Today’s Staff Editorial
The Office of Student Conduct: where students are sent when they get caught doing bad things on the campus. Whether you violated a rule of university housing, cheated on a test or want to appeal a parking ticket, this office, which promotes integrity, character and ethics, is where you end up.
Students often have mixed feelings about the office. If you’re sent there for plagiarizing, you probably don’t remember your experience too fondly, but plenty of students are glad there is an on-campus resource for solving controversial disputes. As long as it’s not a criminal charge, University Police are off the hook for minor incidents (so they can potentially focus on larger dangers). And soon, thanks to Monday’s University Senate vote, students who engage in noncriminal misconduct off the campus could find themselves facing Student Conduct sanctions.
Student Conduct Office Director Andrea Goodwin made the proposal and said it would give the office a better handle on incidents similar (but not limited) to hazing and violence in the surrounding area. The amendment to the Code of Student Conduct would increase the office’s ability to deal with incidents that threaten students’ safety as well as “substantially disruptive” activity within University Police jurisdiction.
Given sororities and fraternities have a reputation for hazing (though they’re not the only ones, of course), giving the Office of Student Conduct authority may be a better way to deal with these situations.
At its lowest level, hazing is probably not criminal. Yes, it can be a bad thing, especially how it can embarrass students, but making police deal with every potential instance of “hazing” is a bit ridiculous. And when it comes to drugs and alcohol within the confines of hazing, it may just be easier to allow Student Conduct to deal with it, treating it like it’s students living in university housing. It doesn’t make sense to allow the office control over off-campus criminal offenses and no control over noncriminal. Currently, it has jurisdiction over off-campus conduct solely deemed criminal offenses. Why wouldn’t it have jurisdiction over mere disorderly conduct?
University Police spokesman Capt. Marc Limansky said he thinks the office should have jurisdiction wherever University Police do.
Theoretically, this all makes sense — but it’s a problem determining where the line is drawn. Where exactly would the office’s authority end? This is exactly what’s worrying several senators. University Police have flexible jurisdiction, from areas on and around the campus, where students are heavily concentrated, to areas farther from the campus if Prince George’s County Police need assistance.
Limansky also believes it would be an efficient way for students to be referred to the correct resources for, say, alcohol abuse education. If students can be helped in a way that’s not sending them straight through the legal system, this editorial board sees no fault in attempting to pursue this line of defense.
Once there are more specific parameters for this new plan, we see no reason it should not be implemented. Giving the Office of Student Conduct a wider range of authority can only benefit all associated parties. The consequences will be less harsh for students, police will be able to focus on crimes on a larger scale and the office will have the ability to rehabilitate students after they do something wrong. The differences don’t seem to have any potential negative impact — we’ll just have to wait to see how well it’s implemented.
