ARCHIVES
NEWS
COMMUNITY
EDITORIAL
OP-ED
FEATURES
ARTS
SPORTS
March 3, 2000
For story, go to Community
In early February, the Community Arbitration Board suspended two students found in violation of the college’s drug policy. In response to the decision, the students of Johnston Hall, where the suspended individuals had lived, produced a petition with approximately 20 signatures appealing the ruling. Virginia Wesleyan College has a "no tolerance" policy concerning the on-campus use or possession of illegal drugs. Thus, the suspension of two students found in violation of the drug policy would have been an expected course of action. However, the Dean of Students Office received, along with the petition, several letters of concern from other students that were not Johnston Hall residents.
Dean of Students David Buckingham said that he "acknowledges, accepts and respects letters [from students] concerning the CAB decision, and he is meeting with some 21 individuals who expressed concern." Buckingham and Dr. Benjamin Berry, faculty chair of the CAB, explained that the college is not at liberty to disclose specific facts of cases heard before the CAB. President William Greer stated that the entire experience was "wrenching, painful and heartbreaking." Greer also encourages the campus community to "realize that the people who serve on the CAB are people," expressing the sentiment that each arbitrated case is heard carefully and individually.
The college’s drug policy, as stated in the student handbook on page 104, says that "possession, use or distribution of illicit drugs and the unlawful possession, use or distribution of prescription drugs is strictly prohibited on the property owned or leased by the college or at any college activity . . . Ordinarily, a student found in violation of the college drug policy can expect to receive the sanction of suspension or dismissal from the college." The student body, faculty and staff of Virginia Wesleyan College form a community; a community that Berry characterizes as "Apathy U." This college environment consists of two very different, often conflicting but seamlessly interconnected facets. We are all part of an academic community as well as a social community. In addition to being part of this community as the material that it consists of, we are responsible to maintain the health of the community. The philosophy of the administration is stated in the student handbook as follows: "Administrators of student services firmly believe that campus experiences should teach appropriate individual and group behaviors as well as protect student rights and keep the campus community free from disruption and harm (page 95)."
The handbook goes on to demand the aid of members of the community: "students are expected to abide by and uphold the college’s drug policy and are to report such violations of which they become aware to the appropriate college officials. Failing to do so may result in severe disciplinary sanctions, including suspension from the college." The college holds that all cases are to be viewed on their individual merits, and that the Community Review Board is in place to review all CAB decisions. The CRB consists of, "two full-time teaching faculty and two students, one resident, one commuter, appointed by the S.G.A . . . The primary concern of this review shall be to determine whether or not the CAB conducted a reasonably fair, thorough and rational hearing and to evaluate the imposed decision as being in the best interests of the parties involved and the community welfare."
In spite of this, the residents of Johnston Hall took issue with this case. Freshman Sara Mallard said, "It seems like the decision was made so quickly to prove a point. I have great faith in the system, and wish I didn’t feel this way. The school has this great system that is supposed to work for us, but it doesn’t protect us."
Sophomore Melissa Cummings also expressed support for college policies. "The policy is not wrong, but I feel that [in this case] there were presumptions made," Cummings said. Sophomore Jim Baker said, "This makes me question whether the school tries every case individually, or goes in with preconceptions." None of these individuals are directly questioning the issues of the case. However, all express concern that any possibility that an accused individual’s right to due process was violated should be investigated. Freshman Craig O’Neill, one of the students that was suspended, explained that a small amount of marijuana was found in his room during a December Residence Life walk-through. O’Neill said that the marijuana was not his, and it was not in his room when he left for winter break. Other students admitted to being in O’Neill’s room after he had left for the break. Still, O’Neill was suspended for a violation of the drug policy. O’Neill’s primary concern was not simply disappointment at being suspended. He felt that holding an academic scholarship made him more responsible for his fellow students than anyone else normally would be. O’Neill believes that he was punished for not reporting suspicions about other students.
"They [the CAB] determined that I was guilty of possession," O’Neill said. "I was not guilty, but that was their decision to make. Secondly, I was charged with not reporting use of marijuana in the bathroom connecting two rooms. I never admitted that marijuana was used there, and in a subsequent CAB meeting the people were found innocent. Therefore, I feel that I shouldn’t be charged with not reporting something that didn’t happen. These guys didn’t get in any trouble, so obviously, they did nothing wrong." The inconsistencies in the facts of the case are part of what led residents to question the validity of the charges.
O’Neill was cited for not reporting actions violating the student code of conduct, but this accusation implies that the code had to be broken by the individuals found innocent by the CAB. Thus, it is impossible that O’Neill could be guilty of not reporting his fellow students if were not found to be doing anything wrong. The real issue of this case seems to concern process and policy. The drug policy reads that "ordinarily" violations will result in suspension. The relatively substantial response from students that have been characterized as "apathetic" seems to suggest that this is no ordinary case. It is the responsibility of members of the campus community to assure that policies and their enforcement serve the community. The concerned students of Johnston Hall believe they have done just that.