Controversy is swirling around Our Lady of the Lake University in San Antonio, Texas. The issue at hand? Whether or not a ferret that provides emotional, or some would say psychiatric, support for a student should be given access under the Americans With Disabilities act.

Sarah Sevick, 19, is a student at OLLU. She was given Lilly, her ferret, as a gift about a year ago. Now the ferret is being denied access at the university, resulting in Sevick filing a complaint with the U.S. Justice Department. "I'm not suing the school, and I'm not asking for money," Sevick says. "I'm just trying to get her here."

Now, as someone who uses a dog guide, I'd be the first person to defend the rights of a service animal on campus. But there is a standard concerning service animals that needs to be upheld. This ferret was originally given to Sevick as a gift. Kay, Sarah's mother, claims that, "Pretty quickly, we realized it was very responsive to her." This ferret wasn't given to Sevick with the intent of it being a service animal. I'm glad to hear that she might do better because of the animal. But if this ferret is on Our Lady of the Lake University's campus, it should be a case of common sense and not because of an emotional companion being given the same access rights as stringently trained service animals.

The benefits in question for Sevick are quite abstract. The benefit to a blind person utilizing a dog guide's assistance in navigating through life is readily apparent. There's no doubting that the dog is trained to do the job that it is doing. But this ferret, essentially, snuggles up with its owner when it senses that the owner is disconcerted. This is calming for the owner, which is great. But is it wise to give this type of animal the same access that dog guides, signal dogs, etc. receive? This ferret was originally a pet. Service animals, the ADA explicitly states, are not pets.

But let's give Sarah and Lilly the benefit of the doubt. Let's say Lilly really does help Sarah cope with her variety of mental disorders. By pursuing legal action, she's trying to set a precedent. A dangerous precedent. The ADA doesn't require any sort of official licensing or certification of service animals by government at any level. This is, perhaps, the root of the problem. But if a ruling in favor of Sevick and Lilly comes down, where is the new line drawn?