Pioneer LogLewis & Clark College’s Student-Run Newspaper

Punishment: Forcing kids to live on campus

March 18, 2010

by Karen Lickteig // guest writer

Recently, a sophomore student entered the conduct process after being written up for just the fourth time in his entire Lewis & Clark career. Upon having his conduct meeting with an administrator, the student was given his sanction: He would be required to live on campus for an additional semester beyond the normal four-semester residency requirement. His high hopes for moving off-campus to live in a house and with friends were crushed; the independence that had been within his grasp would have to be postponed.

In response to what I believe is a grievous misuse of the conduct system, I am proposing a resolution in the ASLC Student Senate condemning this sanction and urging the administration to terminate its use. (As of printing, I expect the resolution to pass on March 18).

Normally, sanctions assigned to a student who enters the conduct process after being found responsible for a violation of policy are intended to be educational and useful to that student. A first infraction might include a formal warning or taking a self-assessment. Repeat violations will incur more serious sanctions, but still should address the issue at hand, be useful to the student for the apparent problem, and not be unnecessarily punitive. This might include unconditional probation, community service, or even changing residence halls.

There are several problems with requiring a student to live on campus past the normal residency requirement in response to a policy violation. First, it runs counter to the underlying ideas behind both Campus Living and the conduct system. Being required to live on campus is supposed to help us become responsible and productive community members.

If the residence hall environment is not working in this way for a particular student, who is to say that another semester on campus, without any real changes, will help that student? It might even create a more unfriendly environment for the student and others in that hall: If that person does not want to be there, why would he or she care to contribute to that community?

Additionally, if the conduct system is supposed to offer a productive response to an apparent individual issue, how does living on campus specifically address that problem? The answer is: It doesn’t.

Another problem with this sanction is that it treats living on campus essentially as a punishment: There is no clear learning outcome, and thus the perception of it is merely punitive. Is this really the message that Campus Living wants to convey? That living on campus is a loathsome arrangement, rather than an enjoyable opportunity? And let’s be honest: Living on campus is expensive. Requiring a full semester of this burden might cause unexpected financial issues, potentially causing a student to reconsider returning to LC altogether.

A student’s living environment is a big deal. It is not something to be treated lightly by anyone. Students who have fulfilled the residency requirement often desire to begin living like adults and taking on the corresponding responsibility.

Ultimately, meddling with a student’s living arrangements in this way is inappropriate and unproductive. It will likely not achieve any positive outcome for the individual, and will likely be counterproductive for Campus Living, the integrity of the conduct system, and any students who receive this sanction.