Reforming SJP fines another opportunity to improve accessibility
The fact that the burden of Student Judicial Programs fines falls unevenly on students of differing socioeconomic statuses is not up for debate. What does appear to be up for debate is whether SJP should continue to be able to impose fines on students as a punitive sanction for violations of the Code of Student Conduct. As student judicial officials, we believe the answer is no.
Any two students who commit identical Code violations should be sanctioned equally, but that effectively doesn’t happen when fines are used. (Fines do not include restitution for damaged property. If you break it, you buy it.) Fines are commonplace and convenient, and we understand why SJP currently uses them, but a low-income student may experience a monetary fine as significantly more punitive than a high-income student does.
There must be a better alternative to fines. A variety of other sanctions like a letter of reprimand, community service, alcohol offender education, disciplinary probation, among others could be used in lieu of fines without losing the punitive value of the sanction package. Not only would these alternative sanctions be more socioeconomically equitable, they would likely be more educational and beneficial for the community that was harmed.
The argument against fines can be made from another perspective. Fines don’t effectively prevent recidivism, as many sociology and criminology studies have demonstrated. If fines aren’t effective, why, other than ubiquity and convenience, are we still using them?
That students agree to SJP’s existing penalty structure when they matriculate isn’t an argument against its alteration. Students agree to a Code of Student Conduct and an Alcohol Policy that change almost every year. Moreover, judicial precedence is not established to be blindly followed. Communities evolve and so should the policies that govern them.
In the past, students have successfully advocated for reforms in SJP processes, and the next SA president will be in an excellent position to lead an effort to phase out fines. The next president can and should maximize his efforts by utilizing the unique prominence of his position to bring together campus stakeholders and to echo the concerns of the student body. This issue needs campus-wide attention, and the SA president, with the backing of the student body and other campus organizations, can give it that. We’re excited to see students recognizing the importance of this issue and hope that the discussion will result in another reform that improves low-income accessibility on campus.
Makenzie Drukker is a University Court College Representative, the former Chair of University Court and a McMurtry College senior.
Joyce Chen is a University Court New Student Representative and a McMurtry freshman.
Marcela Interiano is the current Chair of University Court and a Lovett College senior.
More from The Rice Thresher
Proposed constitutional changes — or power grab?
Four months ago, the Student Association formed a special committee to review its constitution. Two days ago, members of the committee presented their findings, suggesting four major changes to functionally, they say, streamline the SA’s efficiency — granting them “ultimate authority” over Blanket Tax Organizations like student media and Rice Program Council, and eliminating BTO perspectives from the committee that disburses some $300,000 every year.
Students should prioritize American patriotism
A threat to American values has grown rapidly in recent years: the anti-war movement’s shift to an anti-military stance, calling for divesting from, and in effect dismantling, the defense industrial base. The hyperbolic language found here should alarm Rice students because the U.S. military needs those same companies to develop critical technologies in the functioning of U.S. defense.
Consider ethics while designing AI major
From a little-known concept among researchers to generating summaries with every Google search, artificial intelligence’s accessibility has skyrocketed over the past decade. However, its innovation comes at a cost. Training ChatGPT-3 was estimated to generate 552 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent, more than the emissions of 559 flights from London to New York. Artificial intelligence can also steal from artists and reproduce racist biases from its data sets.
Please note All comments are eligible for publication by The Rice Thresher.