By The Beacon Editorial Board
Most college students have some memory of the popular clique in high school - you know, the glamorous group of the wildly gorgeous and hunky teens the rest of the school idolized and would have given a left limb to be a part of.
On the outside, the popular clique was full of fun, laughter and utter coolness. On the inside however, the clique reeked of sour lies, fake smiles and bitter ugliness.
Just as the popular clique's image crumbled under the weight of its lies, so too is UP's image imploding under the pristine beauty of The Bluff.
The Beacon applauds the addition of an immunity clause to protect victims of sexual assault from other policy violations. The Beacon believes the addition of the clause breaks a major barrier that deterred many victims from reporting the most underreported crime nationwide.
Hopefully, the clause will remove any element of uncertainty regarding potential consequences from the reporting of sexual assault and encourage victims to come forward without fear of being disciplined for sexual conduct or alcohol consumption.
However, the means by which the clause was added is unsettling.
The claim that altering the handbook to codify what is already practiced anyway, although completely reasonable, raises some disturbing issues; namely, issues surrounding honesty and transparency.
Why was the change not made public sooner? Alterations to disciplinary policies need to be made public. For equal justice under the law to work, the rules of a society must be made clear to every member of said society, not enacted under general assumptions by those in power.
In addition, why was the practice of showing amnesty to sexual assault victims not made clear either? If the University's mission is to ensure and foster the health and well-being of the student body, why has the University been reticent in explicitly stating this mission?
It's because of secrecy like this that rumors of fines for picking flowers on campus or kissing on The Bluff exist.
The lack of transparency within the relationship between the student body and administration is a failure on the University's part to create a relationship of trust.
As a watchdog of the University, The Beacon calls on the Administration to open up in transparency. While we understand that, as a private institution, the University is granted more privacy than other public institutions, we would hope that the Administration would be open and honest about things concerning to the student body.
Putting forward a positive image, whether for impressing that gang of popular kids in high school or showing a positive learning environment for students and possible donors, is a perfectly logical thing to do
Yet, when the projection of the image of the University overrides the distribution of the workings of the school, all trust amidst the community is damaged.
Deep down, there are problems present within our community. These problems need to be addressed, openly and honestly. Ignoring or whitewashing them is as immature as hiding a zit with mom's foundation on school picture day.
