College should consider economic status before handing down harsh punishments

The Friday before spring break, I made a mistake by organizing a small gathering to drink and relax in the Club Room of Kenyon Hall. Word got out, many people showed up, and beer was spilled on three very expensive tables, staining them.

In the investigation that followed, both myself and a fellow student admitted to having planned the initial gathering; although I cannot speak for my collaborator, I came forward in the interest of honesty and because I'm still ashamed of enabling that kind of damage, especially given the economic climate and my previous efforts to address the epidemic of damage to the campus. I was summarily banned from campus except for classes and to study in the Library, pending a hearing with the College Regulations Panel.

I begin with that explanation both to set the record straight and to stress that what follows is not an attempt to absolve myself of responsibility for my actions; I failed in my responsibilities as a student to preserve the College and act responsibly during my time here.

My experience with the pecuniary process, however, has shed light on several surprising aspects of College policy. As the system is currently set up, the initial punishment is excessively harsh and exceedingly disruptive to all aspects of life, even academics; sleeping on couch cushions on the floor and eating mostly bagels all week is not conducive to studying, despite the College's stated goal to prevent any disruption of studies.

Especially during these harsh economic times, and with the focus on need-blind admissions and socioeconomic sensitivity, the College should be looking at its pecuniary system and asking whether it's right that the first line of punishment is virtually impossible financially and excessively disruptive academically. Two weeks is not a length of time where one can begin renting a room or invest in furniture while waiting for a final decision; since being banned from housing is already a potential punishment, immediate yet temporary exile is both drastic and unnecessarily vindictive on the Administration's part.

The most striking aspect of the College's decision to ban me pending my hearing came when I was discussing why I was banned, having never had a prior write-up and having spent the last year-and-a-half working through the Vassar Student Association to improve College life.

A senior administrator explained that it is "standard policy" to ban someone when they have a hearing scheduled, regardless of all but the most dire extenuating circumstances. In short, the first step taken by the administration in dealing with a suspected violation is to deny the student involved food and shelter, based solely on an initial investigation and without any hearing process or any manner of appealing the decision.

A decision of this type would be understandable if an individual was an active threat to the campus community; however, the explanation of this procedure as "standard" is greatly disturbing. As I continued to discuss this process over the course of my first week of banishment, it was further explained that the procedure was meant solely as punishment, rather than having a solid basis in safety concerns.

Not only does this preemptive punishment make a mockery of the hearing process, where I will already face severe punishment, but its effects utterly ruin quality of life and ability to continue academic pursuits. All I can imagine is how much worse it would be if I hadn't been lucky enough to know someone living off campus and had a car to spend the first day sleeping in. The fact is that one to two weeks is an utterly unmanageable amount of time to find food and shelter; landlords do not lease rooms on a weekly basis in Poughkeepsie, and moving into a hotel is unthinkable financially. By adopting this instantaneous punishment as protocol for allegations of serious violations, the Administration exposes its ambivalence to student quality of life and success once a single mistake has been made.

More than by my personal experience, I'm troubled by Vassar College being run by an administration that puts its desire to punish instantly and without due process over such basics as food and shelter for the accused student, especially when the action used to take those necessities away results in a much worse situation for students without expansive bank accounts and credit cards.

Every aspect of our school has been under economic stress, which only accentuates the guilt I feel for enabling costly damage. However, administrative protection of tables, expensive or not, should fall far below providing sustenance and a place to sleep for all students that do not pose a threat to themselves or the community. It's this kind of action that creates a climate of disrespect between the students and the administrators; once your basic necessities have been valued below stained table varnish, it becomes increasingly difficult to maintain a positive attitude toward the evaluator. That said, I hope that this issue can be addressed respectfully to correct the current policy's socioeconomic insensitivity and needless vindictiveness. Admission is need-blind; the Administration would do well to ensure that the rest of its policies are similarly egalitarian.


—Sean Koerner '11 has served as Noyes House President during the 2008-09 academic year. After being suspended from campus, Vice President Andi Sharavsky '11 has served as Acting President, pending the results of Koerner's College Regulations hearing on April 1.