Inconvenient Truths

Student rights.

I was really pleased to receive an advance copy of John Croxton's op-ed piece in the Trinitonian this week. In it, he challenges the "creeping paternalism" of the University. I think he mostly means me, but that's fine. I love that John reached out to me and we have plans for continuing dialogue. He is being respectful, has some ideas, and we should welcome the exchange of differing opinions at a campus like ours.

Since he is legit, and not a troll, I thought I would give some counter-arguments to some of his points. He interprets the recent increased residence hall security changes as over-reach and cites two other examples to state his case. We did recently restrict access so off-campus students no longer have access to the Trinity University dorms. We learned, through an incident last spring, that upon purging students from the off-campus records, we were missing some when their status was in-between (on leave, for example). There was an incident with one such student led to us of a loophole that needed closing.

So we closed it. I don't feel too badly about it because typically students on campuses ONLY have access to their own dorms. This is because students can more easily identify who should and shouldn't be there so thieves, assailants, and vandals can be identified and dealt with. Because our halls are not traditional, with one main entrance in most cases, we were open, and quite benevolent, in allowing inter-dorm access when card-access was developed. Then, SGA (formerly ASR) wanted off campus students to have access, which was a ridiculous request. But I said to them "find me another school in the country that does this and we will do it too." Well they did. Dammit. So we did it, but I never liked it. (A survey of ACS schools this week confirms that few of these peers allow access by non-residents.)

Hodor

The other two examples cited are our tobacco-free campus and our prohibition on hard liquor. The University has embraced student health and wellness in its strategic plan and even backed that with the hiring of a Health and Wellness Coordinator. The Bell Athletic Center is currently undergoing a $14 million renovation. And there is a cool running group on campus too. Institutionally we are making statements about health and wellness. (We are in favor.) It is in-congruent to allow smoking and associated behaviors. So the ban makes perfect sense and is backed by science. The only compelling reason some students offer in opposition, is they don't want to be told what to do, which is not very scientific. Ironically, students lobbied for condoms in Health Services, the bookstore, and the convenience store because they felt the university needed to support safe sex. SGA is currently pushing for feminine hygiene products in the public area restrooms (which I support). Is this paternalism? Shouldn't individual students be responsible for their own products?

I have explained the hard liquor ban many times, including in this blog. That is a tougher call for me. While it may seem arbitrary, two of our values are pitted against one another: acknowledging students will drink vs. caring deeply about student health and safety. Sometimes you have to choose, and we picked health and safety this time. That John references the 2002 hard liquor ban (it was banned much earlier, but revisited then) puts a new spin on the term "creeping," incidentally.

How we are perceived matters to me. John points out that we do tout our Responsible Friend and B'Low Optimal programs as student friendly and progressive. I like that we are student-centered, and that includes an active SGA, and student boards for campus social and academic violations. We remain one of the few schools now that includes a student voice in Title IX hearings. Students matter here and we take their input all the time.

Students can't have it both ways, however, as noted in the earlier condom example. Nearly all of our decisions begin with campus safety and health. When things go wrong, students (and their parents and their attorneys) will look at Trinity, its policies, and its enforcement of policies to see if we fell short in our obligations. Just this week several parents on the Parent Facebook page raised legitimate concerns about a car theft on campus. They mused about increasing patrols and adding more lighting. They seem in favor of paternalism. There was an expectation, as well, across campus, that we provide crossing guards up at City Vista as we have awaited the activation of the cross-walk. Indeed, the University staff and parents are probably more aligned on these topics than both groups are with students. Students will often view things based on immediate and short-term impact, such as whether or not they have to wait outside of a door of a building they don't live in.

What is more, parents contact us all the time for things their students should, or could, handle on their own. We don't mind, because we like that partnership. And we know that moving from adolescence to adulthood is a process. So we can back off, I suppose, when parents do.

But we have the long view and are unapologetic, because we are not values free. We don't sell pornography or tobacco in the bookstore. We don't allow guns on campus. We don't allow pot regardless of what Colorado permits. We make people live on campus for three years because this matters to us as an institution. We don't allow hazing. We intervene on behalf of campus neighbors when living next to our students becomes unbearable. We recycle. We put nets between the baseball field and the pool deck so sun-bathers don't get hit by home runs from our national championship baseball team. We send students to the drunk tank with cab fare to get back to campus safely. (We are just the WORST.)

Mostly what we do, is try to keep our students safe and healthy. We don't want our students to do shots, or pollute their lungs, or let strangers into their dorms. It can be a lot of work protecting our students from themselves. And while most times we consult with students on most things, sometimes we just have to do what is right. And sometimes we have to say "no." Where some might nitpick and see "moralizing paternalism unfit for a modern university," I simply see us doing our job. Most reasonable people expect no less from us, regardless of how inconvenient that may be.