POLICY NOT IN COMMUNITY INTEREST

While I don't know the details of Kyle McAlarney's situation, through
my experience with the Judicial Council (a resource I highly
recommended to any student in trouble) I do have experience assisting
students who have been in situations very similar to his. Based on
these experiences, I have two observations.

1. The University is consistent in its application of the rules. Any
other student caught with marijuana would have been suspended as well.
du Lac is unequivocal as to what the punishment should be, and in my
experience the University is consistent in administering it.

2. It is difficult to balance the needs of the individual with the
needs of the community - a concept addressed thoroughly on pages 90-91
of du Lac. However, I feel the University's policy of mandating
suspension for students who possess marijuana (p. 189) does not
adequately balance these needs when applied to those have never been
in trouble before and only possessed a small amount.

The students I assisted were in this exact situation, and I doubt
anyone would consider them threats to the community. They weren't
possessing large amounts of marijuana and selling it, which definitely
calls for severe punishment. They weren't using so-called "hard
drugs." They weren't even using drugs and then getting in fights,
disrupting the dorm, or vandalizing campus (as sometimes happens with
drinking alcohol). While there is no excuse for such illegal activity,
it hardly seems to warrant the punishment given out.

Consider especially that driving while intoxicated, an activity which
is also illegal but arguably far more dangerous than possessing small
amounts of marijuana, carries a minimum punishment of probation, not
suspension, according to du Lac. "The punishment doesn't fit the
crime" arguments aside, at the heart of this matter is how the
community treats its members who have behaved in a manner inconsistent
with its values. Though the theory behind du Lac's policies emphasizes
the importance of positive individual growth as well as the need to
foster a good community, the policies themselves fall short of these
goals. I would think all members of the community would support a
policy in favor of helping and educating those who are troubled but do
not pose a threat to the community's safety as opposed a policy which
removes them from the very community that can help them the most.

I assisted several students who told me they were moving from a very
supportive environment at Notre Dame to a far less supportive
environment at home because of their suspension. Is this what we
really want for our students? If Notre Dame truly wants to live up to
its reputation of being a family - a reputation repeatedly emphasized
on campus from orientation to graduation and on television commercials
throughout the country - then it should treat its members as family.

If Notre Dame truly wants to live up to the Catholic traditions of
justice, forgiveness and helping others, then in addition to punishing
students it should support these students with its various resources,
such as its counseling services. It should especially do so for those
students who have done nothing to affect the community other than
possess small amounts of marijuana. I can't help but think the needs
of these individuals and the community would be better met by placing
the students on probation and mandating participation in a drug
program - thereby allowing them to receive the benefits and resources
of Notre Dame, just as those with alcohol problems do. I hope the
University will take time to reflect on its policy, and I hope Student
Government and the Campus Life Council will engage in a conversation
aimed at striking a better balance between the needs of the
community's individual members and the needs of the community as a
whole - a balance that will help our individuals and the community
grow together in a positive manner.

James Leito

alumnus

Class of 2006