|
There were 21 findings of “responsible” for
drug violations this year and 21 findings of “not responsible.” To put
that in context from last year, there were four findings of “responsible”
for the entire year. (No findings of “not responsible.”)
This marked increase led
to the change in policy this semester (spring, 2006) that those students
found responsible for violating the drug policy would no longer be
permitted to live on campus by an edict from the Residential Life Office.
This is a regrettable course of action, but necessary to try to re-shape
the campus drug culture.
Why is altering the
culture important? First, students and their families invest a great deal
of time and money for a Trinity education. For students to take legal and
health risks amidst the academic experience can and sometimes does lead to
separation from the University and generally deadens the educational
experience for those who regularly use drugs.
Second, most students,
faculty, and staff (and those who donate for scholarships) want to draw
the finest and most committed new students to Trinity and want a valuable
degree. Developing a reputation as a “drug school” devalues the degree and
isn’t fair to the students who come here seeking a superior education.
The University was on the
local news this year because of a high profile drug case. Nurturing the
reputation of the University is the responsibility of all in the
University community, especially the students. Students are asked to
consider the impact of their actions.
As a reminder, students
found responsible for drug violations will generally be sanctioned to
parental notification, general probation, an on-line education course,
general probation, and removal from the residence halls. Second violations
(and first violations with significant quantities of drugs or in
conjunction with other major violations) will usually be suspended.
|
Alcohol continues to create problems for students |
By far, the most common violations that occur
on campus are related to alcohol. Over 200 appearances in the fall were
about alcohol and of those there were 114 findings of “responsible.” It is
the procedure of the staff to write reports on all students who are
involved in gatherings where apparent alcohol violations are occurring.
This is the most effective way for the Student Conduct Board to sort out
culpability. This can seem a nuisance for those who weren’t in violation,
but it is the only effective way to manage these cases. In the fall of
2005 93 students were found not responsible for alcohol violations.
The Trinity philosophy on
alcohol is simple: we acknowledge that students will drink (lawfully or
not); we want students to be safe and healthy (and for others not to bear
the consequences of drunken behavior of others); and we will have and
enforce our policy.
The 216 respondents from
the fall were sent an electronic survey about their experiences before the
conduct board. There were responses by 15 students. Based on those
responses the Dean’s Office is sending out more information with hearing
notifications to answer commonly asked questions about the Board and
hearing process. This information is also on the Conduct page as listed
below.
There continue to be
misperceptions that the hearing process should mirror a legal system. This
is not among the best practices on campuses and is discouraged by the
Association of Student Judicial Affairs and others in the Student Affairs
profession. Campuses are simply not set-up to act as legal systems and the
amount of training and procedures required would lead to the most diligent
and process-wise students faring the best. The campus judicial process (on
all campuses) is set-up to allow students to refute reports against them
and to face consequences if they are found in violation of policies. The
best place to learn more about the legal system is probably law school.
Finally, the process is
meant to be educational – that is to inform students of policies, to
challenge their reasons for violating policies, to consider the impact of
their actions, and to consider the impact of their actions on their own
personal development. Respondents to the survey did not report seeing this
as an educational process but more as a nuisance. The Board must continue
to be transparent about the goal of this process. (This is probably
because of the number of alcohol violations, which are perceived by
students as the campus equivalent of speeding tickets.)
As can be expected,
students found “not responsible” generally view the process as more fair
than do those who are found “responsible.”
The University Conduct
Board heard one case all semester, and it was a sexual misconduct case.
There are many, many difficult issues related to such cases and the rights
of victims/survivors as well as accused students are equally respected.
In general, students are
urged to respect others in sexual situations. Verbal consent and consent
by mutual actions are imperative, especially when alcohol is involved. Ask
along the way “May I do (this or that)…” and you will preserve the dignity
of the other person.
|
