By From The Editors

All of the University’s residential students are prepped on the do’s and dont’s of dorming way before they move in their Yaffa blocks and mini-fridge. We know all the rules on quiet hours, underage drinking and drugs on campus. However, most students are unaware of their fundamental rights as residents. Can resident assistants or resident directors search your room without consent? To what length is our privacy protected while living on campus?

Last week the boundaries of the power of resident assistants was tested when students in Liberty Hall were woken up at 1:30 a.m. by their RA because of what she claimed was “unlivable” bathroom conditions, i.e. hair on shower walls. Residents, appalled by the RA’s attitude and actions, wanted to find out if the residential staff is allowed to call emergency meetings for a less than spic and span bathroom.

But when they went to their resident director she informed them of a little known policy called the “Now and Then” procedure. She explained that if there is vandalism in residence halls, (yes, she claimed, an untidy bathroom that hasn’t been cleaned by janitors in 48 hours constitutes as such vandalism) students can and will be woken out of their peaceful slumber to address the situation “right then and there.” When residence asked to see this rule in a handbook, the residential staff claimed it was an unwritten rule.

Most students have never heard of this policy. Neither has the Office of Residential Life. Lynda O’Malley, associate dean of students, who has been at the University for over 15 years, said this was the first time she ever heard of a “Now and Then” procedure. O’Malley said that it seems as though the student staff took a rule that was set-up for major incidents of repeated destruction out of context.

So if this is not a “real” rule, why did the students living in Liberty Hall have such a difficult time finding out how to respond to the situation? The next logical step when there is a problem with the RA is to speak with the RD. However, in this instance, the RD sided with her staff, even though the rule being enforced was in fact made-up.

While this seems to be an isolated event, many residents across the board are unaware of how to handle situations dealing with residential life and finding out what rules are official protocols and which are fabricated by RAs to assert power.

It is not the students’ jobs to play detective and question every order doled out by their RA, but it is their responsibility to know the rules.

At the beginning of each year residents receive The Guide to Pride along with the Living Factor, both of which state every rule the residence staff can enforce. The only gray area, O’Malley said, is when it comes to students complying with regulations. If someone is told to stop running in the hall by their RA, even though this is not an “official” rule, if they do not comply there can be consequences.

But it is this gray area that seems to be a problem. While the power to punish those who fail to comply is essential to the effectiveness of RA’s to enforce rules, it has open the doors for them to abuse their authority. RAs should use their judgment when policing their brood and recognize the rights of students. It would be wise to post these rights in the dorm, where they would be accessible to residents and RAs.

No policy should be created that violates the rights of residents, unless there is a serious threat to the welfare of those living in the building. Perhaps, RAs should be provided with a list of specific instances that would qualify as dangerous.

In turn, students also need to do their part and read The Guide To Pride and Living Factor to know if their rights are being violated. While ignorance of the law is no excuse, the University needs to do more to encourage students to become aware of campus policies.