In My Humble Opinion A college animal farm

Author: Daniel Roberts

Two weeks ago, a close friend of mine told me she was heading over to the local Humane Society to adopt a rabbit. I joked, "Wow! Don't worry, I won't tell anyone your secret." My assumption that she was violating school rules was quieted when she answered, "Oh, no, it's allowed here. You can have a pet as long as it's kept in a cage, so, pretty much anything but a dog."

I wondered if this was true and so I visited our favorite Middlebury homepage and did some searching. Sure enough, Middlebury College permits pets that are in cages on campus, but with a qualifier: "The residence hall does not provide a good, healthy atmosphere for animals."

Unhealthy atmosphere? Tell that to my friend's bunny rabbit, who seems perfectly content in his largest toy - a frayed cardboard box from a twelve pack of Saranac Ale. If you see something wrong with the image of a soft, innocent bunny playing in a chewed up beer box, then you must be crazy.

I do mock his living arrangements, but this particular rabbit is taken care of extremely well. He is taken out for some open space every day and he hops around the dorm's courtyard happily. He is well-fed (he even looks a bit too plump, maybe he ought to start lifting) and he is cleaned by frequent baths (administered by his own tongue). So why shouldn't my friend just enjoy her rabbit?

My point here is to investigate what the issue of young people adopting pets means in a larger sense.

In searching through numerous university websites, I found very few schools that allow their students to have pets, and almost none mention any specific animals as examples,. Take for example Duke's policy, which allows for fish, but then does not go into specifics about which real animals are not permitted.

This lack of details surprised me. Let's start small. Duke allows fish. This seems reasonable. Assuming the kid has not bought Piranhas, it should be relatively easy to dump some flakes in there each day and change the water once a week. And gerbils? They are pretty tiny. The only crisis I could imagine is maybe being stepped on, or stolen by a late-night jangler.

So if we agree fish and gerbils are okay, can we accept rabbits? They are bigger, but if they can be kept under control, why not allow them.? Yet here is where we hit a bump: responsibility is subjective. Sure, my friend is careful with her bunny but not every student would be. In this regard, the rules against pets are made for the worst kids, and are unfair to the best.

A veterinarian at a hospital near the University of Maryland says that each year college kids show up to put their animal to sleep, because they can no longer take care of it. This can be seen as irresponsible and cruel. But would MiddKids really do this? How would you like it if one day your mom sighed and said, "Well, you're just becoming too much of a financial burden. I think we're going to have to put you down."

So where can we draw the line? If rabbits are okay, then why not dogs? Is it simply a size issue? In an e-mail to me, one of the Hepburn RAs wrote that, "You may have small pets that remain caged such as a gecko or gerbil. Bunnies may be okay, too." If another student were just as responsible as my friend, why not let him or her have a little puppy? I guess, it's simply too difficult to assess each person's pet-owning aptitude. Still, she does mention a gecko. I hadn't even thought of those. Just think how many chicks I could slay if I had that gecko from the Geico ads! What? He's animated? Well how about the Wonnacott squirrel? That's just a drawing? Oh... forget it.