Lexie Sharabianlou’s sardonic letter last week (“Fire Code Violations No Big Deal,” The Oberlin Review, Sept. 28, 2012) managed to both belittle the danger of violating safety regulations and advance a principle that, if applied more broadly, would nullify 150 years of progressive safety regulation. Sharabianlou argues that safety regulations are nice in theory, but that they shouldn’t be allowed to impede efforts to improve people’s lives (say, by allowing unlimited numbers of people into the Cat in the Cream to experience an enlightening evening of slam poetry). If this is so, should the proprietors of the Beverly Hills Supper Club in Kentucky have faced any sanction, legal or moral, for the 165 deaths that resulted from overcrowding during a concert there? All the proprietors wanted was to allow more people to see the singer John Davidson, so surely Sharabianlou must conclude they were doing the right thing by packing the club over capacity.

However, Sharabianlou’s argument need not be confined to clubs or fire codes, as there are many other instances where certain “[gestures] of generosity” might be prohibited by safety regulations. What if a car company wants to offer a cheaper vehicle to consumers and so decides to forego air bags and catalytic converters? The company just wanted to reach a greater audience by offering a car that more people could afford. What if a nuclear power plant operator disregards safety regulations to avoid shutdowns that prevent him from providing the electricity his customers want?

These regulations exist for a reason: to ensure basic protection of public health and safety in situations where corporations, entertainment venues, or Oberlin students, have an interest, born of beneficence or otherwise, in compromising that health and safety. We ignore them at our own peril.

–Whitman Barrett, College senior