Eddie Hull, executive director of housing services and dean of residence life, outlined his philosophy for alcohol policy enforcement on campus in an e-mail responding to an October Campus Council resolution.
Eddie Hull, executive director of housing services and dean of residence life, outlined his philosophy for alcohol policy enforcement on campus in an e-mail responding to an October Campus Council resolution. The e-mail—addressed to senior Anthony Vitarelli, president of Campus Council, and many other Student Affairs officials—emphasized the importance of documenting each alcohol policy violation but allowed that certain violations need not be disciplined in every instance.
The e-mail came in the wake of the council’s Oct. 21 resolution requesting that Residence Life and Housing Services staff who observe alcohol policy violations document those violations at their discretion. Hull’s response maintained that all violations be documented—but that not all documentation should lead to discipline.
“The role of RLHS staff will be, as it has been, to observe, comment and document what they discern to be violations of the policy,” Hull wrote. “The context here is to respond definitively to overtly dangerous incidents, but not to discipline a student every time a policy may be violated.”
The response continually emphasized student health concerns as the reason all violations should be documented by resident advisors and other RLHS staff members, noting that health issues demand the University’s involvement and a priority over disciplinary procedure.
“My feeling under these circumstances is that it is more reasonable for our staff to first seek to protect a student’s health without worrying if they will be second-guessed about whether or not an incident should be documented,” Hull wrote.
Hull frequently cited the discretion of his staff as the ultimate factor in the decision to discipline a given violation, saying there was no need to codify every possible outcome for a policy infraction.
Vitarelli said even documentation unaccompanied by discipline can have a deleterious effect on residential life.
“The act of documenting a student—which may not result in discipline—may still harm the relationship with an RA,” said Vitarelli, who compared a mandatory documentation policy unfavorably to one where the decision is left up to the RLHS staff member. “I was disappointed that RLHS has not adopted a codified method of enforcing its alcohol policy.”
Hull defended his staff against any perception that they are intentionally seeking out violations to document.
“They are not law enforcement officers and are directly told by me that we do not play a game of’ ‘gotcha’ with students,” Hull wrote. “Our philosophical underpinnings include treating students as adults.... This inherently and explicitly means that we do not go looking for violations.”
The resolution had emphasized the need for student-to-student policing, an idea Hull took to heart in his response.
“I propose that as a first step in moving toward this goal, Campus Council take a more proactive role in defining how students can be engaged in this effort and begin to model how it can be effective,” Hull wrote. “For example, would CC be prepared to establish a Social FUNction committee that supplements—or replaces—the party monitors?”
Hull also called upon the council to implement another of its suggestions: that the A-team—administrators who serve as security at certain University events—not hand out cups at events where alcohol is served. Although that decision is out of Hull’s jurisdiction, he suggested that Campus Council assume this responsibility.
Vitarelli said the council will continue to deal with issues surrounding alcohol policy enforcement as the year goes on.
“The next step is to revisit the areas where we did not agree,” he said.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.