Many Tufts students living in off−campus housing this fall have noticed that a greater number of their parties have been broken up by the Tufts University Police Department (TUPD) and/or the Somerville and Medford police. The feeling is more than just anecdotal, as figures provided by TUPD show that there has been an approximately 24 percent increase in the number of off−campus parties broken up by the police as compared to the same period last year. Additionally, the university has also increased, from $200 to $300, the fine levied on students who violate community standards with regard to overly raucous off−campus parties.
The university has stated that it has not changed its approach to dealing with off−campus parties this fall. However, the increase in the fine was in response to complaints from local area residents about the rowdy behavior of Tufts students living off campus.
Indeed, Tufts should seek to improve its relationship with the local community by listening and responding to the grievances of its residents. Further, this is a matter of basic respect and consideration for those around us. As Tufts students, we often forget or are not cognizant of the fact that we share a living environment with non−students, including families, elderly people and children, who keep "regular" and not "college" hours. To this end, the dialogue that occurred this summer between the university and residents of Medford and Somerville is laudable, and the ensuing attempts to curb unruly behavior are justified.
However, in light of the increased fine, the university needs to be more transparent and fair in its enforcement of the rules. Since the change, a perceived lack of consistency in issuing fines has been a major problem. Reportedly, hosts of smaller gatherings have received fines, while hosts of much larger parties have escaped financially unscathed.
For many students, $300 is no small sum of money, even if it is divided among the members of a house. The criteria for what constitutes a violation of community standards should therefore be spelled out more clearly to students to avoid any confusion about why they were or were not fined after having a party broken up.
Furthermore, being transparent about the process is a more constructive way to address the problem, in that it also presents clear guidelines for students, outlining appropriate standards to maintain when living alongside a local community. This is more likely to foster change than issuing fines without proper explanation and therefore seeming arbitrary.
As a final point of contention, the Daily finds reports of students being fined or pigeonholed as a result of the reputation of their house's former occupants to be unacceptable, if true. Even if the students' claims that the fines are undeserved are not valid, more transparency in enforcement of noise ordinances would pre−empt such contentions and would ensure students have a greater respect for law enforcement officers.
We call on the university and police departments to publish clear and detailed policies and standards on off−campus noise regulations, even as they continue to impose harsher fines.
