After 22 years at the helm, John Zacker, the strait-laced Office of Student Conduct director, will leave his post as this institution’s chief rule enforcer in August and assume a new leadership position at this university: assistant vice president for student affairs.
Perceived by many students to be more of a foe than a friend, Zacker was, among other things, responsible for running the office charged with punishing students who violated the Code of Academic Integrity, the Code of Student Conduct and the Residence Hall Rules. Not surprisingly, that responsibility — one that, in some circumstances, involved suspending and expelling students from the university — did not endear him to the student body.
Yet, the legacy that Zacker leaves this university’s students is not necessarily a negative one; it is much more nuanced and complicated than what many of the students who pass through his office would have you believe.
Many student activists would point to some of Zacker’s most public actions as evidence of his anti-student attitude. For instance, he initially opposed the Good Samaritan Policy. In 2007, one student who had turned in former Terp quarterback Josh Portis on academic dishonesty charges claimed Zacker tried to silence him after he contacted several media outlets. Additionally, Zacker still seems to hold the belief rioting should be considered an expulsion-worthy offense.
In spite of all of this, Zacker, in his role as student conduct director, was an administrator who was open to persuasion and genuinely tried to make this university a better place — all commendable qualities.
This can be seen most clearly in the recently resolved four-year fight to enact a Good Samaritan Policy, which protects students from university sanctions if they call for help for themselves or dangerously intoxicated friends.
In 2007, when university alumna Stacia Cosner first floated the idea to the University Senate, Zacker said he was opposed to the idea because he believed a blanket policy would prevent his office from tailoring appropriate punishments. Yet, three and a half years after he made that statement — following years of committee meetings, student surveys and university forums on the issue — it was Zacker who ended up drafting what is now known as the Promoting Responsible Action in Medical Emergencies Policy, citing the overwhelming consensus among students that the policy was necessary as the reason for his change of heart.
Ultimately, in spite of his reputation, Zacker did an admirable job running the student conduct office, a low-profile but incredibly influential and important job. Although he may not have earned the love of most university students, he was everything an administrator should be: principled in his convictions, genuinely interested in making the institution better and open to the student viewpoints and leadership.
These qualities will certainly serve him well in his new position. However, as university officials finalize their decision next week on who will replace Zacker as director of the office of student conduct, they should keep in mind his legacy and seek a candidate who possesses the many strengths Zacker brought to the job. After all, with issues such as hazing and the first year of the Good Samaritan Policy’s implementation on the horizon, there’s more at stake for the student conduct director than ever before.
