The Heights Cartoon

Enter the matrix ... of ODSD sanctions

By: Heights Editorial Board

The Issue: Alcohol violations now carry steep fines
What we think: "Clarity" does not beget fairness

Students setting foot on campus last weekend had a few things to look forward to: new roommates, new classes, and new alcohol and drug sanctions set in place by the Office of the Dean for Student Development (ODSD). While many of the policies are supposedly not "new" themselves, but "clearer" versions of what existed, the fact remains that there are now minimum, mandatory punishments - many of which include hefty fines for violators.

While we appreciate the University's willingness to eliminate gray areas in the previous sanction system, we cannot help but wonder whether administrators have confused a need for clarity with a call for rigidity. The new "minimum and mandatory" verbiage certainly makes clear what students who receive sanctions can expect, but it also abolishes any sense of judicial discretion that previously existed.

By attempting to fit the messy world of residential college life into a streamlined matrix, the University has forgotten that students will inevitably fall between the cracks. And where "minimum and mandatory" sanctions are concerned, some students may receive more than they actually deserve, all because of pedantry. There are plenty of conceivable situations that the matrix does not address: Do students who got sanctions last year already have one strike against them? Are sanctions erased when a person who received an alcohol sanction as a minor turns 21? Who decides which "menu item" is most appropriate? Do students who help intoxicated friends to the infirmary get amnesty? And what about the person who just winds up in the wrong place at the wrong time, one too many times?

Our main concern, however, lies in the steep fines that make up the framework of the matrix. Sure, some repeat offenders will be able to ask their parents for the $400 no problem, but for many students, coughing up even $100 would be a true hardship. Dollar amounts mean different things to different people, and fines that cost the same as some textbooks put an undue burden on students who work to afford the expenses of school.

Furthermore, even though the policy seems to achieve uniformity in sanctions across the board, those at the front line of enforcement - the RAs - are not uniform in who they write up. In fact, the inclusion of fines as part of the mandatory punishment creates a system that may make some RAs reluctant to enforce the rules if they know it will cause financial problems for some students.

While "just obeying the rules" seems like a fail-proof way to avoid these fines, the matrix seems unduly rigid, especially where extenuating circumstances are concerned. The University should focus its efforts on better prevention, education, and programming, not financial deterrence, as a way to quell the alcohol problem.

Make no mistake, a large part of the blame for the matrix lies with students. Nothing the administration has done has succeeded in ameliorating the alcohol problem at Boston College. One can hardly blame them for hitting students where it really hurts (the pocketbook). But administrators should reconsider whether their "clear" policy is also a fair one for all students at BC.

http://media.www.bcheights.com/media/storage/paper144/news/2008/09/04/Editorial/Enter.The.Matrix.Of.Odsd.Sanctions-3415181.shtml