Whether UMass/Amherst is in session or not doesn't seem to make a h-u-g-e difference with Driving Under the Influence arrests in our little college town, as APD bagged three drivers over the weekend -- about the average number -- with none of them students, although two-out-of-three appear to be UMass employees.
But that's not too surprising, considering UMass is Amherst's largest employer. Safe bet they were not out celebrating the students return from spring break.
24 comments:
Larry -- are you going to demand that UMass fire the two employees?
Why not?
Employees have less rights than students do, unions notwithstanding, so if it is acceptable for UMass to kick out or otherwise discipline students for what they do off-campus, it definitely is acceptable for UMass to fire or otherwise discipline employees for what *they* do off-campus.
My Irish Catholic upbringing: everybody deserves a second chance.
Although one of them appears to be a second offense.
How about the students? Do they get a second chance?
I'm an equal opportunity dragon.
Larry, exactly when have you not called for a student to be crucified for is first offense?
If you were demanding that Enku give students a second chance, then you would have some credibility here, but you aren't.
Depends on how you define "first offense." And maybe how you define "crucified."
And I never make "demands", just suggestions.
The correct answer there, Larry, was "You are correct, Ed, I have set a bit of a double standard here on my blog."
Actually what I should have done is used Ed's favorite quote:
"They have a saying in the Air Force, that if you are taking heavy fire you must be over the target."
Uh, an 8 comment conversation between you and Ed is hardly "taking heavy fire."
Obviously you're new here. Welcome. (See, I don't hate students.)
wow, I really am anonymous... he has no idea it's me, again...
Neither do I care.
Yes, it's quite clear that you do not care. I think I'll go back over the last coupla years and pull up many of your comments that demonstrate that you don't care about us anons.
I'm sure you have the time.
good for you anon someone's gotta watch the watchdogs and fact check the fact sayers and complain about the complainers. as if they are the only ones endowed with a sense of integrity and desire for the truth and the rest of us are out here conning.
Or he could start his own blog. (They're free you know.)
How do you know it's a man?
KELLEY SEXIST PIG!
Only men can be that dumb.
Depends on how you define "first offense." And maybe how you define "crucified."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4XT-l-_3y0
Forgot to add: "I did NOT have sexual relations with that woman!"
Fired? For an OUI? NO UMass student was EVER expelled because of a routine OUI, nor should they be. Its the public disorder offenses that matter (throwing bottles, beatings, riots..the norm on a busy weekend) when speaking of potential university ramifications. These employees should not be fired UNLESS their license is needed to work (Bus driver, other mobile service) because their license (or loss thereof) would be the issue...if they perform some other function and can ride their bike or take public transit to work then....no issue.
Part 1:
NO UMass student was EVER expelled because of a routine OUI, nor should they be. Its the public disorder offenses that matter (throwing bottles, beatings, riots..the norm on a busy weekend) when speaking of potential university ramifications
1: No. OUI, particularly 2nd offense OUI, is more serious.
How many people have died in these "public disorders" and how many have died in OUI crashes. More importantly, how many uninvolved persons have died? The kid who died on that motorcycle comes to mind...
The "tumultuous behavior" may be irritating to bystanders, but it isn't dangerous. You may have to pick up broken bottles in the morning, but that doesn't involve a visit to the hospital unless you neither are bright enough to wear gloves nor to be careful if you are picking up the glass with your bare hands.
If two vehicles are both driving 50 MPH on a 2-lane road, they are "closing" at 100 MPH and a head-on collision between the two of them is the same thing as one vehicle hitting a tree at 100 MPH. If they are the same size -- if one vehicle is considerably bigger, the people in the smaller car aren't going to do terribly well.
So maybe your children are scared by the loud party, but you put them in your Toyota Prius or Chevy Volt and some drunk driver crosses the yellow line and smashes into you, your children will be far more than just scared. And one thing they don't tell you about those hybrid cars is that the batteries are 200 volts or more which raises lots of safety issues with the standard firefighting practice of hosing down auto wrecks so that the spilt gasoline doesn't ignite/explode.
At the least, you are supposed to physically unplug the batteries first -- how you are supposed to do this if the vehicle is on fire is beyond me, assuming that damage from the accident doesn't preclude your accessing them in the first place. But I digress.
And I am amazed at what one can drive on a standard "Class D" license -- a Ford 350 Pickup comes to mind -- I hit a pothole on the New Hampshire Turnpike last night with one of those and if I (a) didn't have the knowledge and training of my CDL and (b) had insisted on *personally* loading the vehicle, being careful about weight distribution, it would have been a really bad accident.
This at the posted speed, in a vehicle that wasn't overloaded or anything else, in a vehicle that anyone with any valid license can legally drive. Someone who got his/her/its license in a compact car and then drives something like this or a SUV -- that's scary enough if she is sober -- about a decade ago the president of the UM Sorority Association rolled her SUV over at the intersection next to the bank that burned -- and while no one died, it did require medflights.
Which is a greater threat to you and your family? Her SUV hitting your car in a head on collision, or some loud drunken boys breaking bottles next door?
Part 2:
NO UMass student was EVER expelled because of a routine OUI, nor should they be. Its the public disorder offenses that matter (throwing bottles, beatings, riots..the norm on a busy weekend) when speaking of potential university ramifications
Again, No.
As to the violence such as the beatings, UM shouldn't have the opportunity to expel them because the court system should have already removed them.
And the kids who do the most egregious things have family lawyers on retainer and enough political influence to convince UMass to overlook their actions.
Like most bullies, UMass is way too spineless to go after the people who are really causing problems. Instead, it goes after those who aren't as able to defend themselves.
It is a violation of privacy laws to use facial recognition technology and the scanned drivers' license photos to identify bystanders from photographs, but apparently not to use the scanned student ID photos. They are expelling kids because someone who looked like them was seen standing around at a riot -- not doing anything wrong -- and some staff people have quietly told me that they personally thought that it wasn't the same kid and believed him, but he still was expelled.
Notice I use the word "expelled" -- reality is that there no longer is such a thing as "suspension" and it is only expulsion for two reasons. First, the student loans immediately come due which pushes the kid into financial destitution and precludes ever attending college again. Second, under the new (2012) UM Conduct Code, a "suspended" student must both apply for and be granted re-admission, which is what "expulsion" is -- one could always reapply.
The concept of "suspension" is that you had to leave for a period of time, but had a guaranteed right to return, and that has now been eliminated. They just haven't told anyone this -- you have to read the fine print to know it.
And there are lawsuits quietly settled - and you read through those and you see that the kids they are kicking out are not the ones they ought to be.
Part 3:
My personal favorite story, that I have to change a few of the facts here on because of confidentiality, involves a student who was expelled.
It is an explicit violation of CORI to use police reports in judicial hearings -- you are supposed to have the officers actually there -- but UM doesn't bother.
He had yelled something from a porch as the APD was breaking up a party -- the report didn't specify what and he had no way to make the APD say (a) what it was, let alone (b)that it was wrong for him to do so. He claimed that he was telling people he didn't want at the party to leave.
All the university had was an APD report that said he had yelled from the porch -- nothing more -- and he was expelled.
At least there was some evidence that these two employees had actually done something wrong....
Post a Comment