The Maroon Editorial Board’s position is wholly untenable (“Window Treatments,” 10/30/09). The University of Chicago Student Manual, which every student is required to read, clearly states that “Residents may not engage in activities which threaten the safety of others. A list of specific acts that come under the rubric of dangerous activities could never be exhaustive; however the following is a partial list: …Throwing objects from the windows of residence halls. The size, weight, and shape of such objects—and their potential for harm—cannot be subject to exhaustive debate… Residents who engage in any of the acts listed above will be subject to serious disciplinary action, including the likelihood of being removed from a House or from the House System.”
Defenestration has always been illegal and subject to harsh punishment. All incoming first-years and returning students are warned of the harshness of Housing with respect to this rule and staff make explicit that it is not a rule to be broken lightly. As a third-year, Clayton Ayers was duly informed of the rules not once but thrice, so he is thus bound by their principles. Since it is obvious that egress of any object via a window is strictly prohibited, how can it rationally be argued that ingress is somehow permitted? That is utter nonsense; even if it were not, the student manual clearly states that it only contains a partial list of prohibited activities. Is the Maroon Editorial Board really attempting to argue that an object going through a window—whatever the object may be—is licit as long as it is from the outside to the inside? Even if one took that position, it is still in blatant violation of housing rules as it bypasses established security procedures and requires “tampering with the physical plant of the residence halls including removing screens,” which is also subject to fine.
Despite the Maroon’s attempts at portraying it as such, this is not an issue of whether Ayers committed a safety violation or if his punishment is too harsh; this is simply an issue of whether or not he violated the rules. Any logical person could surmise that if the exit of any object via a window will result in removal, the entry of any object via a window will likely result in the same punishment. The only way this could be clearer is thus: “Under no circumstances, barring an emergency, may any object enter or leave through a window. The size, weight, shape, or potential for harm of such an object is not debatable.”
Charles Stephen Thompson
Class of 2010
Former President, The Inter-House Council of The University of Chicago
Thanks charles, I didn’t realize that Ayers’ friends had been thrown into his room like so many unspecified but potentially deadly objects…
My point is, it seems like the key word in the rule is “thrown,” because an object that is “thrown” either out of a window or into a room through a window can cause bodily harm. A human being who enters a building through a window is in no sense “thrown” through the window. It’s obvious that this rule is supposed to apply to cases of people throwing objects out of windows, thus endangering passersby below. I agree that it would not be an unreasonable interpretation to also include objects thrown through the window INTO the room. But it’s a wild interpretation to think that this rule covers the case of people entering the room through the window.
The rule cited about throwing objects out of the room clearly, then, has no application to the case of some people using a window to enter a building. Anyone who thinks so needs some help.
Even if the rule did have an application in this case, what penalty the violator should incur in a particular instance is, at least partially, a function of the particular circumstances; this is clear from the fact that the language of the Manual is quite vague about the proper penalty–”Residents who engage in any of the acts listed above will be subject to serious disciplinary action, including the likelihood of being removed from a House or from the House System.” Clearly, this language leaves room for administrators to take into account the circumstances of the case and choose a punishment, such as probation, that is serious but well short of expulsion from the Housing system. It’s clear if you look into the Ayers case that the circumstances did not merit the harshest penalty that can be levied for violations of this rule, were it even applicable. Thus, even if Ayers violated this rule, it doesn’t follow with absolute necessity that he must be expelled from SCRH. You are wrong, Charles.
P.S. There was no tampering with the physical plant, either. The screens open like the windows. You can clearly see this in the picture of Ayers in the Maroon story.
I lived in university housing for my first three years in this school, and one policy seemed to override every other. If no one was being hurt, the university did not seem to care. I have broken housing rules, and I thought nothing of it, because I knew that my RA and RH were only concerned with the safety and well being of me and my housemates. They made this very clear with an alcohol policy that did not question how these 18, 19, and 20 year olds got a hold of enough alcohol to have them puking in the common areas. They made certain that the student was ok, and advised students not to continue behavior that was plainly detrimental to them. Rooms were not raided. Names of those committing a felony by providing these people with alcohol were not demanded. I would ask, if housing is going to enforce rules when they endanger no one, and break no law, that rules be enforced when laws are broken, and student health is put at risk.
Or perhaps his RA should have just spoken to Ayers about it.
It is unfortunate to see a past president of the Inter-House Council demonstrate so poor an understanding of the rules put forth in the Student Manual. Defenestration to “any logical person” with a proper understanding of the origins & meaning of the word – a description that clearly does not apply to Mr Thompson – should only evoke the notion of egress from a window. It is solely concerned with the direct physical harm that arises as a result of the throwing/pushing/jumping and is either borne by the object itself (if the object is a person) or inflicted upon someone whom the object happens to hit. It’s almost exclusively applicable to windows of a sufficient height to cause such harm. The notion of any harm coming from a person walking into a first-storey window is almost absurd; even if Mr Ayers had paused to reflect on the Defenestration rule, which I’m sure he was well aware of, he clearly came to the conclusion that it was not in contravention with either the letter of the law or the spirit of the law.
The entry does, though, violate something separate: the general spirit of security – though this violation may not be as blatant as Mr Thompson thinks, for Clayton’s visitors were residents of the House and the one(s) that wasn’t had, in fact, signed in previously. It is deserving of some measure of punishment, to be sure, but eviction from SCRH? Even in light of afore-mentioned mitigating circumstances and, in addition, the fact that no screens were, in fact, removed (screens can be opened and need to be so in order to access windows)?
It is more worrisome that Mr Thompson perceives the Maroon’s stand, and the whole affair in general, to take issue with the rule itself than with the harshness of the punishment. For security’s sake, people should not be climbing in through windows, house residents or not. The issue is whether Mr Ayers deserves to be kicked out of the house for something that neither violated an explicit rule nor caused any immediate safety/security problems.
The attacks on my reasoning are misplaced; I fully understand what defenestration means. The point I was trying to make was that people have been forced to move houses after throwing water balloons and paper airplanes from the second floor of the Shoreland. My resident heads clearly said that an infraction would likely result in removal from housing, as I recall. If one looks at the history of housing with respect to the defenestration rule, two things are plainly evident: It has never mattered what one throws from a window with respect to its potential for harm and the punishment is almost always removal from housing or the house. The rule has absolutely no bearing on direct or even potential physical harm and it makes this clear.
I freely admit that the student manual does not explicitly bar one from using the window as an access point. I freely admit that it also says defenestration is illegal without outlining other prohibited window-related activity. However—and this was the point I was trying to make—if we know that the rule book does not list all possible illicit acts and we know that exit of any item via a window will likely get one booted from housing, how can any person logically assume that entrance or exit via a window will not result in the same punishment? I’m not arguing that the punishment isn’t harsh or overkill (because it is and I have always thought so); I’m arguing that, logically speaking, Mr. Ayers should have known better and he should have assumed what likely consequences would result given past evidence. It’s truly terrible that Mr. Ayers was punished in this way but it doesn’t seem like he was totally without warning as to the end result of his actions.
You’d have to be a pretty big idiot to think that “throwing things out the window” makes “walking back in through a window” ok. The big rules of housing, as everyone knows, are 1. don’t throw stuff out windows (and throw is used as a verb here since ‘walk’ probably didn’t seem applicable), 2. don’t go on the roof, 3. don’t mess with the fire alarms.
I think it’s pretty clear that walking in through a window is extremely against the rules, as it violates the spirit of the first two of the big three. Does anyone really think this is a loophole? “Oh I agree it’s not ok to throw a piece of chalk out a window, but my friends should be allowed to enter buildings through windows whenever they please.” Come on. Especially since this is a brand new dorm, I see no problem with making an example of him. Don’t be stupid. And the RA’s job isn’t to be your bff, they only have that image because the good ones present themselves that way. I doubt he calls your parents when you vomit all over the house lounge, so don’t blame him when he does his job.
Besides, I hardly think being moved to Maclean is the worst thing that could’ve happened to him. He should be glad he doesn’t live south of the midway and he can actually be near civilization and commerce and other people and campus and etc etc.
you’d have to be a pretty big idiot to think that the spirit of those first two rules is related to the spirit of a hypothetical rule that would disallow walking through a window. one concerns harm inflicted by the act of the passage through the window ie. if one of those paper planes/water balloons charles stephen thompson mentioned hit someone. the other is an issue of general security. they’re entering the building without undergoing the necessary security checks.
which is pretty much Housing’s assessment, too. when Clayton underwent his hearing/appeal, they were concerned, in particular, with whether he knew all the people who went through his window, whether they’d signed it etc.
regardless, it was still stupid. but not in the same league as the unbreakable throw stuff out of window rule.
The arguments here are trivial. I already won my appeal proving that OUSH was in the wrong and the rules were not clearly presented to the students in my house. Thus the author of this article is in disagreement with the appeals board and by transitivity WRONG. {Proof}: So, let S be the set of all clearly delineated rules & let W be the set of all windows. CLEARLY, if any P (person) walks through any element of W’, which is the subset of windows with a messed up screen, then P is not in conformity with any element of S QED. Yeah, whatup math