As students at Rensselaer, we all agree to abide by the “laws” of RPI that govern student conduct, called the grounds for disciplinary action. According to the Handbook of Student Rights and Responsibilities, RPI only has the authority to issue punishments for breaking these rules when the event occurs on campus, or when it meets specific criteria regarding how the Institute was involved in the event. The Dean of Students Office, however, is currently seeking to expand this jurisdiction to apply to all members of the community at all times. A few of the reasons they give for this action may seem well-founded, but the change as currently understood is misguided.
The Student Bill of Rights stipulates, “Students who violate the law may incur penalties prescribed by civil authorities, but Institute authority shall not attempt to duplicate the function of public authority.” This is, however, exactly what the proposed change intends to do. Students who make mistakes entirely unrelated to RPI will be subjected to a “double jeopardy” situation when they are punished by the court system and by the judicial system of RPI.
While we understand that in certain cases where the crimes committed may cause reason for concern for the safety of other members of the RPI community, great care must be taken to ensure that any expansion, if deemed necessary, is carefully considered. In addition, the policy needs to be explicit enough to ensure that it cannot be used as a blanket “double jeopardy” policy.
Beyond the actual details of the change, the most egregious problem with the current discussion is that students are minimally involved. The Union Constitution gives students sole authority on changes to the student judicial process, but this change is being steamrolled past the student body. Indeed, earlier this week, the Senior Judicial Administrator, Travis Apgar, demanded that the Student Senate close its meeting before he would meet with them to discuss the change. As this is an issue that will affect all students at RPI for decades into the future, this debate should be as open and inclusive as possible, and records should most definitely be kept.
Student leaders elected next week would be well-served in the upcoming weeks and months to remember their responsibilities to the students and work to defeat this proposal. It will only hurt our fellow students, and gain us nothing.
