The rule is just weird: Students are not allowed to cycle on campus. Enacted by Shenyang Ligong University, the new rule, having taken effect on October 10, stipulates that cycling is forbidden on campus as too many bicycles mar its beauty.

The rule also says it is more healthy for students to walk around instead of cycling; that the rush of students on cycles before or after classes poses a risk and that students can take a bus to the downtown areas, making bicycles unnecessary.

These reasons do not hold water.

A beautiful campus is important for a university, but if students' convenience must be sacrificed for the sake of keeping the campus nice-looking, then what is the beautiful campus for?

It is not impossible to have a proper place for students to park their bicycles so that they don't look messy.

Maybe walking is more healthy than cycling. But do the university authorities have the right to stipulate how students choose to move around the campus? I doubt it.

If it is deemed right to decide for students, many more rules can be made and justified on the basis that they make one's life better, healthier and happier.

If such rules become rife, I wonder how one can adapt to a world of such absurdity. People have the right to choose the way they lead their lives unless it violates a specific law or affects the normal life of others, such as they cannot drive without a license because there is a risk that they may pose a danger to other people.

The rule says cycling on campus is not safe. If that is indeed the case, then cycling on the road would have to be disastrous, but many people have cycled between their homes and workplaces everyday for many years and are still doing so. Why should the government not enact laws to ban cycling on the road? Road accidents happen everyday, but it would be ridiculous to have a rule banning road traffic.

The third reason given by the university is even more untenable. What if a student does not want to take a bus downtown? What alternative transport means does he or she have?

There is good reason to suspect the university authorities may be conspiring with the bus company to make taking the bus to the downtown areas the sole option for students.

Besides the bicycle rule, the university authorities have also decided to run several battery-powered vehicles on campus for students to travel from their dormitories to their classrooms, but they have to pay 0.5 yuan (US$6 cents) for each one-way trip.

A Chinese report quoted Ning Xiansheng, head of the student affair department of the university, as saying that the vehicles are for those who carry heavy bags or luggage or those who are too weak to walk. Ning said most students were encouraged to walk.

The fact is a student has no option but to take the battery-powered vehicle if he or she does not want to walk.

The bicycle ban is just one of the controversial campus rules made by university authorities in recent years. Students are already prohibited from dating on campus, from wearing certain hairstyles, from getting married and even from kissing or hugging on campus. It seems as if the role of the administrative departments at universities is just to make rules to prohibit students from doing what they deem as inappropriate.

The administrative staff on campus are fed by taxpayers. It is their job to help students solve problems and make campus life easier, or to put it bluntly, they should serve the students instead of ordering students not to do this or that in a condescending manner.

University students are adults and should be treated as adults. Opinions of the students should be always taken into consideration before campus rules are made and implemented.

In this case, the university authorities said a survey had been done before making the bicycle rule. However, random interviews of 12 students by a reporter on campus showed that 10 opposed the ban.

Have the university authorities really made the rule for the benefit of the students? It remains a question.

(China Daily November 1, 2005)