issue 8
Student pushes for change in campus pet policy
click to enlarge
Four years ago, the university went from having no policy about pets on campus to having a complete ban on them. Today, junior Michelle Cehn is trying to pave the way for a compromise.
In 2003, Case's Faculty Senate passed a "pet ban" for the campus, prohibiting all animals from the quad and campus buildings, amid protest from Case faculty and students.
Reasons for the ban included complaints from the janitorial staff about the excess hair and waste and, more importantly, reports of people getting bitten by dogs on campus, according to Cehn.
However, the ban did not pass unopposed. A resolution drafted by faculty and passed by USG in 2002 reads:
"It is in the best interests of the CWRU community to continue to allow students to keep pets approved by the current housing registration process in their residence hall rooms and to continue to allow staff and faculty to bring their pets to campus, as pets on CWRU's campus provide several benefits to morale including:
• Mental well-being and happiness of students.
• Enhancement of a sense of community on campus.
• A means for students, faculty, and staff to relax from their work.
• A way to make faculty and staff members more accessible to students.
• Creation of a more home-like atmosphere on campus.
• A means for new and returning students to feel more comfortable on campus.
• Reinforcement of a sense of responsibility within a student pet owner.
• Security and safety of staff that work unusual hours on campus."
There was also a protest held in front of Adelbert Hall in an attempt to convince then-president Hundert to overturn the ban, according to Gary Stonum, an English professor whose dog was once a campus fixture.
The pet ban affected many students and faculty, including one biology professor who had been teaching for 20 years. "When the policy was instated, he actually left Case because he was upset about the policy and couldn't or wouldn't leave his dogs at home all day," said Cehn.
The actual pet policy is very difficult to find; aside from mentions of residence hall pets in the student handbook, no other pet policy is readily available on the Case website. The ban is also not effectively enforced.
"Aside from those who were around in 2003, people don't know the policy even exists," said Cehn.
"Everyone deserves to be able to walk through campus without feeling threatened by dogs approching them," said Cehn, "but this could be solved in the same way that is in the public – an on-leash policy." She thinks that the issue of dogs in campus buildings is more complicated, but could be made into a good compromise for all involved.
Cehn will start the process of reinstating pets on campus by sending out an e-mail survey after fall break to gauge feelings about the issue. If there is enough interest, a petition will be circulated and an open forum will be held to discuss possible resolutions.
Any USG resolution will also be presented to the Faculty Senate and Staff Advisory Council for approval. Final say on the matter will go to President Snyder, according to USGpresident Adam Rupe.
Cehn hopes that a better solution to the problem of pets on campus can be found. "I believe reform in the current dog policy is necessary and that a more specific policy that allows dogs but limits their rights in a way that keeps them from imposing on other people's freedoms is possible."
