This Friday, the University will evict the Voice from its office in Leavey 413. The Center for Student Programs has ordered the paper to switch offices with the Georgetown Debate Team after an incident in August that caused $4,000 worth of damage to several Leavey Center offices, allegedly involving two (since dismissed) Voice editors and a former staffer who were attempting to report on damages to the new Science Center caused by Hurricane Irene.
While the Voice recognizes the need for disciplinary action following the damages, having the paper move into the debate office—a significantly smaller space than the Voice’s current office—makes no sense. The room is ill-suited to hold the 25 to 30 staffers that have in-office responsibilities on weekly production nights. The punishment hampers the paper’s ability to maintain the same level of coverage and attract new members, punishing everyone in the organization for the actions of three. There was a wide range of less severe punishments available to the administration, including mandatory training in journalistic ethics and stricter oversight, that wouldn’t have done long-term damage to the Voice. Ultimately, the lack of a real appeals process made the consideration of any alternate punishments impossible.
The relationship between student groups and the administration is unfortunately one-sided. Disciplinary mechanisms are not structured to consider evenly the interests of both parties, and, in the event of a conflict, student groups start out at a disadvantage.
For example, Erika Cohen-Derr, the Director of Student Programs, is the advisor for all media board groups, but in this case was also in charge of punishing the Voice. As the Voice’s advisor, Cohen-Derr was the paper’s logical advocate during the sanctions process. But the paper lost a major source of institutional support when she was assigned the task of punishing it.
Serious reforms in the student group disciplinary process are needed to give groups a fair shot at defending their interests and receiving proportionate sanctions. Groups should have independent advocates outside of the sanction process who can liaise with the administration on their behalf, in addition to advisors within CSP that will advocate for them. Furthermore, if student groups were more involved in deciding their punishments, it would encourage mature leadership rather than detached indignation. The absence of a balanced disciplinary process effectively leaves student groups out in the cold.
