Search News


Browse Archives

News

Policing the Dorms

December 13, 2006

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

Attempting to end its reputation as a party school, the University of Massachusetts at Amherst has changed a number of police practices over the last couple of years to cut down on drug activity and to increase campus safety. But the changes have caused some student unhappiness -- evident in a protest Tuesday -- as convictions soar for drug use, and claims swirl that officers are violating rights by randomly patrolling hallways to catch students smoking pot.

“In 23 years of work here, this has been one of the quietest semesters,” said Barbara O’Connor, chief of police and director of public safety. “It’s the fruit of our labors.” O’Connor said that two policies have changed. First, officers now get out of their cars to check with the dorms’ residence advisers about problems. If anything is up, the officer will then go investigate. On some nights, something is up -- and it may not rise to the level that would have prompted the RA to call the police. “We never used to do that,” she said, adding that these discussions help the officers build relationships and trust with residence staff.

Second, when an officer has probable cause, such as numerous complaints about a certain room or suspected drug activity, the officer will go and get a search warrant. “We do more search warrants than we did in the past,” she said. O’Connor said that most campus police departments rely on consents to search, but she has trained her officers in probable cause procedures and they aggressively pursue drug activity. Officers perform around three probable cause searches each week and they usually result in an arrest. But O' Connor said that her department is trying to go after dealers and not casual users.

John Werner, joint president of the Cannabis Reform Coalition at UMass, said that hundreds of students protested Tuesday against police tactics and the recent uptick in arrests. He said that students’ lives are being ruined after arrests, and that the police have no legal right to patrol hallways where students expect privacy. “They will go up [into the dorms] for reasons that are very flimsy, and along they way they will arrest other people,” he said.

O’Connor said that officers do not have the time to randomly patrol hallways, and will only enter the dorm area if they have been notified of a problem. Still she cited regulations for Boston public housing as proof that police do have the right to patrol hallways. “In a residence hall, the expectation of privacy is even more diminished,” she said.

Her view is backed by Steven J. Healy, president of the International Association of Law Enforcement Administrators, who said that hallways are not private. “It’s called ‘going vertical in the residence hall,’” he said. “Universities have the responsibility to handle crime in their buildings.”

But many experts seem unaware of the law and some legal confusion remains. “My understanding is that hallways are private space,” said Kevin Kruger, associate executive director of NASPA: Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education.

“The likely answer is that the police will have a lawful right to be in such a location and to act upon any apparently criminal activity in ‘plain view,’” said Gary Pavela, director of judicial programs at the University of Maryland at College Park. “There would normally be a reasonable expectation of privacy in individual rooms, however.”

But a recent ruling involving Washington State University raises concerns about where the law might head in the future, said Charles DiMare, director of student legal services at UMass. In the ruling, a state superior court judge struck down the ability of WSU’s police officers to randomly patrol residence buildings, stating that students have an increased expectation of privacy in hallways. WSU is now appealing the decision.

DiMare said that officers' actions are legally sound when they leave the public foyer and enter hallways to respond to complaints or to execute a search warrant. Otherwise, they may be violating students’ constitutional right. “If you were leaving your room to go use the bathroom, you would expect privacy,” he said. “I would expect that the state of Washington got it right.”

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Policing the Dorms

  • Policing the Dorms
  • Posted by Jeanne , mothermayell at UMass 1971 on March 4, 2008 at 9:45pm EST
  • I went to U Mass during the late sixties. I was no saint regarding drugs and alcohol, but the drug and alcohol scene was so extreme there that I felt unsafe in the dorm hallways and bathrooms because so many kids were out-of-control smashed, esp on weekends. Guys were selling every kind of drug, from pot, hash, lsd, mushrooms, thc, and heroin. It was frightening on the weekends because there were big guys wandering the halls who were so drugged up spouting outrageous sexual remarks that you worried about getting attacked while you were taking a shower or just walking down your hall at 2 am.

    When U Mass calls me for money, I tell them that until they tone down the drug and alcohol scene, I can't see why I'd donate a dime to support that. High school was relatively normal - some drugs/drinking, no great extremes, kids felt safe; Work life after college was similar. But in between was just one long four year drug and drinking scene. Yes there were kids who studied some, but we were in the minority and it was hard to concentrate when all around you was insanity.

  • Posted by bystander on December 13, 2006 at 8:49am EST
  • It's not an easy thing, is it? I live in a small University town and teach there as well. It seems to me that students and the community and everyone want and expect privacy when doing things they don't want the authorities to see, after all, but if something awful happens, then the university and authorities and so forth are held to a different standard (of accountability). I recall when a student hanged himself and was not discovered until the odor of his body--well figure it out. I guess he had plenty of privacy. Too much. One of my students (alas involved in dealing) and his roommate were robbed at gunpoint by others in their trade and left tied up in their room. What of the danger to other students in the same hallway? Protecting the dealers' privacy definitely caused danger to the others in the same dorm, because some very angry and dangerous folks were up there in that dorm tower who were not there looking for a history study group. It's necessary to be reasonable and balanced about these things. If the police get a search warrant signed by a judge, I guess they can search. That seems balanced to me.

  • Posted by kgotthardt on December 13, 2006 at 9:16am EST
  • "He said that students’ lives are being ruined after arrests.." I'm sure this is true, to some extent. But it seems they are ruining their lives, lungs and brain cells anyway, so maybe a deterrent is helpful.

    I think I have a problem with the "You gotta fight/for your right/to party" mentality that comes along with these arguments.

  • Go for it
  • Posted by Catherine Burdt on December 13, 2006 at 9:16am EST
  • Privacy is nice to a point--but the safety of the students is more important. I know of a student at UMass who returned to her dorm room after a night out and found a strange man sleeping in her bed, drunk and unsure that where he was. These are the same people who are roaming the halls because someone held the outside door open. Sure the responsibility rests with the students to be more responsible, but a security presence is needed, especially in large dorm towers, to ensure that the same dynamics that happen in public housing, don't happen in the dorms.

  • Within their rights
  • Posted by Loyal Reader on December 13, 2006 at 9:32am EST
  • I don't think it is reasonable for a student to expect "privacy" in the hallway given that other students, etc. are using that same hallway. If the police are responding to a complaint or especially if they have a search warrant, then get over it. They have every right to be there and the only people who would mind are those with something to hide. If one is concerned that they aren't adequately dressed for "visitors" then buy a robe! Guess what - the world doesn't revolve around just you!

  • Financial Aid At Risk
  • Posted by Insider's Take on December 13, 2006 at 9:46am EST
  • It is my understanding that a drug-related conviction on a student record results in loss of financial aid. So potentially an arrest and conviction could ruin a person's chance of finishing college.

    Unfortunately or fortunately alcohol offenses do not qualify as drug-related and do not carry the same consequences.

  • In Favor of "Higher" Education
  • Posted by Resident on December 13, 2006 at 10:21am EST
  • Some commenters are conflating safety issues with privacy and recreation. Sure, students should be safe from the harmful actions of others, such as strange men sleeping the their beds or violent acts, but are the police really acting within their bounds to protect people from themselves? Brain cells and lungs? Should we arrest people for cigarettes and alcohol? Most people would say no, and, given the increasingly harsh penalties for the otherwise relatively harmless act of smoking marijuana, these students are risking irreperable harm to their futures, and the university and police are complicit in this. What gets me is this blame the victim attitude, which basically says that they know it's illegal so they shouldn't be doing it or the only people who want privacy are criminals. So the U wants to create law-abiding automatons who revere any law, no matter how unfair or arcane, and who buy only taxable goods. Nice.

  • Posted by Annoyed Administrator on December 13, 2006 at 10:25am EST
  • Personally, as someone who works in residence life, I'm a bit sick of students who think that they have the right to break the law in their residence hall rooms and not face any consequences.

    I currently work at an institution where students "right of privacy" is protected by the current policies. What this creates is situations where we know that the student is smoking pot in their room, but we can't search and the smell and a fan blowing out the winow is not enough evidence to charge the students with a violation. This pisses off the students who don't smoke pot, and brings down the whole community when they see people getting away with things like this. Then when you do try to address issues like noise or drinking, people are angry that the pot smokers are "getting away with it" while they are being "punished" for a much less serious violation.

    If you don't want to get arrested for smoking pot, don't do it in a residence hall, or just go to school at a small private liberal institution like the one that I work at.

  • Drugs are an Extreme Case
  • Posted by TBD on December 13, 2006 at 11:50am EST
  • Drugs are the extreme. But I saw patterns on one campus of RAs (who combined being extremely touchy-feely with extremely controlling) involving police at the drop of a hat. One student was arrested for moving furniture from one room to another. Another was arrested for having a decoration that involved a beer bottle. To some extent, the way student development operates is to grow and grow-- often inappropriately. Being young involves a certain looseness and ability to discover--The RA/police nexus probably needs to be throttled down a bit.

  • Cry me a river
  • Posted by Martin on December 13, 2006 at 11:50am EST
  • As a college administrator who has had to deal with the issue of drug use on campus (I am chair of the Judicial Board)I can tell you I have heard it all. My only concern for students is that their right to due process is protected, not that they have a right to break laws. The argument that campus police are patrolling the halls to catch drug use is the same argument that drunk drivers have when a patrolman sits outside a bar to catch drunks who get behind the wheel. If we KNOW that illegal activities are going on, we have a responsibility to those students who are NOT breaking the law to clean up the mess. College campuses have long been a haven for drug use and for pushers, it's time we take back the dorms and clean up our acts.

  • LIFE IS FULL OF DECISIONS, GOOD & BAD
  • Posted by NOWINLA on December 13, 2006 at 11:50am EST
  • As a former police officer at UMass let me say first GREAT JOB UMPD. It is about time you go to where the problem starts and stop waiting for the problems to become bigger out of the rooms or deals to go bad in the rooms. We are in the business of saving lives, not ruining them, that is the offender's decision. We are all supposed to be adults as college students. Adults are expected to be accountable for their choices good or bad. If an adult makes the decision to break the law and they are arrested for that violation, who was wrong?

  • Yes, go for it
  • Posted by UMass Alumnus on December 13, 2006 at 11:50am EST
  • For the sake of responsible students and taxpayers, let's hope the UMass administration has the backbone to see this problem through. I was an undergrad at UMass almost 30 years ago. The dorms were mismanaged then, and I got out of them as fast as I could; as far as I can tell nothing has changed in three decades.

  • Posted by Herb on December 13, 2006 at 12:21pm EST
  • The "War on Drugs" is America's #1 public policy failure.

    Every year, it becomes increasingly obvious that the wide reaching effects of our drug control policies are far more harmful than the effects of drugs themselves.

    For more information on the Higher Education Act (HEA):

    http://www.efsdp.org/hea/

  • New Policy is Good
  • Posted by UMass Student , New Policy is Good at UMass Amherst on December 13, 2006 at 12:30pm EST
  • As a student at UMass Amherst, I think I speak for a silent majority in saying that these new police practices are good. A lot of students are sick and tired of the rowdiness of the few that, in turn, give the public the wrong image of UMass. The efforts of the police are beneficial to the entire community as a whole, and if students wish not to be arrested, they should not violate drug laws in their rooms. Some fellow students don't understand that what they are doing is illegal, and so long as it stays illegal, the police have a right to try to stop it. If you don't break the law, you can't get in trouble. I don't feel bad for the few party animals on each floor that drink and smoke and get arrested as a result. On the legal matter, while I am not a lawyer, I am a Legal Studies major and decided to read up quite a bit on this matter. I find the activities of the police to be perfectly legal. This IS a public university, and thus the buildings, including dorms, are public. Universities, likewise, have the right to authorize the police to prevent and control crime on campus.

    I applaud the police for their efforts. I think it is about time that the school, with the aid of the police, crack down on the lawless and immature behavior of some students. The school and police are finally realizing that not all UMass students are wild, and those of us who aren't do not wish to live near or attend class with the students who are.

  • OMG, our kids are our parents, what wussies...
  • Posted by Elderhippy at Wesleyan '71 on December 13, 2006 at 1:20pm EST
  • Sorry, Miss Goodie Two shoes of the silent majority (wiki that phrase and Richard Nixon), but having police roam through the dorms in search of your fellow stiudent pot smokers to arrest and expel is not OK, no matter what you think of or about the law. And do us a favor Ms. Legal Studies and don't go to law school until you grow up. (Yes, IAAL). In the words of the inimitable B.A. Baracus (Mr T.), I pity the fool who plays by the conformist rules you do. When you wake up unfulfilled in some cubicle in midlife crisis, it's gonna be a doozie.

    Hope this is not too libelous.

  • Dealers in what? Cigarettes? Aspartame?
  • Posted by Legalize It on December 13, 2006 at 1:35pm EST
  • It's fascinating to me how willingly people in this country continue to go along with Prohibition II despite continued evidence of its ineffectiveness and even harm. Worried about dangerous dealers? That's an artifact of criminalization, not the drug. Concerned about health? Why not outlaw twinkies, too? Concerned about real crime? Then why waste the police's time on pot smokers?

    Yet we piously nod our heads. Pot bad. Please search us now, Officer Friendly. We need close supervision.

    Oh, and "joint president" was pretty funny, too.

  • people seem to be asking the wrong question
  • Posted by LArry on December 13, 2006 at 2:15pm EST
  • Folks, before all rush to judgments about how whether privacy is good or bad, you need to start from the basics of the 4th amendment and its surrounding jurisprudence. Most of the commentors objections are subsumed into rather conventional 4th amendment analysis.

    First of all, as it appears, the students police are seeking warrants based on things observed in a space that may or may not be public. It is unclear whether the students that are doing the ratting (or RAs) work for the police or the school, or just, out of the goodness of their heart decide to rat on their fellow students.

    Second, it remains an open question as to whether dorm halls (as opposed to dorm rooms) are public spaces within the meaning of the fourth amendment. On the one hand, all students have access to them. On the other hand, the public does not.

    Umass Student, I understand that you are not a lawyer. Many of us are lawyers. I don’t know why someone would major in legal studies. As you know it is very important to cite your authority before making a legal argument. You did not do that. Whatever the case, just because someone is committing a crime somewhere, does not give rise to the ability of the police to violate their 4th amendment rights. For instance, in Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001), the Supreme Court held that fourth amendment protects individuals from search even when the police use thermal imaging devices to reconnoiter their houses. It doesn’t matter what defendant was doing was illegal. (The police have a stronger argument on their side, because they are procuring warrants, but the information used to obtain the warrants, in this case, may be illegally obtained.)

    Bystander’s analysis, on a constitutional level is flawed. Just because people want police protection does not mean that they give up any expectation of privacy. Should people invite the police into their home they consent to their presence (though not necessarily a search). Likewise, the police can engage in normal “beats” and in exigent circumstances (which are very rare) they can enter someone’s home without a warrant (when a warrant could not be reasonably obtained).

    Kgottardt’s comments are somewhat strange. Nobody seriously thinks that smoking pot will ruin lives. Getting busted will do damage to the career of someone, even if he is from the middle class. (Many firms won’t hire people that have been arrested, regardless of whether they were convicted. The legality of this practice is in question.) Likewise, as Resident points out, legal drugs probably do more damage than marijuana.

    Ms. Burdt, Is sort of out on a limb. Rather than attempt to define an individual’s expectation of privacy, as contemplated by the fourth amendment, she leaps to the idea that “safety” is more important than privacy. She does not analysis whether the police have “Every right” to be there or not (which would subsume the “privacy” issue). Instead, she states other people (but not her) should give up everything because some cop might ensure their safety.

    Loyal Reader has the right idea – the status of the halls is the issue – but he doesn’t offer an analysis of just what these halls are. However, for fourth amendment purposes, the world DOES revolve around the person asserting the right.

    Annoyed Administrator, Like most administrators is sick of students. Like most administrators they treat students not like the adults and scholars they are, but like children. Whether people have a “right” to break a law is irrelevant. Whether they have a “right” to be free from unreasonable searches is the issue. As TBD points out, RAs and administrators are usually on such a power trip, that they constantly call the police on people they don’t like (but never, for some reason, on people, they do.)

    Martin, Nobody is claiming that the students have a right to break laws. The issue is not analogous to searching for drunk drivers, since drunk driving occurs on the roads, which is indisputably not a public place.

    NOWINLA, I seriously doubt that most cops arresting (or ticketing) someone for marijuana possession thin they are saving someone’s life. People not living in dorms seem to enjoy a much higher expectation of privacy simply because they can afford a much large area protected by the fourth amendment.

    I wonder how Umassstudent figures that she is in the “silent majority.”

  • Not a Moment Too Soon!
  • Posted by miracatta on December 13, 2006 at 2:15pm EST
  • Legal age notwithstanding, let's all recognize that students in dorms are KIDS in transition toward adulthood. They are not yet functioning adults.

    Privacy is not the ultimate value. Education and PROTECTION of our children are more important. I'd prefer dorms to be separated by gender,with drugs and alcohol being forbidden, and with an enforced curfew.

    Oh the horror, the horror, you say. Repression! Restriction!

    Absolutely so. Our youth are in school to be educated and prepare for adult life, which will become increasingly rocky on this job-scarce, overpopulated, environmentally damaged planet.

    Police roaming the halls would not be necessary if the dorm residents behaved: it's that simple.

  • Posted by UMass Alumnus on December 13, 2006 at 2:20pm EST
  • "UMass Student" deserves praise for speaking out for the rights of responsible students. Unfortunately, "Elderhippy" demonstrates how hard the struggle will be against the leftovers of the Parasitic Generation of the sixties.

  • UMass policing dorms
  • Posted by Jim Blyler , Director at SEEdSAM on December 13, 2006 at 3:35pm EST
  • It used to be said of police departments of their police "that it takes one to know one" and that was their excuse for some of their hires!
    I have worked with the police in drug/code enforcement for many years. One could now probably say that we do surprise visits to the police' homes, follow them home from the bars after work (or maybe it should be their girlfriends' homes).
    When do we learn that a certain amount of 'distasteful' behaviour goes on in this world and we don't gain much from jailing, firing or expelling the 'miscreants'.
    Jim B., SEEdSAM
    Franklin, NC

  • reply to Mircatta re: two tiers of 4th amendment protection
  • Posted by Larry on December 13, 2006 at 4:15pm EST
  • Miracatta, I appreciate how you might think that this is simple, but because you propose to construct a fourth amendment which treats college students differently than non-college students, it is necessary to offer you a response that is somewhat complicated. First of all, for fourth amendment purposes, the age of the students is not at all relevant. (Certain cases dealing with the situs of high school students have held that property owned by the school enjoys a reduced expectation of privacy, regardless of age. E.g Vernonia SD v. Acton. Each case, however, did not state that just because someone was young, the police acted as their parents and could, without crossing 4th amendment hurdles, simply search them.) Privacy, unlike education and “protection” are enshrined in the constitution, so, as a legal matter you are simply wrong: privacy is more important than education. I do not take a position regarding whether the police actually properly obtained the warrants, but you don’t seem to focus on the actual legal issues, instead, you leap to the conclusion that some Americans just can’t handle the constitution

    Umass Alumnus, Calling people names and referring to generational problems doesn’t advance the conversation. Umass Student’s problems was that she purported to make a legal argument, but didn’t cite authority, when most, if not all authority for her general proposition was simply inapposite. In this day and age of global terror, Americans must be very careful to cite sources for their propositions.

  • Law abiding automatons - not!
  • Posted by Loyal Reader on December 13, 2006 at 6:25pm EST
  • "So the U wants to create law-abiding automatons who revere any law, no matter how unfair or arcane, and who buy only taxable goods"

    You sound like you are about 18 years old. People can't just run around breaking laws they don't agree with and then expect no consequences. Obviously you don't have children, or at least I hope not. If you did, would you tell your children they didn't have to follow the rules in your house if they didn't agree with them??!!! Can I just come and go at my job and not follow my workplace's "laws" if I don't agree with them?? Get real!!

    If you don't agree with the laws (marijuana being illegal) then work to get it changed! But for now it is the law.

  • Relevance
  • Posted by Martin on December 13, 2006 at 6:30pm EST
  • All of the comments are good, depending on which side of the road you are on. The bottom line me must never forget is that illegal drugs are just that, illegal. If you want to change the laws, then voice your opinion and VOTE. Drugs are illegal and the use of drugs is illegal, period.

  • framing the argument
  • Posted by Larry on December 13, 2006 at 8:00pm EST
  • Marin, Just two small points here. 1) The issue is not whether drugs are “legal” or legal, but whether the constitution protects the students from incursions into their personal areas; and 2) in most states drug use is in illegal, but possession and/or trafficking is.

    Loyal Reader, Nobody is arguing that there is a constitutional right to use drugs in this context. They are arguing that there is a constitutional right to be free from certain searches inside the dorm, if the information that a warrant is based upon is obtained from smells emanating in a semi-private hallway.

  • Posted by E. Publius on December 13, 2006 at 8:00pm EST
  • Agreed completely. UMass is trying to do its job and the kids protesting are doing so only to protect illegal caches of pot and alcohol they are not prohibited to have. Its not like Amherst is a dry town or a party is hard to find off campus. If they do not want the tight regulations of the dorms, move off campus. Rent off campus is cheaper than the dorms now.

  • Posted by Annoyed administrator on December 14, 2006 at 4:25am EST
  • Well it's a good thing that Larry is always commenting on articles on this site to tell us all how wrong we are. I know I truly appreciate the implication that none of us in this field knows what we are doing. Thanks for always clearing up everything for us.

    I'm sure this is to libelous to post, but maybe IHE will suprise me.

  • Suburban pot smokers just don't get it
  • Posted by Georgia NeSmith on December 14, 2006 at 4:25am EST
  • Recent medical research has shown that long-term, habitual marijuana smoking can be just as bad for your heart and lungs as tobacco. It is not a "harmless" drug. Even short-term use in susceptible persons can cause cardiovascular and respiratory distress.
    Still, that's not the primary issue for me. College students may choose to expose themselves to that harm as they see fit in some area that does not expose non-smokers to the risk. But unless they are growing the pot in their basements, their purchase of illegal substances contributes to drug-related crime and violence elsewhere.
    In particular, that "elsewhere" is in poor neighborhoods like mine. Suburbanites come to buy drugs for their "parties" -- a very troubled neighborhood where violent crimes are nearly always related to the drug trade.

    Middle class and wealthy people look down on neighborhoods like mine, lulling themselves into thinking that the real problem is all those drug-addicted poor people. They might even be good little liberals who want the government to fund rehabilitation programs instead of putting the addicts in jail.
    But the drug trade would not be profitable without the middle and upper class abusers who think that what they are doing is just having a party.

    Because they are safe in their quiet, well-to-do neighborhoods, they can't see how much harm their little "parties" are causing in troubled areas like mine. They don't see the drug-related murders and the shootings and stabbings and beatings, some of which have taken place within blocks of my home.
    It may be that pot should be legalized because, after all, tobacco and alcohol are also harmful but are legal and socially acceptable addictive substances. But so long as it is illegal, the network required to grow, distribute and sell it will involve criminals, many of whom will commit violence, even murder, to protect their business.
    For example, in 2001 a brutal murder above the Carnegie Deli in New York City was connected to marijuana sales. In 2005, marijuana growing operations in Alberta, Canada, were involved in the killing of four Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
    The full impact is difficult to track because police often do not keep records separating marijuana-related violence from other drug violence.
    My "socially responsible" liberal friends who boycott WalMart and refuse to buy products made in sweatshops need to understand that the criminal element producing and selling pot is often cut from the same cloth — and often the same people — as those operating on my street.
    It is naïve for them to think the pot business involves only Grateful Deadheads sitting around toking joints and talking philosophy. There's too much money to be made.

    So I say "Nice Job!" to the Amherst police who are cracking down at UMass. I wish our local colleges would do the same.

  • Posted by Larry on December 14, 2006 at 7:05am EST
  • Annoyed Administration, I don’t know if you know what you are doing or not. I don’t even know what you think you are doing, besides trying to act as a parent and to adults. Like many, I think that administrators generally are on power trips, and have little idea what faculty and students do. Instead, they just wish to extent their tenure as an RA into middle age. I don’t see how what you said is libelous.

    Publius, Since I have not taken a position regarding the status of the hallways, you still raise an interesting point: students that live of campus seem to be enjoying much more independence, and a much more robust constitution then students in the dorms.

    Ms. Smith, I am curious as to what research you are talking about regarding pot. I am sure there are many people in here that would like to read the journal articles that you read. As to your argument that pot somehow encourages crime, perhaps you have a good point, but that doesn’t change the debate regarding the extent to which students must be kept free from unreasonable searches.

  • Posted by Elderhippy , Elderhippy on December 14, 2006 at 2:55pm EST
  • UMASS Alumnus: "Parasitic generation" of the 60's vs. "responsible kids" today and how hard your struggle will be to convert the world into a police-supervised state until all of us are demised. Are we a teensy bit angry and defensive, aren't we, cowgirls?

    Well, first, I don't understand your "parasitic" bit. Judging from both your posts and mine, we're both college graduates. And I graduated from law school, passed the bar, practiced law well enough to make a living from it, raised two kids and managed to make the expected "parental financial contributiion" to their higher ed.

    So I'm not getting your self-satisfaction about hurling around epitets like "parasite", but if it makes you feel better, OK.

    As to the topic...some further reflections:

    Both of my kids absolutely refused to live in a dorm, or go to a school that required a dorm. At the time, that made me angry: I just thought my kids wanted to "live large" in an apartment and was put off by the notion that they couldn't abide by roommates. You know, that whole, "When I was your age..." lecture. But now, seeing that many school administrators want to be faux prison wardens, I have reconsidered.

    I would also note that many of the schools including my alma mater and the local four year residential liberal arts school up here are combining this "zero tolerance"/police in dorms approach with a move to curtail or eliminate fraternity or off-campus apartments.

    And compared to the kindly old night watchman or two of my day, schools nowadays, including my alma mater, seem to be literally crawling with campus cops, at some schools, real state police. This was once about safety and rapes and "take back the night" concerns about crime, but, like the bigger society at large, the policing seems repurposesed to systematically identify, demonize, arrest, incarcerate and marginalize those who dare to disobey our draconian but nonsensical drug laws. Bravo, there guys.

    All I can say is that I learned as much in college or more from the better educated fellow students I b.s.'ed with late at night than my classes, and part of that was an independent casual atmosphere that would have been pretty buzzkilled by a heavy police presence.

    All of this control freakism on the part of administrators, RAs and police sounds deadly to an atmosphere of learning and intellectual experimentation which may include (the horrors, the horrors) underage drinking of beer and puffing of pot. Neither my kids or I could see why someone should pay $50K/yr or go into debt for that kind of experience.

    I worry society is the loser here and your generation, "alumnus", because you are being cheated of a more meaningful college experience of peer learning by this top down, authoritarian control freakism. Administrator, would you not be happier and acting more appropriately as a headmaster of a prep school or middle school assistant principal?

    Some folks need to review their priorities.

  • "Football" riot last Saturday at UMASS Amherst
  • Posted by Elderhippy at Wesleyan '71 on December 18, 2006 at 7:45am EST
  • "UMass Amherst Plans Swift Disciplinary Action Following Post-Football Game Riot on Campus

    Dec. 16, 2006

    Contact: Ed Blaguszewski
    413/545-0444

    AMHERST, Mass. – The University of Massachusetts Amherst will take swift disciplinary action against students involved in a riot that occurred in the Southwest residential area following Friday night’s NCAA championship football game that was held in Chattanooga, Tenn.

    At 11:10 p.m., approximately 10 minutes after completion of the game, more than 1,800 students began surging into the plaza of Southwest. UMass Police said a riot ensued, resulting in injuries to two officers; the arrest of 11 people, including 10 students, and substantial property damage. The disturbance ended about 1:50 a.m.

    Michael Gargano, vice chancellor for student affairs and campus life, said students will be disciplined, which may include expulsion from the university and loss of this semester’s academic record. “I’m outraged and terribly disappointed in the students involved in this disturbance,” said Gargano. “Whether they were active participants, urging on lawbreakers, or being bystanders, they in some way contributed to what transpired. This type of behavior hurts the majority of our students who are studying and preparing for final exams and are at the university for all the right reasons.” Gargano said alcohol and substance abuse played a significant role in creating the disturbance.

    UMass Police Chief Barbara O’Connor said more people may be charged following the review of digital video from security cameras and building swipe-card records. Gargano said this review could lead to university discipline for additional students.

    Campus spokesman Ed Blaguszewski said police were pelted with bottles, cans, rocks, trash cans and bicycles. Some small fires were set, and a large number windows along the plaza were smashed. More than 60 officers in riot gear, including UMass Police, Amherst Police and State Police, were on the scene. They used pepper ball, sting ball, flash bangs and smoke to eventually disperse the crowd. One UMass officer and one Amherst officer suffered what are believed to be minor injuries."

    Source: http://www.umass.edu/newsoffice/newsreleases/articles/42857.php

    OK. Now, the "student side" of the dispute of course isn't discussed in the college's one-sided press release, but I really don't believe this riot against police was caused by the college football team losing.

    I think it's more than a coincidence that this riot happened at EXACTLY the same school that the administrators have been trying to foster a top-down authoritarian regime with police in dorms as discussed above. Funny how the more they try to "crack down" and "show who's boss", the more resistance they will be met with.

    Doesn't anyone remember the lessons of the 60's: those schools that tried to deal harshly with demonstrators by calling the cops to bash some heads (Berkeley, Chicago, Columbia spring to mind) in order to to show the kids and alums who was boss only fanned the conflagration. Schools like mine that ignored or "coddled" demonstrators (like my alma mater) found it much easier going.

  • Posted by Reader on January 3, 2007 at 3:16pm EST
  • Hey guys, settle down. This is a comment section, that's all.