Closed vs Open Campus
Closed Campus versus Opened Campus For students, lunch serves as the much needed break from the routine of attending classes, however, lunch can be either an enjoyable intermission or it can be a chaotic, hectic experience in an over-crowded cafeteria. School administrators have the authority to grant students the option, privilege, and flexibility to choose where they eat lunch. Opponents will debate that students should have the consent to leave campus for lunch, however, there are less advantages to an open campus policy than there are disadvantages. Therefore, Cy-Fair High School should continue enforcing the current closed campus policy. The principal considerations raised by those who argue in favor of an open campus—they are cost effective, a solution to an over-crowded environment, and having enough lunch time to purchase a decent meal. Food prices should not be overpriced, nor should the price of bottled water. An open campus inspires students to work harder in order to acquire freedom of choice during lunch—it is a privilege for doing well. The basic concerns for supporting a closed campus are theoretically high risk factors associated with an open campus. Inevitably, there are students that exhibit undignified behavior such as consorting to the consumption of alcohol and drugs, smoking cigarettes, drag racing, gang activity, violence, truancy, amorous displays of affection, and other uncouth conduct. Therefore, a closed campus will lessen the temptation to give way to such delinquent behavior. Give the students a closed campus, or label them rabble-rousers. Theodore Roosevelt’s “big stick diplomacy” the schools will remain a closed campus. A closed campus does not tolerate ill-mannered behavior. No cursing, smoking, fighting, kissing, texting. The primary concern also supported by those who argue against an open campus is when the issue of safety is compromised, and gives way to the possibility of danger at a very high