Too much hype over noise violations
By Ben Tate
About a month ago, one of my housemates received an e-mail from the Office of Student Life telling him that he had to appear at a judicial hearing for violating a section of the university's Student Conduct Code. Puzzled, he read on and discovered that he had violated section 17 of the Code:
"Misconduct in which a student is detained, arrested, cited or otherwise charged with violations of local, state or federal laws that materially or adversely affect the individual's suitability as a member of the Santa Clara University community."
As it turns out, this was in reference to a $300 fine he received for accruing three noise complaints under his name in a given year.
"Forty-eights," as they are commonly referred to by off-campus residents, are not issued to a particular house. Rather, when a noise complaint has been filed, the 48 is issued to an individual tenant.
These warnings don't necessarily always come directly from the house, either. Sometimes a 48 is issued due to groups of people making noise outside of a particular house.
Does the university really consider three noise complaints in a year a grave enough offense to bring in to question a student's suitability as a member of the Santa Clara community?
I do not dispute the fact that noisy students should be cited by the police department for disturbing their neighbors.
However, I fail to see how a minor issue between the police and student tenants should be in any way the business of Santa Clara.
The university is overstepping its bounds with this paternalistic policy of punishing a student for something that he has already been punished for. And it is absolutely ludicrous to claim that the aforementioned offense is serious enough to cast doubt on this individual's suitability as a member of the Santa Clara community.
If, however, the university administration does feel that it is necessary to continue such policies, these policies need to become a two way street between the administration and off-campus students.
I find it quite interesting that the administration is making such a concerted and public effort to receive information regarding all off-campus student violations for the sake of sanctioning such students, but has all but completely ignored issues regarding students' actual safety off campus.
I have yet to hear a university administrator speak out about the obvious increase in off-campus violence between Santa Clara students and non-affiliates or about the existence of potentially dangerous tenants in the neighborhood.
In the past year, two police raids have taken place at the small apartment complex next door to our house. A murder took place at the complex down the street. Why isn't the university requesting information about these raids, and, if they are, why aren't they putting pressure on the landlords to evict these tenants?
If something serious enough is happening next door that the police department finds it necessary to bust down the door with a battering ram, I have a hard time believing that those tenants aren't a potential threat to the safety of Santa Clara students.
Jeanne Rosenberger, vice provost for student life, was quoted in last week's paper as saying that the new noise restrictions were likely to lead to more evictions.
It is somewhat troubling to me that even more students could possibly be evicted under these restrictions for simply living the college lifestyle and having a good time, while people who are actually dangerous to the Santa Clara community are able to maintain their residence. I resent the administration's desire to meddle in off-campus affairs. More importantly, though, I wish that the administration would at least develop some consistency in their policies.
If the university is going to make more of an effort to sanction students for making noise in the neighborhood, they need to make more of an effort to protect students from potential safety threats in the neighborhood, as well.
Ben Tate is a senior political science and economics double major.