The time has come for the university to develop and publicize a clear policy about the consequences of illegal file sharing.

The Office of Judicial Affairs recently gave 220 students a slap on the wrist for file sharing, in the form of an unofficial warning and a requirement for them to promise not to illegally share material again.

Judicial Affairs expedited their case because the students were eager to have their Internet connections turned back on because of the approach of finals.

Judicial Affairs also decided to deal with the students as if the violations had been off campus, even though they occurred on campus. Off-campus violations generally receive lighter punishments.

While it is desirable for Judicial Affairs to have some degree of flexibility in the punishment it doles out based on the circumstances of different incidents, this case shows that the office is too subjective. The office should not change the consequences for a violation based on the time of year that it occurred, and the office should not have the power to arbitrarily act as if on-campus violations had occurred off campus.

The Judicial Affairs process is too subjective and too inconsistent, and that is unfair to students.

Other students caught for the same violation have been punished more harshly, and the recent ruling is not fair to them.

This is not to say that the punishment the 220 students received was inappropriate. In fact, it is commendable that the university did not try to make an example of these students, since so many other students also engage in file sharing.

However, the university would benefit if it would clearly articulate how it will handle illegal file sharing. The policy should be crystal clear, and the university should stick to it -- even when finals are approaching.