 |
|
|
Friday, 4/13/01
|
|
|
|
|
Friday, 4/13/01
|
|
 Reward offer concerns student Few would disagree that the University should take action against those who destroyed and vandalized property in last week's altercation. However, the decision to offer monetary rewards for turning in people who were "involved" has the possibility of becoming a proverbial witch hunt. What standards of evidence are to be applied when someone is turned in on an anonymous tip … possibly from someone who just happens to not like them? Is it possible that one could have disciplinary action filed against them if they were simply watching an altercation from a distance (and someone happened to snap a picture of them)? Most of the people in the photographs on the police Web site are standing there and doing nothing. An analogy would be if a fight starts in a bar and you rush over to see it … are you at fault? I know several people who were outside that night, but were protecting their property and the property of others from vandalism. If they happen to show up on a photograph, they are now publicly embarrassed for causing no harm to anyone or anything. This could cause irrevocable harm to their reputation, academic career and other unforeseeable consequences. As a person of conscience with civil libertarian leanings, I can see this well-intentioned effort by the University to make an example of wrongdoers can go wrong itself. Karl E. Garman Graduate Student |
Fountain fences will promote safety
Police use ineffective methods Chalkings disgrace, litter campus Hockey offers exciting experience Intolerance should target actions Hockey requires superior abilities University policies generate confusion
OPINIONS DESK PHONE: Opinions editor:
|
|||||
|
| ||||||
