|
High-risk off-campus behavior at comfortable level |
|
|
|
Tuesday, 29 April 2008 |
by JILLIAN SWORDS
News Reporter
The numbers for the first semester of the university’s off-campus jurisdiction policy are in and encouraging, Coordinator for the Office of Off-Campus Community Relations Kendal B. McDevitt, said.
Less than 2 percent of the student population received off-campus violations in areas the off-campus policy addresses such as alcohol and other drugs, felonies, assaults, and DWIs this semester, McDevitt said.
From Jan. 1 to April 18, McDevitt’s records show there were a total of 260 off-campus violations.
Of
these, 173 were for first-time alcohol or other drug misdemeanor
charges, and the students received only a letter of warning and concern
from the office of off-campus community relations.
The remaining 87 charges were referred to the Office of Student Conduct and underwent some type of sanctioning process.
Of the 87, 40 were level one violations, which are at least second-time alcohol or drug offenses.
The remaining 49 were level two violations, which include assaults,
felonies and DWIs or an alcohol or drug offense for a student who
already had at least two of the same type of violation.
Various offenses included in the 173 who received warning letters were:
13 offenses of providing alcohol to a minor, 12 possessions of up to
half an ounce of marijuana, 87 underage possession or consumptions of
alcohol, and 28 uses or attempts to use a false drivers license to
purchase alcohol.
“We didn’t know exactly what to expect with the numbers,” McDevitt
said. “[Although], local data [showed] the majority of ASU students
aren’t involved in the highest-risk behavior.”
Because her office was anticipating the number of students who received
warning letters to be much higher than the other numbers, the results
met expectations, McDevitt said.
However, both she and University Chief of Police Gunther E. Doerr
stressed the point of the policy is not to control all student
behavior.
“I think there are cases in the past before this policy where we’ve
seen students who’ve slipped through the cracks, if you will,” Doerr
said. “Maybe if they’d been identified beforehand by the university,
maybe they could have received help in dealing with their issues…the
system isn’t designed to be punitive in nature, but assistive in
nature, unless the behavior is so egregious and violent that it
requires immediate action.”
McDevitt said a commonly voiced student concern when the policy was
implemented was that college is a time of exploration in many types of
behavior that are not necessarily high-risk for students.
“I would argue that the numbers show that this does not limit their freedom,” McDevitt said.
Criminology and criminal justice graduate student Jamie V. Roseborough works with the Office of Student Conduct.
He represents the university in conduct board meetings and fields questions students have about the office or new policy.
One of the most common questions he said he receives is “Why is an off-campus violation being handled on campus?”
“The university and state court systems are two totally separate
entities,” Roseborough said. “[So] sometimes it’s hard to understand
that for them…they go through a series of meetings with Kendal, Judy
[Haas] or Karla [Rusch, both of Judicial Affairs], depending on the
severity and student history...Students are usually really uneasy
coming in here but 98 to 99 percent leave feeling good about the
situation here.”
 |
Show/Hide comments
