A new rule addressing behavior-related problems in the Academic Commons is taking effect this school year. New for this year, students are required to work in the Commons prior to eating their lunch. The faculty believes that the new rule will solve many disruptions in the Commons in past years.

“We want the Commons to be a working environment rather than a place to talk with friends after lunch,” said dean of students Mr. Bill Sanford. Though the motives behind the new rule were made clear to students at the beginning of the year, its effects have created controversy among the student body.

“By sixth period I’m starving, and I want to eat my lunch before I use the time to complete work,” said sophomore Mario Armocida. The vast majority of students have a similar view, as the rule has proven to be a large inconvenience.

“I only have one free period each semester, so it was nice to be able to structure it the way I wanted, but that isn’t an option anymore,” said sophomore Tim Allaire. Students are now forced to wait longer—before being able to eat lunch—if they want to work in the Commons.

“It’s unfortunate that the actions of a handful of students ultimately determines how I spend my free period,” said sophomore Alex Citrano. “Rather than having everyone endure the consequences, I believe that it would be more appropriate for the faculty to take direct action against those who are consistently disruptive.”

“There are many days that I want to take advantage of the workspace that the Academic Commons provide, but I am far too hungry,” said sophomore Mike Kissane. “It was nice to be able to be academically proactive in the Commons after having free time to eat.”

Though the rule has, in fact, cut down the number of students looking for another social setting, it has also discouraged many students from using the workplace for its intended purpose. Regardless of their stance on the rule, students have yet to see if this is a temporary action or a permanent solution.

All in all, the negative effects of the new rule outweigh the positive ones. Action should be taken directly against individual students rather than punishing the entire school.