Staff editorial: A long-overdue extension

It hasn't been an easy ride the last four years for student activists supporting the Good Samaritan policy. When students first introduced the legislation — which protects dangerously drunk students from university sanctions if they call 911 for themselves or a friend — in 2007, they proposed a policy that would include both alcohol and drug use. The latter was quickly shot down, so students regrouped and focused on an alcohol policy. After four years and intense lobbying by students who refused to give up, the University Senate passed it.

The fight isn't over for students, however. They're back to fulfill the goals of the original proposal and extend the policy to include drug use. This time around, the debate is even more complicated. Because drug use is illegal at any age, the legal implications of such a policy are extensive and students are possibly facing another four-year fight just to extend the original bill.

The legislation has been sitting in the senate's Student Executive Committee for three months. Students hold the majority on the committee, and all five of them — including four undergraduates and one graduate student — support it, meaning it should be a breeze to pass. But because the committee refuses to move forward without a statement of support from state Attorney General Douglas Gansler — who has yet to respond three months after an opinion was requested — the legislation is stalled indefinitely.

For the record, this editorial board fully endorses extending the policy to include drug use. It's the logical next step in ensuring the university upholds student safety above anything else. It wouldn't be a revolutionary policy, either; major state institutions such as the University of Georgia, the University of Iowa (university President Wallace Loh's former school) and Tulane University all have inclusive Good Samaritan policies. Senate chair Eric Kasischke has stated that because this state has its own specific laws, the university can't simply follow suit.

However, considering Washington College in this state also has a similar policy, this editorial board finds it hard to believe Gansler would deny the state's flagship university the right to implement such legislation while another in-state institution already has one in place. It doesn't seem to be a question of what Gansler will say, but when he will ultimately say it.

He doesn't have the greatest track record with responding to university requests in a speedy fashion. In 2008, the university told a group of student journalists it would not disclose the names of students convicted of sexual assault, citing a federal privacy act. The journalists worked with a local state delegate to request an opinion from Gansler just a few months later; they didn't receive one until April 2010.

After Gansler ruled in the students' favor, the university was forced to comply with their request and release the information. The student journalists' case is similar to the first round of Good Samaritan debates; both are now considered success stories for undergraduates because of the incredible devotion students showed, with upperclassmen passing the torch onto younger activists when they graduated to ensure the cause didn't die.

Similar tactics need to be implemented now, given it's unclear when Gansler will issue an opinion. Undergraduate student senator and senior Brandon Levey, currently leading the fight for an all-inclusive policy, has done a commendable job bringing the issue up this semester. But it's unlikely he'll see it pass before he's graduated. Levey needs to rely heavily on the Students for Sensible Drug Policy — a group instrumental in seeing through the first Good Samaritan policy — to establish a lineage of student support that will last long after he's gone.

Furthermore, senators and student activists should use this waiting time wisely to educate the entire university on the importance of such legislation. When the first legislation passed, former Student Conduct Director John Zacker credited much of its success to the overwhelming student voice in favor of such a policy. Students conducted interviews and surveys to gauge the university's opinion on the matter; not surprisingly, because it centered around saving students' lives, most were in favor of it.

But this time around, with a more controversial policy dealing with drugs, the senate will likely need more swaying. Undergraduates need to gather sufficient data to prove once again how wholeheartedly the university community values such policies. Once Gansler OKs the legislation, senators will be able to immediately mobilize and have a fighting chance at getting the policy passed. It's already been four years — it's time to approve the original Good Samaritan proposal once and for all.