RPInsider

I think this is a little more appropriate than a potpourri of pot.

I know that I’ve taken a bit of a hiatus since the whole Student Handbook fiasco has been going on,  but The Poly’s use of marijuana as its front page photo struck me as wildly inappropriate–prompting me to dig deeper into the issue. So lots of reading and a meeting with Dean Smith later, here our take.

First of all, for those of you who haven’t been filled in on the major changes, here’s a recap of the two new sections causing controversy:

• “Involuntary Withdrawal for Drug Addiction:” allows the Institute to judge whether a student is addicted to a substance or not and bypass the typical judicial process, as well as inform the student’s parents about such determination (but only if you are claimed as a dependent!). This is only for “egregious” and extreme cases (for example, if it poses a threat to safety or student interests).
• “Rules for Maintenance of Public Order:” requires students to gain administrative permission to protest no less than seven days before said rally/protest to allow for safety of students in the rally to be provided (Note: Dean Smith and GM Ben Hunt are working toward language that would allow for exceptions).

After attending the forum with Mark Smith (which was sparsely attended), I have vastly different opinions than what I had read in The Poly and from the Student Senate (proving it’s always best to do the digging yourself). Follow me after the jump for a little perspective on the matter:Well, first of all, I think that it is good that Dean Smith is willing to work with students. He’s a fair guy and I trust him with his ability to correctly interpret the new additions to the Handbook. My worry is what happens down-the-road when someone else takes over as the Dean. While he can interpret these policies in a fair and just manner, I believe they need to be clarified to ensure that student rights can not be compromised in other circumstances.

The other problem that the Senate had with effectively analyzing the Handbook was their lack of context. The reason that a policy is more than just a paragraph is so that it sets a framework for enacting the policy. In taking the “Peaceful Demonstration” portion of the Handbook as only a paragraph to analyze (which it seemed was how the Senate had gone about it), the group missed that a protest can not be denied based on content, but rather if it poses a safety or security threat. I would urge the Senate to be more comprehensive in their review of documents in the future (particularly when it comes time for the Student Life Performance Plan review later this semester).

So, now that discussion about the Handbook is nearing completion. I have to wonder what the reason was for a lack of student representation was in the matter as well. While Hunt and Khan can duke it out all they want in the ed/op section of The Poly, it’s not going to help. I blame a lack of communication between the student body and the administration, as well as maybe between members of the Senate. Both have been issues we’ve heard before, but it has yet to be resolved. Now, if Khan was aware that things needed to be done, why didn’t he say anything to Hunt? Or if anyone else from the Senate (or previous Senate) knew, they also should have relayed things that needed to be done. It seems that all lines of communication have broken down.

Further advice to the Senate: Find a way to ensure that you’re involved in the process of the Handbook discussions next year. Relying on tradition doesn’t often prove to be the most effective method of doing this. It’s not something that would have probably come up before now as everything was fine and dandy; but since it’s reared its ugly head, don’t ignore it.

Share