QUESTION 2 COULD CHANGE DIMENSIONS OF MATRIX

As Nov. 4 nears, controversy over Question 2, a ballot referendum
that would make the possession of less than one ounce of marijuana a
civil offense, continues to build in Massachusetts. It would not make
marijuana legal; instead, criminal charges would only remain for
possession of over an ounce.

If the referendum is passed, Massachusetts will become the 12th state
to decriminalize marijuana. The ballot proposal has been publicly
opposed by some law enforcement officials, including Chelsea Police
Chief Brian Kyes who told The Boston Globe that it would be a step
backward in the fight against drugs. Michael O'Keefe, president of
the Massachusetts District Attorneys Association, agreed. "[Marijuana
is] twice as carcinogenic as tobacco, is a primary factor in juvenile
hospital admissions, and its users are 10 times more likely to be
involved in automobile crashes," he said in the government's official
summary of the referendum. "Large percentages of criminal arrestees,
approximately 40 percent, test positive for marijuana."

The proposal also has vocal support from various groups, who argue
that the move will save taxpayers $30 million. "Police would be freed
up to focus on serious crimes, rather than arresting 7,500 people
annually for marijuana possession," said Whitney Taylor, campaign
manager for the Committee for Sensible Marijuana Policy in the
government's official summary of the referendum. Students at Boston
College have also tried to raise awareness and support at tables in McElroy.

Whether they are Massachusetts residents who will be voting on the
referendum or not, inquiries have arisen among BC students, eager to
express their opinions at voting booths tomorrow. Seth Rutman, A&S
'09, a native Floridian, cannot vote in Massachusetts, but he said if
he could, he would vote 'yes' to Question 2. "I just think a lot of
money is wasted on taking minor offenses to court and sending
offenders to jail. There are tons of more important, more dangerous
crimes that should be dealt with."

Rutman is not the only one who would vote 'yes' to the referendum. A
poll conducted by Suffolk University/WDHD Channel 7 has shown that 72
percent of Greater Boston residents and registered voters are in
favor of replacing criminal penalties with civil fines. Another poll
conducted by WBZ TV/Survey USA showed that 69 percent of all
Massachusetts voters would favor either decriminalization or
legalization. According to an Oct. 24 article in The Boston Globe, 51
percent of registered Massachusetts voters support Question 2.

Under current state law, first offenders face a variety of criminal
penalties, including driver's license suspension, a $500 fine, a
Criminal Offender Record Information (CORI) report filed, and the
possibility of jail time. If Question 2 passes, criminal penalties
will be replaced by a citation accompanied by a $100 fine. Most
importantly, however, no CORI report would be filed. CORI reports can
be reviewed by potential employers as they make hiring decisions. The
consequences of possession of less than an ounce of marijuana would
be very similar to those spurred by a vehicular violation.

Students, however, are subject to University policies as well as
state and federal laws. Those involved in marijuana-related instances
are currently disciplined under the newly implemented matrix of
alcohol and substance abuse policies. Penalties for violating the
matrix, on and off campus, are separated into first, second, and
third offenses. Sanctions for infringement of alcohol policy include
fines of up to $400, housing probation, suspension, and University
dismissal. A separate set of sanctions for drug violations include
housing probation or suspension for first-time offenders caught with
marijuana, fines of up to $500, and University dismissal. "It'll be
interesting to see whether they'll [BC administration] change current
policy," Rutman said. "But judging from the matrix, they'll most
likely crack down on pot, too."

Administrators, though, have not clearly expressed how they might
react in the event that Question 2 is passed. Brent Ericson,
associate dean of the ODSD, said he was unaware of Question 2. "I
think the reason there has been no discussion is that no one thinks
it will pass, so there is no urgency," Ericson said.

The number of students who have been documented for use or possession
of marijuana is also minimal, said Lieutenant Detective Eugene
Neault, and BC has had only a handful of incidents involving the drug
this semester. "The numbers have been pretty consistent over the
years, and no new trend has been identified yet this year," Neault said.

Paul Chebator, senior associate dean of student development, also
addressed the prevalence of the alcohol sanctions over the drug
penalties in the matrix: "BC's drug of choice is alcohol - no
question about that."

The fact that sanctions for marijuana-based offenses are harsher than
those responding to underage drinking is still at the front of many
minds. "Simply because it's taboo - pot is still all together
illegal, and that makes harsher punishment justified," said a student
who wished to remain anonymous.

Some students have expressed concern regarding how the University
might respond to the referendum if it is passed. Because BC is a
private institution, its administration must abide by federal, state,
and municipal laws, but it can also choose to hold its students above
and beyond those standards. Chebator did not say if or how the
University might alter its current policies if the referendum is
passed, but said that it might examine the issue in relation to the
law if it is changed. "If state law were changed, and only after it
was changed, we would take state law into account, and then ask
ourselves, 'what makes sense for our students according to our
mission?'" Chebator said.

Should the law be changed, BC would not be the first university to
have to reexamine its own policies in response to a changed marijuana
law. In the 1970s, Xavier University, a Jesuit institution in
Cincinnati, Ohio, was forced to react to modifications in state law
that made possession of less than 100 grams (3.6 ounces) of marijuana
a citable offense only with a fine of $100. It also made possession
of 10 grams or more punishable by a fine of up to $250.

In the case of Xavier, the university chose to include further
disciplinary sanctions in addition to the ones required by the law.
First offenders at Xavier University who are caught by an on-campus
officer are usually issued the standard $100 misdemeanor citation.
Those who are caught in a residential hall or university building are
issued the same citation and referred to the administration, at which
point the student is placed on housing probation, obligated to
complete an educational program or community service, and the parents
of students under 21 are notified.

Luther Smith, the senior associate dean of students at Xavier, said
that this shift in university policy was aided by the collaboration
between the students and the administration who worked together to
form the new policy. "The transition [between old and new policies]
was never very difficult because we form review committees specific
to each issue. Each committee involves several students, staff, and
faculty members who come together to discuss the concerns of all
members of our community," Smith said. Every time an old policy is
revised or a new policy is in question, student input is taken to
account; "Otherwise we would suffer severe backlash from the student
body," Smith said. In addition, review committees are open to any
student, regardless of whether they are or are not part of the acting
student government.

"We take state law into account and listen to our students - so far
they've been content with the way things are handled here. In fact,
there were no suggestions or editions made by the student government
this year with respect to the policy resulting from the 'alcohol task
force' review," Smith said.

Similarly, at the University of San Francisco, a Jesuit institution
in California, student input is taken into account in university
policy. USF has a student senate composed of 30 students, who hold
weekly meetings to discuss and vote on proposals or resolutions
brought to them by the administration and the student body. While the
administration does reserve the right to implement policies without
first discussing with the senate, they usually go through the senate.
"The only times the administration goes over the senate are when
there are changes in tuition costs, and even then the floor is still
open to resolutions," said Alex Platt, president of USF's student senate.

Some students have expressed concern that their input has not been
heeded in this manner, particularly during the development of the
matrix. Those students have said that the matrix has reinvigorated
their frustrations about a lack of administrative transparency.

"Over the summer, they [administrators] came up with these new
sanctions, and just surprised us in September," said Lauren
Opachinski, CSON '09. "I appreciate that they tried to clarify the
rules, but it was stupid not to include student input in the process,
especially when it's a policy that is ultimately going to affect students."

Chris Poulos, a member of the Undergraduate Government of BC (UGBC)
Senate and A&S '09, said that the UGBC hopes to propose a protocol
whereby administrators would meet with the Senate and the UGBC
president and vice president prior to making any policy change. "The
main goal of such a protocol would be to enhance communication
between the administration and student government prior to any policy
change," he said. Though the administration may or may not heed such
a suggestion, Poulos said, to create one would support the Senate's
overall goal of serving as an advocate for the student body. "Our
relationship with the administration has been much better this year;
however, a policy would help foster this same relationship for years
to come," he said.

Earlier this year, BC faculty and administrators held a panel
discussion sponsored by the Residence Hall Association (RHA) to
explain the sanctions specified in the matrix and address student
concerns. "We should have done a better job consulting students, but
time was an issue," Chebator told The Heights in September. "You
don't know everything we know about the situations occurring on
campus. We have numbers of students every week taken to the hospital
or infirmary," Chebator said.

Ericson also told The Heights that the administration would work to
include students in future assessments of the matrix. "We're going to
be reviewing the policy over the course of the year, and we'll
involve students in the conversation as well," he said.

Since then, Chebator said, "No further discussion has taken place,
and no plans have been made as to how student input will be taken
into account in the future." While there is currently no setup for
student input, he said it is not ignored. "There will be a discussion
about the matrix at some point, probably next semester, and it will
include members of the UGBC, the AHANA Leadership Council (ALC), the
GLBTQ Leadership Council (GLC), and the Off-Campus Council."

Poulos said that communication between the administration and the
UGBC has been poor regarding policy change in recent history, citing
new off-campus policies implemented last year, of which students were
notified through a third-party news outlet. Poulos, though, said he
sees signs that the administration is working to address such
miscommunications. "In moving forward, the administration has
recently taken positive steps in seeking student input, primarily
with the matrix policy," he said. "This year, student involvement has
been much more prevalent, and I'm optimistic for communication
between students and administrators to continue to improve in the future."

Meghan Michael and Alexi Chi contributed to this report.