E-mail
Print
Chapter 17 changes will limit student freedom
UWM to punish students for off-campus conduct
By Kyle Duerstein
As you read this, a committee in Madison is preparing to recommend changes to University policy Chapter 17, which would allow the University to issue a wide range of punishments for what they deem is inappropriate behavior.
Welcome to UWM, where you’re about to experience the largest expansion of personal life micromanagement in Wisconsin history. It’s called Chapter 17.
With almost a full week of classes already under our belts, we can begin to settle into our fall schedules. It’s also likely that you’ve now had the experience of your first, or second…or third house party of the new semester. In regards to that, there are some things you should know.
If the University and the long-term neighbors living around UWM get their way, your weekend will soon no longer be your own.
The first thing you should understand is that your neighbors probably hate you. Actually, they don’t just hate you, they HATE you. There is an overlying sentiment, and they’ve actually put this in writing, that UWM students are considered terrorists. Sure, they may come over and try to make nice, but after “Hello” they’ll instantly begin telling you what they prohibit you from daring to do in their neighborhood. This isn’t enough, though. They’ve now conned UWM and the University of Wisconsin Board of Regents into thinking that it’s their responsibility to micromanage your behavior when you’re away from class. Their answer: Chapter 17.
As you read this, a committee in Madison is preparing to recommend changes to University policy Chapter 17, which would allow the University to issue a wide range of punishments for what they deem is inappropriate behavior. And here, we all thought the academic and East Side Milwaukee liberals were standing up for civil liberties. Well freedom, privacy and civil liberties are all fine, unless the students have them. The hypocrisy lives on.
Two years ago, there was some panic that this rule change might result in students being kicked out of school for getting a speeding ticket on spring break in Florida. Well, that won’t happen, but let me tell you what might.
If you haven’t yet figured out, living around UWM you are automatically issued a noise/nuisance citation if someone calls and is willing to be the complainant. You don’t actually have to be noisy. It doesn’t actually have to be your house. The police don’t actually need to see or hear it. You’ll just get one if someone calls you in and would be willing to testify against you.
Your neighbors know this, and they don’t pass up the opportunity to abuse it. The University knows this too; they’re paying for it. That’s right, your University is paying for Milwaukee police to write you noise citations.
Here’s the change: if you receive a number of these automatic citations and the University, or your neighbors, decides that it’s “too many,” you will soon be subject to punishment by the University.
A rule change to Chapter 17 is being considered by the Wisconsin Board of Regents in just a few weeks which would allow the University to implement punishments when it decides that your personal conduct “adversely affects a substantial university interest.” (Ch. 17 revision 17.08(2)
Some have raised concerns that this standard is pretty vague. Some academically minded folks insist that this vagueness is necessary for each University to respond to different situations. While that makes sense perhaps to some, those of us with a healthy distrust of an over-reaching government, the kind that proved important in the formation of our country, have little to feel good about.
If you’re like me and have been at UWM for a while, you get very nervous about the possibility of Chapter 17 changes being approved. For those who are new around here, you should know that in the name of Public Relations, UWM has in the past and will in the future sell out its students to diminish the whining, even if only briefly, from the neighbors who hate us so much.
Remember when the University decided to support Resident Only parking on the streets around UWM? Well they did that to try and tame the loud complaints of the neighbors. Or, remember when the University decided to pay up to $60,000 every year for party patrols to write you citations? Well, that was to try to tame the whiners, too. The University has chosen time and again that a break in pouting from the neighbors is more important than what’s right for its students.
Should college students be overtly disrespectful of the neighborhoods they live in? Certainly not. But when we allow our University total control over our actions 24 hours a day from the time we enroll until the time we graduate, we are destined to remain as immature and inexperienced in life as we were entering our freshman year in high school.
There’s only one thing we can do to stop this from happening. We must convince the Board of Regents that this change to Chapter 17 is bad, wrong and as inappropriate as the behavior it seeks to control. The Board of Regents will consider this new policy at a meeting some time in October.
Kyle Duerstein is a UWM Student Association Senator and the only student on the UW System Chapter 17 Review Committee.
> Comments
LEgitimate on Sep 08, 2008 at 10:51 AM:
Wow, I actually agree with our ILLEGITIMATE student politico on something- that Chapter 17 must go.
However, I think it is a grave mistake to try to make enemies with our neighbors- as this ILLEGITIMATE election thief makes it to be.
But that's just the reflection of Kyle Duestein's personality. He's not a healthy individual.
Kyle J. Duerstein on Sep 08, 2008 at 11:21 AM:
Why is it that when the neighbors around UWM have been engaged in an all-out assault on students over the past few years that the students are the ones accused of trying to make enemies? By other students (presumably) nonetheless.
I think it's a little ironic that someone calling me illegitimate isn't themselves legitimate enough to write under their own name.
Johanan on Sep 08, 2008 at 01:04 PM:
Why exactly is he illegitimate? You need to prove that before you just spout it off.
UWM Alum on Sep 08, 2008 at 02:22 PM:
Nice column, Kyle...keep spreading the word...the sad part is that no matter how many columns you write, forums you hold, free food you offer and letters you send out to the student body...99% will not realize this until it is actually in place...remember RPP...best of luck to you! :)
Julio Guerrero on Sep 08, 2008 at 07:01 PM:
Kyle and I had talks on this issue many times at the ICC. This is clearly a problem that both ASAP and SUFC should work together to remedy. In this instance, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. The enemy here is clearly a bunch of bigwigs whose priority is not standing up for the rights of students.
While I regretfully can not work side by side with Kyle on this matter, I encourage any one with serious interest in this issue to seek him out and get involved. The price of apathy in the face of adversity will become our undoing.
Keep up the good work Kyle.
Chicken Nuggets with Dipping Sauce on Sep 11, 2008 at 04:15 PM:
Kyle where have you been?
Name??? on Sep 12, 2008 at 01:46 AM:
As if you need their names Kyle? Its the ASAP hippies slandering anyone who did not run with the losing party in last years SA elections. Perhaps its time that crazies such as Dettman, Jesse, and Daniel Gingsburg Jackle (Whoa, he is really nuts!!!) realize that they not only are illegitimate student leaders, but that NO ONE really cares what they think.
Correction on Sep 12, 2008 at 10:42 AM:
You mean Daniel Ginsberg Jackass
Jimmy Lemke on Sep 13, 2008 at 03:54 AM:
You have got to get serious (not you Kyle). This has nothing to do with slander and SA elections.
Stop trying to change this into something between two student political factions. This is far more important than that. Don't divide the students.
There is a big world outside the SUFC/ASAP battle for the Student Association. Get with it.
Chapter 17 could get me kicked out of school because of this block party... does your student political party fight feel so important now?
I apologize for being blunt, but I can't believe someone would be so insensitive as to make this about them and their jawing with a different group of students.
Chuck on Sep 13, 2008 at 10:10 AM:
I'm all for student freedom, but freedom to what? To throw parties with underage drinking?
This morning I watched my neighbor (an old man, maybe 75 years old) pick up two bags worth of trash from his yard -- beer cans, fast food wrappers, etc. -- on the east side.
Don't get me wrong, "You gotta fight, for your right, to party." However, there's an elephant in the room, and that is the fact that students are not acting like adults.
And while frivolous noise complaints are b.s., there is an issue when student parties (on wednesday nights) go until 3am. Some of us have to be up early.
Kurt on Sep 13, 2008 at 01:24 PM:
I've never had problems with my neighbors, but then again I don't throw wild, loud, out of control drinking parties that go on until 3 a.m. and keep the neighborhood awake. I respect the people in the area that have to get up early for work or class, unlike many of the students that live in this area. If you're being loud and obnoxious at after midnight you deserve a noise violation. I've called them in before, I don't feel guilty. I don't agree to testify however, so the cops actually have to be able to hear it when I call.
I am a student as well. One who is fed up with not being able to get to sleep Thursday through Saturday nights. I work mornings on weekends and the lack of respect of a lot if not most of the students living around campus is maddening. Having to help my dog dodge broken glass and vomit every weekend is ridiculous as well.
Maybe if these drunken idiots know they can get kicked out of school for their disruptive stupidity they'll tone it down. I would imagine not, but if they get kicked out I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.
Its about common decency toward your neighbors and a lot of the students who live around here don't have it. If there is a consistent pattern of disruptive behavior in the comminity from one student or house I have no problem with the university taking action, it may get some of these people to wise up and realize that college is supposed to be about learning and education and not a weekly disruptive, drunken binge.
Greg on Sep 14, 2008 at 09:52 AM:
Kyle, I'm one of the long-term neighbors you think hates students. We've met. You are nice enough in person but your column is, frankly, silly.
I no more hate students than I hate opera fans or nurses. (As it happens I am the parent of two university students, one at UWM.)
What I do hate is having drunken people urinate on my house. I hate my wife having to hose vomit off the driveway. I hate property damage and theft being done by drunken revelers on Friday nights. And Saturdays. And Thursdays. And...
I hate being told by someone who has been living on my block for six months that if I want to sleep at night I need to move out of my home. I guess that qualifies me as a "whiner".
What's missing from your column is any sense of responsibility for addressing the actual problem. Where is the paragraph with your suggestions for correcting the behavior (misbehavior, actually) that has driven long term residents to push for Chapters 17 changes? Instead you seem to assume that no problem exists, beyond some possible minor "disrespect" issues.
Do you honestly think we have nothing better to do with our lives than spend YEARS trying to deal with this? Do you really think any of us is interested in "micromanaging" your or any other student's life? Do you actually think I'm motivated by some desire to make your life miserable?
Come on, Kyle. Grow up. Chapter 17 changes are not coming because long-term residents hate students and have somehow "conned" UWM. Changes are coming because too many students don't control themselves while drinking at night. It is no more complicated than that.
Kyle J. Duerstein on Sep 14, 2008 at 10:46 AM:
Greg-
I do believe that too many of the long term neighbors around UWM have made it their top priority to over exaggerate the problems in the neighborhood. I honestly believe that many of the long term neighbors around UWM would be bored to death if they couldn't come up with a problem to blow out of proportion and complain about at neighborhood meetings every month for a decade. I do think too many long term neighbors absolutely have an interest in micromanaging their neighbors who are students' lives. If students weren't in the neighborhood, they'd be trying to micromanage your life too, Greg.
There is a problem. I've never said there wasn't. I've done drive around with Oscar, and on my own. I started the COAST Leader block captain program to help improve relations and attempt to head off some of the issues in the neighborhood. There can no longer be a debate about whether or not a problem exists. Everyone knows it does.
What there ought to be debate on is how to BEST deal with it. Chapter 17 is not the best way to deal with it. If your alderman was serious about fixing the problem and not preoccupied with winning his next election in a few years, he'd get serious and double noise nuisance citation amounts. He'd find a way to help the city fund the block captain program to improve the circumstances in the neighborhoods around UWM. Nevermind that Milwaukee as a city has murder and shootings in broad daylight to worry about, because God forbid, there are parties happening a block away from our state's sole urban University. More campus housing will put students in residence halls, where they already are subject to current Chapter 17 provisions, in addition to more strict policies established by University Housing.
The choice for the neighborhoods has been either: More residence halls to give the University the capability to house those students who want to live in University residence halls, or, oppose new residence halls and force those students who the University can't house into the neighborhoods around the University.
Time and time again you people have opposed new residence halls. It's time to get smart and actually try to fix this problem, and it's going to involve a lot of different aspects, like increasing fines, more proactive programs, more University housing, and a hell of a lot less sitting around a table bitching about the same shit month after month. Too many neighbors have been doing just that for the past 4 years, and the conversation hasn't changed because no solutions have been seriously discussed and worked towards.
STOP TALKING ABOUT THE PROBLEM. I was done talking about the problem after I learned about it, and then saw it. It exists, everyone knows that, and we don't need to bitch about it at every neighborhood meeting every month. We need to start talking about intelligent, effective ways to fix the problem, and Chapter 17 is not the intelligent answer.
Greg on Sep 14, 2008 at 12:31 PM:
Well, Kyle. Like I said... if you really think that "many of the long term neighbors around UWM have made it their top priority to over exaggerate the problems in the neighborhood." then you are either naive. willfully ignorant, or cynically playing this for political advantage. I suspect the latter.
Most long-term residents to not oppose the construction of more residence halls although there is disagreement about where they should be sited. But almost everyone agrees that more dorms are needed. Programs like S.A.F.E. are great. Long-term residents love the S.A.F.E. program. The work Oscar's done is great. (Yes, I know you've ridden with him... you and I rode together in his van one night.) COAST is fine, as far as it goes. But Chapter 17 changes are a necessary part of a solution because some folk just don't seem to respond to appeals to common decency. Some folk think the problem is that nosey neighbors wanting to micromanage other people's lives.
You might want to do a bit of historical research, Kyle. Notice the relationship between a 30% increase in enrollment in the 90's and the corresponding increase in neighborhood issues. Did those people who want to micromanage your life happen to move into the neighborhood in the 90s? It's not all that reasonable a hypothesis, is it?
The long-term residents stopped "just talking" about the problem years ago. That's why UWM now has an office of neighborhood relations. That's why Oscar's night-rides exist. That's why the Chapter 17 changes are being made.
Pretending that this is all because some busy-body neighbors want to micromanage your life is... what's that word...? Oh, yeah... Silly
Kyle J. Duerstein on Sep 14, 2008 at 08:39 PM:
I'm sorry, Greg. You might be the one calling me naive, but when's the last time you showed up to a UNA meeting? The agenda hasn't changed in 3 years! They complain about the same stuff, and continue advocating for over the top solutions like Chapter 17. If you'd like me to name names on exactly who are the ones that hold the types of philosophies that I'm talking about, I can do that. I'm not afraid to name names. Unfortunately, the people who fall into the descriptions I outlined above are the ones who each neighborhood associations continues to send to UNA to speak on their behalf.
Some of these dopes won't even support the NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSING OFFICE having a seat at the table and being considered a stakeholder. What kind of foolish crap is that, Greg?
Chapter 17 isn't the right answer to the problem. When you start supporting everyone's employers revoking pensions or firing employees based on noise violations, then you can support Chapter 17, but until what you hold important is on the line, your opinion on Chapter 17 doesn't really matter to me.
That doesn't change the fact that there are other programs that we all can agree will improve the situation, and I'm glad you support dorms in Columbia, but Chapter 17 isn't one of the things on the table that I think is a proper response to the problems and challenges we face in the neighborhoods.
Greg on Sep 14, 2008 at 10:13 PM:
Is it worth noting that I did not, in fact, say I supported dorms in Columbia? That subject in any case is off the table since UWM and the hospital have apparently failed to come to terms.
If you think about it for a moment, what you characterize as an agenda that "hasn't changed for 3 years" should not be a bit surprising. The agenda hasn't changed because the problems haven't changed. Does three years seem like a long time to you? We've been working on these problems for a decade or more!
If you had been in the workplace for a while you might have discovered that employers do in fact have the right to discipline/terminate employees who behave in ways that reflect poorly on the employer. Such is the way of the world. If the CEO of, say, Johnson Controls or GE Medical were found urinating in public, you don't think the company would have something to say about it?
Is it less of a problem for the University if a student gets drunk and pukes on my lawn than if he pukes in front of Chapman Hall where current Chapter 17 sanctions apply?
Chapter 17 changes are (probably) coming precisely because an intractable problem has not yielded to other solutions. The problem is intractable enrollments have skyrocketed and there seems to be an endless supply of people who give priority to their desire for a party over their neighbor's right to sleep and wake to a vomit-free doorstep.
But "Please", you say, "Don't let there be consequences for misbehavior. That's not fair!" Argue if you want to, and I suspect you will, but playing victim with regard to Chapter 17 changes wins you no points as far as I'm concerned. Your position makes no sense. It is the position of people who don't want to take responsibility for their own behavior.
Sorry, Kyle, but you offer nothing but cheap excuses for bad behavior. Your basic premise is absurd. You mistake a legitimate interest in sleep for the fantasy that long-time residents really give a hoot what you do with your private life. We care about our lives. Yours is of interest only when it diminishes ours.