In light of today’s revelations in the DP, "Liquor police: 'Our presence was requested'", we thought it prudent to write a follow-up on our previous long post analyzing the possible repercussions of the now-official cooperation between DPS and BCLE on campus. Previously, as reported by the DP, Division of Public Safety (DPS) VP Maureen Rush responded to complaints about BCLE activity by claiming that they “...[have] blanket authority throughout Pennsylvania to do anything they want.” However, throughout this blog, we repeatedly identified areas of, and expounded upon, the BCLE’s specific lack of blanket authority beyond regular state police. We can only conclude that this year’s invitation of BCLE officers to go beyond busting off-campus parties, to being positioned on-campus in dorms and quite probably in the quad, is a continuation of Maureen Rush’s campaign to completely dismantle Spring Fling in its current and most beloved form. Since we can’t know her motivation, we’ll take a break for a second from veering this post in the op-ed direction and for a moment we'll address the more pertinent legal issues.
Given That My Rights On-Campus Are Already Limited by Codes of Housing and Penn Student Conduct, How Will the On-Campus Presence of BCLE Officers Collaborating with Alcohol Monitors Affect Me?
Our previous post used historical precedent to establish common patterns of punitive behavior for alcohol monitors and DPS officers. Typically, you would receive a small citation with no legal ramifications if you were caught drunk and underage on campus or with alcohol in your room. However, this is NOT a typical Fling. If you are caught drinking in a room, and as we previously stated, Penn staff members can enter at any time to enforce the alcohol policy of the University as interpreted by the house dean (which usually implies a completely dry Quad for Fling), the staff members are now certainly allowed to call in BCLE officers and charge you with a crime. This is now a very real possibility in light of Maureen Rush’s recent statements.
Furthermore, if you are wandering around the quad tipsy, you should be aware that should you draw the attention of an alcohol monitor, the situation may significantly differ now that there will possibly be BCLE officers present. Since you used your PennCard to enter the quad, or have a guest pass, the alcohol monitor can probably ask you to produce it, which would allow him to make a reasonable guess at your age, and then by proxy may allow a called-in BCLE officer to have reasonable suspicion that you have committed the crime of underage drinking. Keep in mind that without a Penn staff member involved, a BCLE officer can still not force you to produce your PennCard or any other form of identification, as this would constitute unreasonable search. Additionally, since you are now on private property, a BCLE officer without an alcohol monitor cannot stop you for public intoxication. That being said, in the reverse situation, an alcohol monitor CAN stop you for being drunk and ask for your PennCard, which might result, as previously mentioned, in BCLE officers being called in and charging you if you are underage.
It is the unfortunate reality now that you have more guaranteed rights off-campus than you do on it. Furthermore, the farther you go from campus, the less likely it seems that BCLE officers will care about your actions. Some frats and societies have even taken this to the logical conclusion of moving Fling activities out of state. And this begs the question, if you are Flinging that far from Penn’s campus, are you even really Flinging anymore, or are you just at another party with a few, self-selected bros? To this end, we’ll address the following question:
In the opinion of this blog’s authors, what are some possible motivations and outcomes of this newfound sense of collaboration between the DPS and BCLE?
Maureen Rush’s job is to both direct the Division of Public Safety, who are responsible for enhancing the quality of life, safety, and security of our community, and to additionally manage all aspects of Law Enforcement, which includes mediating interactions with the BCLE and Philadelphia Police. Given unconfirmed reports of BCLE officers at Fling 2013 parties discussing required arrest quotas, presumably as directed by superior officers or state officials looking to bolster claims of being “tough on students,” we wonder if at this point Mrs. Rush’s dual roles represent a growing conflict of interest. While there is always a trade-off between security and privacy for members of a society (I.E. Penn students), Mrs. Rush’s dual obligations to both enhance our quality of life and increase our safety allow her to claim victory without specific regard to either privacy or security in the case of this year’s Spring Fling.
One would argue that a good place to start in motivating this drastically-increased police presence would be to provide clear and public statistics demonstrating the need for increased safety on campus around Fling, specifically demonstrating a trend of increased alcohol-related violence, hospitalizations, and sexual assaults. Mrs. Rush and the DP have done neither of these, and as such it seems to difficult to believe that there are any obvious trends in the data supporting a proportionate police response of this magnitude.
Instead, through a combination of increased citations around Fling and mandating more restrictive and numerous registered parties, the university officials are driving students to partake in conversely much more unsafe behavior. There seems to still remain a massive demand on campus for alcohol among students of all ages. This is a fundamental reality of college life here at Penn and the university has done little to nothing to address it. What they have instead affected, is the supply of safe venues for alcohol consumption among underage students. Registered parties are laughably restrictive in how they provide and allow you to consume alcohol. Underage students wishing to attend these “parties” tipsy must instead engage in clearly unsafe binge-drinking behavior such as “pregaming,” or ripping 8 shots so that you can find a well-lit frat basement tolerable. This, as well as the lack of an “open-door policy” in dorms, or something comparable, incentivises students to seek out off-campus, unregistered parties. And these parties are a mixed bag. Some of them are just small gatherings associated with teams, clubs, or friends. Others are fairly sketchy affairs run by societies built out of the remnants of former fraternities, kicked off of campus for dubious behavior and most definitely not the places where you would want to direct hapless freshmen in the name of increasing campus safety and security.
To summarize all of this, the possibility of a Fling without fear of legal repercussions is increasingly being restricted to those willing, or even allowed, to attend parties run by shady, unregulated organizations. The few underage Penn students with the social and financial capital to acquire fake IDs and attend downtown parties or invited to out-of-state parties are the only ones for whom a harassment-free and proper Fling experience can be guaranteed this year. We at this blog believe that Fling is a central Penn experience, and should be available to all Penn students. The DPS’ actions this year are merely just promoting further unsafe behavior behind closed doors and an increasingly stratified Penn experience.
-BW&TR
No comments:
Post a Comment