On a Saturday night you and a few of your friends have a small gathering at your home. Nothing out of the ordinary. But at the end of the night when John Q. Student leaves your house, he decides to pick a fight or vandalize property on the way home. The next morning you receive a citation from the police because of an ordinance violation.
This scenario is simply hypothetical at the present but could become a harsh reality for students, depending on a local vote.
The State College Borough Council will vote today on a document called the Nuisance Gathering Ordinance, which will allow the police to hold hosts accountable for their guest's actions even after they are no longer present at your residence. I have been involved in meetings regarding its structure, and the document seems to be primarily aimed at the praiseworthy goals of reducing excessive noise, public urination and littering.
Public urination and littering that affects someone else's property or way of life should not be tolerated. State College is a unique town, one in which undergraduate students, graduate students and residents coexist intermittently in a dense neighborhood.
It is essential that the students share in the work to keep a peaceful and safe borough since we also share in its resources.
While the ordinance begins with these valid points, it goes on to include things like brawls, criminal mischief and a slew of alcohol laws.
The section defining what a nuisance is ends with an extremely vague provision, stating "Other illegal conduct or condition which injures, or endangers the safety, health, or welfare of the neighborhood." The host then can be held accountable for basically anything that endangers the safety, health or welfare of the neighborhood.
The Nuisance Gathering Ordinance takes the accountability beyond the individual who committed the transgression, and insinuates that the student's host also shoulders responsibility. There is no impact on bars and restaurants despite the significant likelihood of involvement in a creating quite a nuisance themselves. This is not to mention the fact that a gathering is defined at 10 or more people, with no provisions set aside for Fraternity houses that are among the population at any given point.
What is clear is that full time residents are tired of excessive partying that goes on within the borough and the aftermath of Sunday morning clean-ups.
I want to put a magnifying glass on specific issues of concern and partner to eliminate them.
An ordinance aimed primarily against the student population is a hasty move that will break the bonds that some students have been working diligently to build.
Borough officials should partner with proactive measures like the new Interfraternity Council social policy, the Off Campus Student Union LIONWalk, and University Park Undergraduate Association extended busing service.
The document's nebulous classifications of violations, as well as saying that the host is now responsible for individual actions after leaving a party is a step too far.
Freshmen, sophomores, juniors and seniors need to ask themselves if this is what they want from their elected officials.
As a student body leader, I have to ask myself if this is what I want for the generations of Penn State students who will come after me.
I urge you to consider if you would want to be fined for the actions of someone else and if the drinking problem in State College can be legislated away.
