Like several other RAs, I was approached via Facebook with questions regarding RA “busts.” And like those RAs, I adhered to the Office of Residential Life’s official policy to defer all media questions to the administration. When Ms. Mann did not get the answers she was seeking, she decided to revert to commonly perceived stereotypes about RAs in McMahon Hall.
“Unfair ‘Busts’” is eight paragraphs of almost complete misinformation. To start, RAs do not “bust.” We are not the police; we “document.” Since Mann puts the word “bust” in quotes throughout the article, it appears she knows that she is using improper nomenclature (and, I have been informed, had this explained to her by Jenifer Campbell at the time of her interview). But since “bust” sounds so much more inciting than “documentation,” of course Mann continues to use it, even claiming that the word is defined under official Residential Life policy.
When an RA documents a room, there is no implicit judgment in his or her action. We are instructed to simply enter a room, announce our presence and purpose for entry, and document anything we see that goes against Res-Life policies (as stated in the Student Handbook). The documentation is then submitted to the administration. We do not participate in the judicial proceedings. We do not state our opinions. We do not even write in the 1st person. We are there simply to record what we see.
Hartnett may very well have had a legitimate door issue when she was documented for bolting. But an RA on rounds has absolutely no way of confirming that. The doors in McMahon hall are temperamental at best; often students use this to their advantage by closing them lightly enough that they stay propped open while the person runs to the trash room, visits a friend, etc. This action is in violation of NEW YORK CITY FIRE CODE, not simply McMahon Hall’s rules and regulations. As a matter of fact, if a New York City Fire Marshall sees a door bolted open in a high-rise building in New York City, the occupants are charged a $450 fine. So RAs document it. We do not write out your fine, we simply report what happened to the administration. From there, Ms. Hartnett could have appealed her case. If her work-order was discovered, it is more than likely the case would have been dismissed. But to give someone the “benefit of the doubt” contradicts the entire purpose of the RA on Duty, namely, to serve as an impartial observer and recorder of facts. Fact: the door was ajar. The circumstances were not ours to argue.
Mann continues to inaccurately interpret the role of Resident Assistants in her tale of the “anonymous sophomore” who is documented after leaving a party. The sophomore laments that she was “automatically assumed guilty of an infraction without legitimate proof.” Contrary to what she may have thought, the sophomore was being “assumed guilty” of only one thing: she was seen leaving a room in which a party was taking place. Consult your handbook: whether or not you are drinking, if you are underage, or with anyone who is underage, and in the presence of alcohol or any circumstances that violate a Residential Life policy, you will be documented. This is, once again, to ensure fairness and impartiality. You may not have had a sip to drink, but the RA has absolutely no way of knowing that. What he or she does know is that you violated a rule, i.e., attending a party to begin with. If you believe your circumstances exonerate you, you have every opportunity to present them at your judicial hearing (and the Resident Directors who conduct judicial proceedings do take them under consideration). But it is not the RA’s place to decide who did what.
In the last three paragraphs of the article, there are a few token quotes from director of residential life Jenifer Campbell that objectively discredit almost everything Mann’s article propagates. But by then it’s too late; despite Ms. Campbell’s best efforts, the reader has been fed too many substantial mistruths for the quotes to be really effective.
Mann purports that the beliefs expressed in her article by two bitter, misinformed residents are “commonly held” and supported by “many.” I’d like to believe McMahon Hall is more intelligent than that. Yes, RAs document. But in a student residential hall, that role is critical. Think back to the last time you called the RA on duty to report the DJ two floors above you for blasting “Poker-face” while you tried studying for a Chemistry midterm. Or consider what could happen if door bolting was allowed to continue; you would be pretty sore if someone made off with your Wii while you were chatting with another suite, or worse, started a fire that could no longer be contained by the flame proof doors (yes, that is why we can’t bolt them).
Or maybe think about RAs a little more broadly than as disciplinarians. Have you seen all those flyers on your bulletin boards? Those are for programs planned by your RA (or someone like him or her) to enhance your McMahon Hall experience. Or how about the bulletin boards themselves? Your floor theme? Door tags? Community builders? Your last roommate mediation? Maybe you have thought of these things (Mann certainly doesn’t mention them in her article), they are what make up the bulk of the RA position and the reason that students, myself included, chose to become a Resident Assistant. It is constant (albeit gratifying) work that frequently goes unnoticed and unappreciated. So to be demonized in an article filled thoroughly with misinformation is incredibly frustrating and hurtful to my fellow RAs and I, and the community that we are trying to build.
Next time, Ms. Mann, try taking a leaf out of our book: document the FACTS objectively.
Submitted by Francis Pastorelle, FCLC ’10 and an RA, and approved by Jenifer Campbell, Director of Residential Life
2 comments