Campus Safety officer on a segway.
The Honor Code is, arguably, the most important component of the Connecticut College community. The system of shared-governance is a sign of trust, comfort and most of all a sign of maturity. All three are highly attractive attributes of a functioning honor system, but the key word in this case is of course functioning. An overwhelming majority of students believe in and practice academic integrity, upholding the academic portion of the honor code with the utmost stringency. But what about the social aspect of the code and our inclusion in its administration? This job lies in the hands of Campus Safety and the Office of Student Life (OSL). Together, these two departments control the entire implementation of the social honor code until the point of adjudication. Together, these two departments oversee a process that is far from perfect.
Thus the administration should not be impervious to critique, as they must be held to high standards of accountability and proper conduct. Within the Student Bill of Rights is an article stating that each student deserves “the right to fair practice in disciplinary matters.” However, some Conn students have been charged with misconduct based upon evidence that is purely circumstantial. These students, though not actually caught in the act, were written up by Campus Safety (CS) officers who acted inferentially. Also, the process to generate charges based upon CS reports are extremely convoluted. Undefined charges, and incongruous accusations that are ultimately intimated from campus safety reports do make their way to our judicial board. Charges formulated under any of these circumstances are not fair practices by our administration, as each violates the Student Bill of Rights. Several students stepped forward and volunteered information to help me contextualize these unfair practices. For the sake of confidentiality their identities will remain anonymous.
One student stepped outside his dorm at night to smoke some marijuana. Upon returning to his room, he was greeted by three CS officers who had detected a scent of marijuana. This is probable cause for CS to search a room, but their search yielded nothing but a stem from a marijuana bud. Nevertheless, this student was charged with possession of marijuana and smoking in his room.
This student should have never been charged with possession. The possession of a stem is much like the possession of an empty beer bottle: it might indicate a substance was once consumed, but it is circumstantial evidence. CS did not find any useable amount of marijuana during their search, and for them to charge this student with possession is unacceptable. Moreover, how can CS charge this student with smoking in his room? They did not catch him in the act; they did not see him consume anything illicit. They only smelt a substance that has a distinct aroma and upon a search found nothing. It is fallacious for CS to infer these charges, as they are merely speculating upon the truth as opposed to reporting it.
This next testimonial quintessentially depicts the intimating nature of CS. A student was celebrating his 21st birthday at a Winchester House. When the party was ending, he took friends back to his house to socialize. Upon leaving, they were greeted by three campus safety officers. CS took down this student’s name. When the student asked what he was being charged with, the officer did not respond. He asked the officer if there was a noise complaint or if he had exceeded capacity. The officer told him he hadn’t. CS had written the student up because people were walking up Winchester Road with containers of alcohol. The student objected, as those in the street were unassociated parties. His words fell on deaf ears; he received a campus safety report citing him for “failure to comply”, “capacity” and “alcohol incident.”
When the OSL filed charges, the accusations had been modified to “noise” and “alcohol incident”. None of these charges should have been filed by CS or the OSL. The only evidence acquired was circumstantial, and CS but also the OSL made incorrect inferences in this case. The incongruence of these charges is, apparently, a very regular occurrence. This is because some charges from the two departments do not have corresponding meanings; and others are undefined.
The charge “alcohol incident” is nowhere to be found in the Honor Code, or under Student Rights and Responsibilities. I emailed the OSL about the nature of this charge, and they declined to offer me a definition. We should feel uneasy that students are being accused of infractions that are indeterminate, and off the books. I did, however, receive notice that “failure to comply” has a different meaning than the charge forwarded by OSL, “compliance.” As one of the Deans in the OSL so clearly explained to me, “Just because a CS report lists failure to comply as a charge doesn’t mean that is what you’re being charged with.” Apart from being completely counterintuitive, doesn’t this open a gap for miscommunication between departments?
The student accused of smoking in his room was also a victim of this poor interdepartmental coordination. Both were charged with “creating dangerous or unhealthy conditions” based upon their CS reports. The student charged with smoking in his room never actually smoked in his room, yet he was charged with CDUC based on a falsified campus safety report.
CS is making false inferences, and their charges don’t directly correspond to those of the OSL, who then in turn must make inferences. How do we prevent the truth from becoming lost in translation? One truth that will not be lost in translation is that every system of law has its flaws. This is why constant administrative transparency and reform are imperative to maintaining our system. We deserve treatment unaffected by unreasonable assumptions, better interdepartmental coordination, and clearly defined charges that are applied across the board. Our new Honor Council and Student Conduct Board cannot be adjudicating cases based upon inferential and circumstantial charges. We must remember that we have a right to fair practice in disciplinary matters under the Honor Code, and these practices directly violate this clause of fairness. I task the administration not to take a long, hard look at this problem, but to decisively act upon it. Put fairness back into the system, and you will be putting the Honor back in the Code. •
Photo by Julie McMahon
