Senior government and politics major
The beginning of each school year is always a time of change: new friends, new classes and new goals. But this year, students will have to deal with an expansion of the Code of Student Conduct — its jurisdiction has extended to off-campus offenses — when considering where to party.
Previously, the code only applied to on-campus incidents. But the change drastically expands the boundaries, so students can expect to be held to a higher standard of conduct. The transition is motivated in part by the philosophy that students’ behaviors are not only a reflection of themselves, but also of this university and every student who is part of its community.
Some may feel the university has overstepped its authority in taking on this more direct role in the personal and private lives of its students. While this sentiment is understandable, the fact remains that students at this university are still Terps, whether they are studying in McKeldin, partying on Fraternity Row or vacationing over spring break. In order to maintain a safe atmosphere for its students, the university must hold them accountable for their actions in all possible situations — not just the ones that happen to occur closest to campus buildings.
So what are the implications for students, and what really concerns university officials? One goal of the expanded jurisdiction is to prevent and prosecute more serious offenses that frequently occur off the campus, such as violence, hazing and sexual assault. Expanding the code’s jurisdiction beyond the campus borders marks a crucial step toward delivering justice and preventing repeat offenses in these areas. So while university officials won’t be parading around satellite houses to issue a citation to every kid holding a red cup, they will be cracking down on rowdy or dangerous behavior, which could threaten the safety of our students.
The Office of Student Conduct will continue to enforce the code with the same methods as in the past, with the potential for criminal or civil intervention. Unfortunately for wrongdoers, it is not considered double jeopardy if a student is simultaneously charged through the OSC and through criminal charges for the same offense. Offenders could easily see legal ramifications coupled with university sanctions.
Another controversial aspect of the code, since even before its revision, is the idea that student adjudicators can make rulings and recommendations for sanctions during board hearings — that is, students act as judges to determine verdicts and sanctions regarding issues as minor as housing a pet in a dormitory and as serious as sexual assault. The fact that these board members go through a rigorous selection process and attend mandatory training should quell any skepticism that could arise from this very literal example of “a jury of your peers.”
While some implications of our judicial process may seem negative, it benefits students in the long run by instilling values such as integrity, good character and ethics. Holding students accountable for their actions makes our Terp Nation an even safer place to call home — no matter where that place may be.
Tiffany Burba is a senior government and politics major. She can be reached at tburbadbk@gmail.com.
