During the March 4 riot, not every student tore down street signs. Not every student lit Duke jerseys on fire or set trees ablaze. Not every student hurled insults at police officers atop horses or attempted to stand up to others, wielding shields and pepper spray.
Not every student who stormed Route 1 in jubilation committed crimes such as arson, assault, theft or vandalism, but according to university policy, every student who stormed downtown that night could be expelled from the university if found guilty of “rioting,” as dictated by the Code of Student Conduct.
According to university policy, the university has the right to expel any and all students for on- or off-campus riot-related behavior, regardless of whether they have been convicted in a criminal court or cited for any legal wrongdoing. The only catch: A written police report must document the offense. And for more than four years, students have quietly accepted being held accountable to this policy — until now.
About two weeks ago, the Student Government Association passed a resolution in a 14-11 vote demanding the term “rioting” be removed from a list of expulsion-worthy transgressions in the Code of Student Conduct. Although the bill passed by a relatively slim margin, almost all representatives agreed the term is too vague and leaves too much room for arbitrary interpretation — where they differed was what to do about it. Some supported clarifying the definition of “rioting” in university policy. Others said the word should be removed all together. Both suggestions would be a significant improvement from the code’s current language.
Destructive acts associated with rioting, such as inciting violence, looting, destroying property and lighting things on fire, are already listed as expulsionary offenses in the policy. What other ground could “rioting” cover?
North Hill Legislator Natalia Cuadra-Saez, who sponsored the bill, is planning to meet with Office of Student Conduct Director John Zacker this week. Zacker runs the office that would send students in question to the student judiciary for a hearing, in which it would determine if students are guilty of violating the Code of Student Conduct — a decision that could ultimately lead to a student being expelled. And Zacker seems altogether dismissive of the idea that the code’s wording should be altered. He argues that although some students fear the ambiguous wording makes the process more arbitrary, it actually leaves more room to tailor cases to individual circumstances, thereby making it less absolute and more fair.
But how fair can such a policy be when the accounts of administrators, police officers and city residents will — and have been — automatically held in higher regard than those of students?
Although administrators might resists changing the policy, that doesn’t mean students should give up. Before any officials reject this idea out of hand, it should be explored how adding a concrete definition or removing the term “rioting” from the code could impact the university and the students charged with the offense.
More than 20 students were arrested on March 4. Of those, at least four have seen their charges dropped. At least one case of police brutality has been documented. That case also makes it clear police lied on some of the reports they filed that night — the same reports that are used as the basis for punishing students. Prince George’s County Police are conducting an internal investigation into what went wrong that night and whether more officers on duty that night falsified charging documents. And still, administrators say any students involved in “rioting” will be expelled.
Removing the word “rioting” from the Code of Student Conduct won’t heal students’ wounds or prevent them from rushing to Route 1. But unless the term and what it means is made more specific, it remains another way for students to be arbitrarily punished. And anyone on Route 1 that night knows they were already punished enough.
