Old Gold and Black > 10.3.02 > Rule 16 doesn't foster adult responsibility
The Student Newspaper of Wake Forest University
Established 1916





 

 

 

Rule 16 doesn't foster adult responsibility

This column represents the views of the Old Gold and Black Editorial Board

In the Spring of 1999, the Student Life Committee drafted a new off-campus living policy, commonly referred to as Rule 16 because it was rule number 16 of the university's social regulations and policies. The policy was enacted to allow the university to keep an accurate record of students living off campus and to limit "inappropriate behaviors" of students living off campus.

The concern with this rule is that it demonstrates a lack of faith in students and implements unnecessary paternalistic rules on responsible adults. The viable complaints about this rule are wide and varied.

Rule 16 states that "Conduct or activity by members of the student body living in, or hosting functions at, off-campus locations which has the effect of unreasonably interfering with the rights of neighbors is prohibited."

While all members of a community clearly have rights to peaceful and quiet living, it is not necessarily the university's responsibility to mandate student's actions regarding their off-campus behavior. Residential communities have already adopted policies to protect their rights, and there are many channels through which offenders can be held accountable. Landlords and the Winston-Salem police department should implement the sanctions they and the courts deem fair. The university does not need to, nor should it, extend its rules and jurisdiction to students' private homes.

If parents allow their college-aged children to take the next step toward independence and live off campus, then the university should respond in kind. Paternalistic rules regulating the actions of students who have chosen to live off campus do not encourage the adult responsibility to which we are legally entitled. If off-campus students were to be working full-time jobs instead of attending school, they would be subject to the same rights and restrictions as the other residents. Instead, they are subject to both legal repercussions and university sanctions.

According to recent studies conducted by the Division of Student Life, none of our peer institutions have implemented similar policies, thus choosing to treat their students like mature adults and to place their confidence in the sanctions society has established. The university should follow the example of its peers and reevaluate Rule 16.

Students need to band together and lobby their Student Government representatives to change this policy to reflect the freedoms granted by our peer institutions. The Resident Student Association should also act as an ally to students and resolve to seek a better policy than Rule 16.

Clearly some repercussions for off-campus behavior are fair and normal, but when it comes to community living, these responsibilities should be handled by the community at large and not the university.



 


Copyright 2002, WFU Publications Board. All rights reserved.