Good crowd for community forum. Pat Archibald UMPD front left, John Musante town manger front rt
Clearly the crowd who packed the community room at the new $12.5 million UMass police station tonight to discuss uncivil off campus behavior of some UMass students could be broken into two distinct groups: those who seem satisfied with efforts thus far to curb unruly behavior (UMass officials) and those who are not (townsfolk).
And townsfolk outnumbered UMass officials, who were there in force.
UMPD Chief John Horvath
Perhaps Fearing Street resident John Fox summed it up best with the last statement taken at almost exactly 7:30 PM, the scheduled end time for the "community forum". Mr. Fox made brief allusion to Afghanistan and declared "the surge" is simply not working. Not enough cops, and not enough programs. Things are getting worse! Time for something new.
Two Johns: John Coul front, reacts to John Fox's final statement of the night
Unfortunately that something "new" did not come out of tonight's meeting. To quote the cliche, "same old same old."
Almost all the townsfolk in attendance seemed to agree that unruly behavior towards Amherst police should have zero tolerance with instant repercussions. In other words, automatic expulsion. But Enku Gelaye, Associate Vice Chancellor and Dean of Students did not want to say what offense garners automatic expulsion, or even illuminating what line the five students (out of 652) did cross to get expelled. Although she did reiterate they take assault of any kind "very seriously."
An affable Enku Gelaye, perhaps too affable for chief disciplinarian
So yes, our gracious hosts staged a successful by-the-book community event, and they will no doubt sleep well tonight. And perhaps even some of the townsfolk in attendance will also sleep well tonight, content that at least their voices were heard.
Problem is, how well will they sleep this coming weekend?
Larry, Enku is affable the same way you are a couch potato. Do not underestimate that woman -- do not trust her, either. She is a lawyer by training and lies better than most.
ReplyDeleteHey at least she smiled when she said (shaking my hand), "So you're the famous Larry Kelley."
ReplyDeleteI guess I'm just easily smitten.
Larry, knowing her, that was sarcastic mocking of you.
ReplyDeleteAll three of them -- Jean Kim, Enku Gelaye and Eddie Hull -- are pieces of work.
People make mistakes. You do not expel someone just because they attended a party that got out of hand. We need solutions but zero tolerance is not it.
ReplyDeleteThe people in the room did not say zero tolerance, automatic expulsion for attending a party or getting loud and obnoxious.
ReplyDeleteThe specific concrete example cited was for "assault on an officer."
Why not simply publish the contact information for these helpful UMass officials? That way when Amherst citizens are disturbed by noisy drunk students at 2 a.m. they can contact the UMass officials directly and let them know.
ReplyDeleteI think the problem would be resolved rather quickly if there was a personal stake for these chairwarmers.
Hmm, maybe you should rewrite your article then. You said "Almost all the townsfolk in attendance seemed to agree that unruly behavior towards Amherst police should have zero tolerance with instant repercussions." I don't see the phrase "assault on an officer."
ReplyDeleteI still have a problem with a governmental entity (UMass) confiscating the property of citizens (college degree/credits) upon the mere accusation of a violation of unrelated municipal ordinances.
ReplyDeleteThis is the equivalent of saying that the state could seize your car if your children misbehaved in high school -- and that your car would be seized & sold *before* there was any hearing on the child's alleged misconduct.
There is a fundamental flaw in the Town of Amherst asking UMass to punish anyone for violating its laws -- the Town of Amherst has both the authority and responsibility for doing that, and in ceding the latter, it concurrently is ceding the former.
It is not quite the same thing, but a good example is how all the credit card companies are located in either Delaware or South Dakota -- with the 48 other states more consumer-friendly laws thus being nullified.
Were I an Amherst property owner, I would be very scared of having the Commonwealth (which UM is) assuming responsibility for enforcing my/our own municipal ordinances. No, I would argue, we do it ourselves because we maintain the right to both say what the ordinances are and the efforts with which they will be enforced.
There are also civil rights issues here.
ReplyDeleteThe basic concept is that we are all equal before the law, and if we violate the law, we are all subject to equal punishment. That is why speeding ticket fines are not based upon income (as they are in Germany), that is why we get upset when we hear about a disproportionate number of Black males being incarcerated.
We all believe that the laws should apply to everyone equally.
What is happening here is two groups of people are receiving different punishment for the same offense. Those who are not UM students being subjected to a $300 fine while those who are being subjected to what essentially becomes upwards of a $100,000 fine -- for the exact same offense.
On a moral basis, would someone please explain to me how this is any different from past practices of having disproportionate punishments for African-Americans so as to "keep them in their place." We all know this happened, and I like to think that we all concede that it was wrong.
So why is this not wrong too?
I understand the "do something -- anything" mentality, but why do we have an ACLU? Is the ACLU everything that Rush Limbaugh alleges it to be? Or are there well-intended folk, defending reprehensible individuals because of the larger principles involved?
What exactly is wrong with torturing prisoners in GITMO? For that matter, why don't we just let them starve to death?
What exactly do we have to tolerate the homeless at all? Why can't we just take them out into the woods and shoot them like a man named Hitler did?
That is the problem with the current approach of using the power of a public university to punish citizens who are students for municipal offenses.
Replace "UMass Student" with "African-American" -- both groups are clearly and equally identifiable in this context -- and would you be saying the same thing?
Let's say that Amherst had a parking problem. Now the normal way to deal with this is with enforcement -- ticketing, towing and fines.
ReplyDeleteBut let's say that instead of doing this, Amherst wanted to instead make a parking ticket so feared that no one would ever dare risk getting one.
So the town just goes out and burns down the home of any homeowner who gets a single parking ticket. Just burns it to the ground without compensation of any kind and simply says "you should have obeyed the parking ordinances."
Quite draconian. Arguably quite illegal.
And that is exactly what you are trying to do to the UM students.....
Please stop, Ed.
ReplyDeletePlease.
Please.
Please.
Just stop.
Please.
Um, Ed (err, unemployed-Dr. Ed,) in going to UMass you are agreeing to the Code of Student Conduct. Going to college is a privilege not a right. Next time, read the fine print before you sign the admission acceptance.
ReplyDeleteDr. Ed, have you ever been diagnosed with Asperger's?
ReplyDeleteThe police chief at UMass chief John Horvath said two things as to solving the problem, "This is a marathon, not a sprint.", and "We aren't going to enforce our way out of the problems.". Perhaps he's speaking more on the behalf of the university, but if anybody should understand the dynamics of what is going on, he should, and we should listen to him. Nobody doubts there is a problem, but it won't be solved overnight. And I've heard some mocking of the efforts UMass has made to solve the problem. That serves no purpose. UMass is trying, and it cannot wave a magic wand and make the problem go away. It will take an effort from town people, town government, UMass, and both UMass and Amherst police, and the problem won't be solved tomorrow. The problem is big but the tenor of the discussion on this blog has become distasteful.
ReplyDeleteActually Tom, Chief Horvath has only been here two weeks.
ReplyDeleteAnd the tenor on this blog hasn't changed any in over five years now.
The crime of "assaulting an officer" is easily translated as, "You dare not blaspheme our gods!"
ReplyDeleteDr. Ed, have you ever been diagnosed with Asperger's?
ReplyDeleteNo.
But depending on what legal counsel suggests in 10 hours, Google may be force to name you, you schmuck, and you might be on the receiving end of a libel suit -- and depending on whom you wind up being (and don't think I can't find out if I want to), you might be looking at a Section 1983 suit.
Beyond that, I don't want children to read what I really would like to say to you...
in going to UMass you are agreeing to the Code of Student Conduct
ReplyDeleteOK. Imagine a college that has a code of student conduct that requires the female students to spread their legs for any guy who wants to have sex with them, and punishes them for failing to do so.
Hey, the young ladies are "agreeing" to be sex toys and hence have no right of protection under our laws against rape and the rest. By accepting admission, the girls agreed to be raped and not only do the guys have the "right" to rape them but they can be expelled for resisting such rapes.
And if I hire you to go kill someone, and you decide not to do so, I can get a court to order "specific performance" -- the court will order you to kill the individual because the contract says to.
No.
Contracts which are in violation of public policy (i.e. laws) are null and void. This is an established principle of business law.
And we aren't even getting into the issue of the public university and the concept of state action.
Imagine that UMass had a provision in the CSC that stipulated that UM students may not date Jews. Does anyone honestly believe that would be enforceable?
And why wouldn't it be?
Enough said?
They should remove UMass from Amherst, we're perfectly good without it!
ReplyDeleteEd, no court has ever ruled against a college's code of conduct. Your example was absurd, which shows how weak your argument is. College's just like businesses have the right to have a code of conduct. If you go on a drunken rampage, smashing your car into a crowd of people, even if it's not on business hours don't bother showing up for work, because you're fired. Welcome to the real world.
ReplyDeleteThey should remove UMass from Amherst, we're perfectly good without it!
ReplyDeleteOr perhaps just remove Amherst from Massachusetts. All it takes is a majority vote of the General Court (legislature) and it has been done before in the case of Etna, Greenwich, Prescott & Dana -- and SCOTUS upheld it.
Just eliminate Amherst as a town. Make it a state "reservation" just like the Quabbin, and have all of the former town considered the UM campus.
@Tom McBride:
ReplyDeleteJohn Horvath has been the UMPD chief for all of two weeks. Why should he know what the solution is to the problem of undesirable student behavior is?
His statements that this is a marathon not a sprint and that you can't enforce your way out of the problem, sounds like he's just trying to buy time and avoid taking actions.
Ed, you muffed it up, the other town was Enfield- not Etna
ReplyDeleteEtna? Another swing and a miss for Ed.
ReplyDeleteOver the last year or so the "Only In The Republic Of Amherst" blog is something simply hard to recognize anymore. It used to be (and I mean USED to be) interesting, informative and in some cases fun to visit. Mr. Kelley's intial front line stories about Amherst and surrounding communities certainly stirred up controversy and debate. These covered a wide range of topics.
ReplyDeleteSo what are we left with now? A carbon copy of the APD report except this one now rants over and over again about the spoiled little brat student population. Which by the way makes up 99.9 % of what Amherst is all about. But what's worse is your daily postings of some big blowhard named "Dr. Ed" spewing out meaningless hogwash in a attempt to defend his beloved UMass.
So to the "famous" Larry Kelley. Please, in the future remember the Amherst Bulletin is free. Repeats are repeats. Try getting back to being somewhat more creative. And for the love of God, bench the good Dr. Like the Alex Rodriguez of your blog, he just needs to go away.ckaith 3
have to say the university has been here for years and kids partying also has been going on for years...mr. fox when you bought your house and it was next to the university and frat houses were up the street what did you think....obviously not anything....get a life or a new house....and i bet you would be the first to sell your house to a land lord
ReplyDeleteEtna, schmetna. Who cares? What do facts matter, folks?
ReplyDeleteMove UMass to Boston, and let Amherst sink back to the stone age.
ReplyDeleteInteresting how UMass is hiring new Resident Directors in October -- for "immediate vacancies."
ReplyDeletePeople leaving jobs in this economy?
There is a story there I suspect.
A check of the town meeting record a few years ago will show that Mr. Fox voted AGAINST the Nuisance House bylaw ....
ReplyDeleteLarry, the entry, 10/18, 4:32, said things in the blog have changed. You told me the tenor hasn't changed in five years. Who's right?
ReplyDeleteI am. Or as Popeye would say, "I yam what I yam."
ReplyDeleteThe development/increase of taxi service has changed the housing and party life in Amherst- folks are traveling further from campus.
ReplyDeleteIn the old days, Police were feared and respected- No one wanted to get caught- All illegal activities were hidden from public view.
Underage partying was behind closed doors- My classmates and I quietly partied in woods near our campus.
"Can you hear me now" is a hilarious title considering.
ReplyDeleteI mean, with all the(by now painfully familiar) white heads in that room, it's a miracle anyone heard anything.
No wonder the place is crumbling.
(LOL)
I think ED is confused about the fines being issued. Seems I remember that the difference in $300.00 and latter had to do with how many responses/call back's/compliance with complaint...not that homeowner vs. renter had any difference. The facts are: Amherst has a problem. The problem is in how to deal with these student who feel 'partying all night and disturbing their neighbors is somehow a right of theirs to have. Looking deeper into their behavior, you see more than just noise disturbance, there is property damage, lewd behavior, abuse, assaults, thefts and the list goes on and on....So, YES, UMASS should do something and do something that gets the point across, like expulsion when severe behavior or repeated behavior of this nature occurs. That is not asking too much. It's called "tough love". I would have to ask Ed, if your son/daughter were a renting student in this town and behaved this way towards their neighbors, would you be a proud father of a UMASS student?
ReplyDeleteTo those who wish to have UMass punish students for what they do off campus, I go back to what I asked before:
ReplyDeleteIf a homeowner is arrested (not yet even sent to court) for something downtown, should the town go bulldoze his house? It would prevent homeowners from wanting to get arrested downtown, but would it be reasonable?
The town is responsible for enforcing its own rules - by itself -- which is why it also gets to keep its fines.