After reading “Time to grow up: Limits not suitable for 18+,” I felt the article served as little more than as bitter diatribe.I understood its point, but I felt the argument lacked substance. However, the intention of my letter is not to critique the article; instead, I want to offer an alternative viewpoint.
The entire article focuses on the unfair constraints put on us by universities. But are there not always constraints on the individual? There will always be rules and laws. Even if you pull a Walden and become totally self-dependant, you would still be subject to a governing body.
As for rules set in the dorms, they are not intended to be metaphorical shackles on the lives of students, but they are a way ensure a peaceful cohabitation for the 150+ people living in about 30,000 square feet (much of which is hallway space).
As for dining service being a monopoly, I feel no need to elaborate on that hyperbole. I suppose you could look at campus rules as suppression, but what rule or even law would not be? If all constraints of the individual were alleviated, we would be thrown into chaos. I cannot speak for all the student body, but I would prefer a few rules over anarchy any day.
Marie Hart, freshman political science major