The decision by Fairfield’s administration to review and revise the existing party policy on campus is a welcome step towards creating rules that allow students sensible freedoms without completely unnecessary restrictions. However, while the points system was too general, the new system appears to be very arbitrary in its potential uses.
Under the points systems, the university assigned points for various offenses and decided their worth on a case-by-case basis. Now, after three visits to judicial, the school will review your file and make a judgment about your status.
With the new policy, not only will the hosts of a townhouse party in violation of the codes of conduct be written up, but participants will be as well. This is fair and reasonable. But it also raises questions: Will 21-year-old students be punished if they are at a party with underage students? Will underage students who were not drinking be punished for being in the presence of alcohol?
Obviously there are many variables. If the university intends to weigh all of these instances equally as “strikes,” then on any given night you could receive a strike for what may honestly be a very minor offence.
The university defends the new system by saying that they are trying to apply policies consistently across campus. However, can the same rules really apply to 18-year-old freshmen in a dorm room and 21-year-old seniors in a townhouse?
Our experience with the point system is that it was pointless. However, there seems to be an inherent contradiction in employing a blanket strike system while at the same time insisting that each case will be handled individually.
Once again, the university must be praised for its willingness to revise its policies as time requires it, but more revision will only come with cooperation from the students. The new policies have given more leeway to the student body, and it is now in our hands to show restraint with these new responsibilities so that more trust can be placed in us in the future.
Leave a Reply