When third-year Clayton Ayers saw a group of friends through his open window on the first floor of the South Campus Residence Hall (SCRH) October 10, he didn’t think twice when they asked to come in.
So it came as a surprise to the Janotta house resident when, the following week, he was banned from his dormitory and dining hall.
“Obviously, I didn’t think that [five Collge students] walking through my window was committing any safety infraction, or jeopardizing anyone in South Campus or in my house,” Ayers said. “I know them well. It wasn’t an issue of them being strangers or not.”
The Office of Student Housing didn’t take the incident lightly. Jim Wessel, assistant director of the office, placed the five students who came through the window on probation. For Ayers, the punishment is more severe: he will be moved from his Janotta four-person apartment to a Maclean single and banned from the SCRH and its cafeteria.
Ayers, and the 267 members of the Facebook group that support him, think Housing’s decision was too harsh given that he did not receive a warning, had no history of disciplinary issues, and was not told entering windows was against housing policies.
“I just want to be given the same punishment they were given,” said Ayers, who is permitted to stay in his SCRH apartment pending an official housing review of the decision.
Director of Ungergraduate Student Housing Katie Callow-Wright, Wessel, and housing staff declined to comment.
Student Government (SG) representatives heard of Ayers’ punishment and vowed to seek action. “I’ve never seen so much support from individuals to pursue an issue,” said Sohrab Kohli, a second-year College Council representative.
While Kohli said it isn’t the place of SG to “weigh in on the merits of specific decisions made by housing,” he contacted the SG Executive Slate about the issue this week, and said that, if the slate recommended action, he would pursue the matter with housing directly.
“I feel like I would really be doing a disservice to my class if I didn’t take on this issue,” he said.
While the students involved acknowledge that an exhaustive list of housing statutes is infeasible, many of them are frustrated that no specific mention was made of entering the building through windows. They also criticized Wessel for not allowing housing staff to discuss the incident with students.
“They don’t make that a public announcement on this campus. How are we supposed to learn from peoples’ previous mistakes if we aren’t even told about them?” said second-year Tiffany Sommadossi, one of the students who entered through the window.
According to students in Ayers’ apartment that night, a group of Ayers’ friends left the SCRH after spending time with other friends in the dorm. When the group saw Ayers through his open ground-floor window, they came over to talk. When they wanted to come back inside, they took the most direct route: through the open window.
“It was all about convenience,” Sommadossi said. “It didn’t feel like we were doing anything spectacular.”
The students walked straight through the room, hardly pausing to talk with Ayers or his roommates. “It was so casual to us we didn’t see any point in either hiding it or talking about it,” said second-year Nathalie Lowenthal-Savy, another member of the group. “It demonstrates how much we didn’t know that this was a serious offense.”
Sommadossi and Lowenthal-Savy live in Jannotta House. The other students live in SCRH, Pierce, and off-campus housing.
Third-year Chelsea Bingiel, who posted on the Facebook group’s wall, thought it should have been obvious that climbing through a window was a bad decision. Citing the rule that objects may not be thrown out the window–a rule the Facebook group emphasized did not include objects entering the window–was missing the point, she said in an e-mail interview. “The entire premise of the argument is based upon skirting well-known housing rules,” she said.
The only reason the incident was brought to the attention of housing at all was a casual conversation at the house dining table, according to the students. Janotta RA and third-year Rob McConeghy overheard Lowenthal-Savy mention the incident in passing, and brought the matter up at a regular meeting with housing superiors, including Wessel.
For the students involved, the situation has changed how they perceive housing staff.
“The RA is supposed to be the person in your house who helps you through things, who you can talk to without feeling like you’re going to get in trouble. Our RA overheard this and directly told Housing, without talking to us,” Lowenthal-Savy said. “I don’t trust this RA anymore.”
Ayers and his supporters have attempted to fight his removal from his house. To do so, Ayers filed a request for a review of the housing decision, and friends have submitted petitions.
According to Callow-Wright, the review committee can vote to overturn a forced move to a new house, but it cannot lift bans on visiting dorms or dining halls; only Callow-Wright has that ability.
Callow-Wright’s office has not informed Ayers of a date for the review, which Ayers said is taking a toll on his schoolwork.
“This happened October 10, and it’s almost Halloween now,” Ayers said. “Having a move to Maclean hanging over your head, it’s really hard to focus on your Math 199 problem set.”
Really dumb all around. People claiming there are no rules against entering through windows – but I’m sure there are rules about entering the building only through the controlled access points while showing your ID.
As for the punishment though – talk about overkill. The people that climbed through the window should be punished more severely than the person who’s window it was.
And the RA – forget about it. What kind of crap RA doesn’t at least talk to the offenders first?
This article is a pretty good representation of the events that transpired and the concerns of those involved.
However, I, one of Clayton’s roommates, take issue with the following in the first sentence of this article: “…he didn’t think twice when they asked to come in.”
The five individuals who came through Clayton’s window do not recall whether or not they asked Clayton if they could come in. This happened a few weeks ago and I know that those involved do not remember if they specifically asked Clayton for permission. Either way, Clayton was willing to have them enter, insofar as he did not say “Hey, you can’t enter through my window”; again, the reason Clayton didn’t say this is because he didn’t know it was against the rules.
It is important to be accurate and report that those who entered the room do not remember exactly if they asked Clayton for permission.
come on guys, get out of the dorm money trap and rent an apartment instead
WHAT is the point of making a window with a removable screen if there is such a strict rule about anything passing through the window? I understand, in the Shoreland, that nothing could be thrown out of or come in the window and this was, of course, made an impossibility with permanent screens! Clayton didn’t tamper with any school property or forcibly remove a screen, let alone do anything to jeopardize or disturb anyone else in the dorm. Like this article says, it was purely an act of convenience…fix the windows if you’re going to come down so hard on a student like this! RIDICULOUS. FREE CLAYTON!
Wow, that’s absurd. If this isn’t strictly against the rules, how is he supposed to know not to do this? I’ve definitely done this same thing before at Max, and no one had complained.
Oh give me a break – “not strictly against the rules”? Since when did entering a dorm through a window seem within the scope of the rules. It might not be explicitly forbidden or allowed, but it certainly violates the spirit of the regulations, and I’m sure you can attribute allowing entry through windows as something already covered under the rule pertaining to maintaining the security of the building. Only an idiot would deny that entering through a window is not against the rules and thus is allowed and try to play a ridiculous game of semantics to argue his point.
I’m not defending the University in their seemingly outrageous decision to punish Clay more harshly than those who entered through the window. It certainly seems like overkill. Unfortunately, I doubt that we have the entire story, as the University has not provided comment on the matter, leaving us only with one side of this story.
The RA did the right thing in this situation. Climbing through a window is clearly against housing rules, and for good reason – it’s physically unsafe and totally invalidates every security measure the building has in place. One of the “unbreakable rules” gone through at every house meeting is that you can’t remove the screen in your window. It’s in the housing manual. The kids were wrong, the RA was right.
RA’s let a LOT of things slide, but there are 4 or 5 rule violations they are required to report.
These rules are known across campus as the “unbreakable rules of housing.” One of the rules is that nothing goes through the window of your dorm room. Clayton did something stupid and his RA did his job. I don’t think you can fault Rob for that.
In my four years living in Housing at the U of C, I remember that every single year, at the mandatory beginning of the year House Meeting, the RAs/RHs stressed to an almost comical extent how important it was that nothing go through the window. This rule is important, exceptionally easy to satisfy, and well understood by the housing community, so I think that the University, and Rob, did the right thing.
Totally legit. There is no way these kids could think that behavior isn’t a punishable offense. If you choose to live in the dorm as an upperclassman there is an implicit understanding that you agree to follow the rules. If you don’t like it, move off campus.
The RA did his job.
Obviously, the punishment here does not fit the ‘crime’. I mean walking through a first story window? C’mon guys. When I was at school there nothing was done to people who smoked weed in their rooms on a daily basis. So basically you are telling me that walking through a window on the first floor is worse than doing illegal substances? That’s absolutely absurd, housing. Never in my life have I seen a more ridiculous punishment for something so minor. Both parties should be given a warning and that’s it.
Also, why are you guys talking about the RA? Its kind of a minor part of the story. I mean you are obviously friends with the ‘guy’ and trying to defend him. He basically just made himself look like a complete pussy by going straight to the authorities. If he was my RA I’d want to move just so I wouldn’t have to deal with him anymore. What a coward.
In response to “Punishment fits the Crime”, the fact is the ridiculous policy of housing really hurts the rest of the university. If Clayton were to move to Maclean, he’d transfer, and our endowment goes down. Do you really support that? Come on. We can talk about punishment in some closed sphere, but what the housing department is doing is an INJUSTICE to the rest of the University (the part that relies on Clayton and his family).
In addition, please read the rules. They themselves are ambiguous. If any other business you had a a five digit contract with tried to change the terms almost immediately and sporadically, then your instant response would be to sue. But because we immediately assume the housing department is different from other businesses, we like to take their crap. But in the end, the housing department IS like a business, and thus ought to be subjugated to those regulations.
Finally, the point of the RA is to mediate between authority and the students. Students should feel comfortable talking to other students. He’s not doing his job because now no one trusts him. He needs to get fired, since there really is no use of him now.
As a resident of Jannotta House, I can attest to the fact that the rules about entering/exiting through windows were made very clear during the house meeting for first years during O-Week. However, there was no mention of the rules regarding windows in the first mandatory house meeting for all returning students. I guess it was assumed that the returning students already knew the rules, but I don’t think it was ever an issue in the Shoreland. This doesn’t excuse what happened, but Clayton should get the same punishment as those who climbed through the window, rather than such an extreme response from housing.
The RA should have talked to the people first. He’s a coward. All of you supporting him are obviously his friends. It’s also a minute part of the article. Focus on the big picture. The punishment is way too harsh for the ‘crime’.
I’d just like to respond to some of the comments.
To the point that this violates the spirit of regulations and that it is certainly against the rules when considered within the scope of building entrance protocol, rather than window protocol.
I would argue that while it may be considered against the rules when considered in the scope of building entrance protocol, think about this: were that really why Housing has so harshly punished Clayton, wouldn’t every time someone enters a dorm without signing in be a reason for housing to dole out extremely harsh punishments too? I know that I’ve entered dorms without being signed in by a resident, and the person I went to see was never reported to housing; clearly this has never been reported because it is really a non-issue, unless a non-signed in person does something very egregious while in a dorm. It seems pretty clear that this issue actually has nothing to do with building entrance protocol, but rather solely with the fact that people went through a window, which is an unbreakable rule, because nothing bad happened due to this event.
Also, there are many things that aren’t necessarily smart but are within the scope of the rules. For instance, I can consume an obscene amount of alcohol at this school and never be punished by housing. It seems clear that having people come in through one’s window isn’t too smart, but it also isn’t expressly against the rules.
Thus, let us review the rules. I believe the rules state that, although non-exhaustive, one cannot throw something out the window. Now, this can be interpreted in a few ways: one, this could mean that what can’t be thrown out the window is non-exhaustive (meaning, it is not ok to piss out the window, throw a Frisbee out the window, throw a football out the window, etc but the rules don’t need to list every conceivable thing that could be thrown out a window); second, this could mean that what you cannot do with a window is non-exhaustive, meaning that one can’t throw something out a window, nor can one enter through a window, nor can one punch a window, etc but the rules don’t need to list every conceivable thing that could be done with a window that is wrong. It seems to me that if Housing is going to state, specifically, that something can’t be thrown out a window, then they should have explicitly stated that persons cannot enter through a window either; the rules are ambiguous, so they should be as clear as possible…including a few extra words isn’t too difficult.
To the point that you aren’t allowed to remove the screen in your window: apparently you are. I live in Clayton’s suite and we asked Housing why it is in the first place that the windows in our room open wide enough to let people in and why we can even open the screen (in our windows our screens have a big handle to unlock them and open them). Housing told us that the windows in our suite double as fire escapes, so we can exit through our windows if there is a fire. This seems a bit ridiculous to say the least because the windows are not marked as fire escapes and we were never instructed that we could use them as fire escapes, nor is it in any manual. Furthermore, suites on every high floor have the same type of windows…why would windows on the 7th floor be able to open all the way…fire escape doesn’t sound like a good reason there. The windows in SCRH are a design flaw, plain and simple.
The points about the RA: it just seems to me that if you overhear something, you should verify it first. I am sure a lot of people make stuff up about their weekends…why would you believe someone talking about walking through a window? From what I know, this story was taken as true and immediately reported. I think it would have been professionally better for the RA to come speak to those involved and actually see if this happened. Yes, you could argue that the people would have lied, but I fail to see the point of having RAs if they are going to immediately tell higher-ups about behavior. Why not save the university money and just have RHs? Oh yeah, because the RA is a student and is supposed to make you feel comfortable with authority and provide you with someone you feel you can speak to about certain things.
And the punishment definitely does not fit the crime. Clayton didn’t walk through a window and he is the one getting booted; the people who actually walked through the window are just on probation, which isn’t really a punishment. Clayton would really just like to have the same punishment as those who actually walked through his window, especially because he didn’t open his window for them: it was already opened before they showed up.
Also, Clayton’s appeal has been scheduled for 6:45 pm Monday November 2.
I live in Jannotta House, where there is universal support for Clayton and shock at the disproportionate punishment that he received. I would like to point out something that many of the previous comments miss: it actually was NOT obvious that entering through the window was such a big deal. Window policy was not mentioned at all at the only mandatory meeting for returning students in Jannotta, a fact that has been unanimously confirmed by a petition of those present. We were told many things, like no throwing balls in the courtyard and no helium balloons in the dorm, but nothing about this rule that apparently gets you banned from the dorm and dining hall without any previous strikes. Of course, it was still a stupid thing to do, and everyone has lapses in judgment. But out of all the dumb things that can be done in a dorm, the ones that carry such disciplinary weight should be made absolutely clear, especially when they were previously impossible (as in the Shoreland, where Clayton lived) or not explicitly in the housing rules. The housing rules merely refer to throwing objects out of windows and a general prohibition on acts that endanger student safety. If they want to treat window entry as such a big deal, how hard would it be to include objects (human or otherwise) coming IN through windows in the rule? It’s not as if throwing something out of a window is obviously bad while objects coming in is so bizarre that it would be absurd to include. In addition, no student’s safety was endangered while entering through a window that is a foot off the ground. If those involved in the incident were at all aware of the kind of punishment attached to window entry, none of them would have considered it.
in the face of accusations of an apathetic student body, it’s reassuring to see people with steadfast opinions on this matter in spite of their clearly nebulous grasp on both housing rules and the events that led up to this whole window debacle.
some facts were misrepresented in previous comments. in response:
- no screens were removed, nor do they need to be. the screens in scrh can be opened and closed, just like the windows can. no “tampering with the physical plant of the residence halls” occurred.
- climbing through a window on the ground floor isn’t “physically unsafe”, insofar as the window-climbers are concerned. it’s about a foot off the ground.
- what the housing manual actually states on windows is that nothing may be thrown out of them. the issue is, in fact, killer litter – the “potential for harm” that such objects have if they were to make contact with some unsuspecting passer-by.
but that’s irrelevant. entry through a window may not fall under the same category as throwing things out one, but it’s a security infraction nonetheless. what Clayton did was a mistake. Clayton’s willing to take the “same punishment [the others] were given”; he’s not arguing that what he did should be allowed, or that he wasn’t in the wrong.
nor is the issue with the RA, or how the matter was brought up to Housing. the nature of the punishment imposed was completely removed from the RA’s scope of power. it’s unnecessary to opine that Clayton should be kicked out of housing in order for Rob to be absolved of any blame, because they are completely separate issues. I hear, in fact, that Rob pleaded for leniency on Clayton’s behalf. Surely, then, you friends of his can insist that the punishment meted out to Clayton was unnecessarily harsh while maintaing that Rob did the right thing. It is expected that friends be overly enthusiastic when coming to the defense of a friend, but bear in mind that you do not have side against Clayton to side with Rob. Especially since Clayton stands to suffer so much if he were to lose his appeal.
The issue, then, is in the disproportionality of the punishment. The rule is not made explicit in the Housing Manual and while it might have been stressed “to a comical extent” at most house meetings, it received not an iota of attention at Clayton’s mandatory house meeting. If you’re going to have a ridiculous notion of an “unbreakable rule” that gets you the boot even in the face of mitigating circumstances, it’s your responsibility to make sure that those specific unbreakable rules be made sufficiently clear.
It wasn’t made clear. He should have been subjected to the conventional flow of Disciplinary Procedures, as outlined in the Student Manual ie. probation or an oral warning. Only “serious offences” should start off at higher levels. Housing shouldn’t have a blank cheque in interpreting what constitutes a serious offence and what doesn’t, in the absence of previously-established “unbreakable rules”. The point behind Clayton’s insistence – and that of everyone else in the article – that they didn’t think twice before committing the act isn’t that it should be allowed, but that it doesn’t occur to any rational person that it’s a serious will-get-kicked-out-of-housing offence.
Please listen to Ben. This is not about Rob. He is a good guy and going back and forth on his supposed culpability is distracting, pointless, and, as we can see here, dividing.
The matter at hand is Clayton’s punishment and the appeal scheduled for tomorrow. As has been made quite clear by the previous discussion, Clayton’s ‘exile’ to Maclean is completely disproportionate to his offense, especially considering that those who actually went through the window are merely being put on probation. Let’s all hope that justice is restored tomorrow.
Question – If you’re not supposed to remove screens, how did they get through the window?
Clayton is free.
HEY YALL.
CLAYTON IS FREED.
Anon: The screens on the SC windows open just like the windows themselves – there’s no ‘removal’, you just push the handle.
you can see for yourself how the window operates from the picture above. the screen is on the inside, between the room and the window; you can’t access the window without first opening the screen.