Is this justice?

In a previous editorial ("Sigma Chi's Long Night," Nov. 2) we expressed our expectation that the University administration would respond to the Sigma Chi Halloween controversy by taking the actions necessary to initiate a process of healing on campus. We regret to report that they have done precisely the opposite. The University's excessive punishment of Justin Park has galvanized those who refuse to acknowledge the hurtful nature of his statements.

Park's three semester suspension is positively draconian. This situation demanded justice, but with its egregious overreaction the Conduct Board has succeeded only in making a martyr of a student who should properly be maligned for his actions.

We have several worries about this punishment. First, if the goal of punishment is rehabilitation then we do not see how this one can succeed. There seems little doubt that Park will respond with justifiable resentment. The community service requirement -- say, in an AIDS clinic, so that Park may fully fathom the terrible gravity of the malady he plays for laughs -- is reasonable, but how will a year-and-a-half suspension elucidate for Park the nebulous barrier between comedy and offense? As far as he is concerned, he is being kicked out of school because of a bad joke and, if his Op-Ed in the Nov. 9 issue of the News-Letter is any indication, no one has convinced him that his invitation was anything other than misconstrued.

That invitation is closely related to our second concern. All but one of the charges against Park apply to the content of the invitation. Therefore, Park is being punished, in large part, for statements posted on a Web site not connected with Hopkins. This represents a grave and alarming precedent. Anything a Hopkins student places online, on any server, under any domain is, apparently, within the oversight of the administration. What if, for example, a student admits online that he or she is an underage drinker? Can the University assert that the student is in violation of the school's policy on underage drinking? The determination of the Conduct Board suggests that it can. The surveillance culture at Hopkins (recall last year's installation of a video-monitoring system throughout the campus) is fast becoming untenable.

Third, we are not confident that Park received fair treatment during his hearing. He was found guilty on all charges, so let us address them specifically, disregarding the matter of whether the content of a third-party Web site lies under the jurisdiction of the University.

"Failing to respect the rights of others and to refrain from behavior that impairs the University's purpose or its reputation in the community." We see no way in which the rights of anyone were infringed upon by Park's actions. Sensibilities, yes. Rights, no. Park's behavior obviously harmed the reputation of the University, but can a person be guilty of half a charge?

"Failure to comply with the directions of a University administrator." Park's posting of a minimally altered invitation after being told to remove his earlier one by Greek Life Coordinator Robert Turning is tantamount to failure to comply with a University official's instructions. Guilty.

"Conduct in violation of the University's anti-harassment policy." The University's anti-harassment policy explicitly proscribes "inappropriate jokes." Park is clearly guilty of this, although we worry that such a category is grossly subjective and open to abuse.

"Conduct or a pattern of conduct that harasses a person or group." There is no pattern of conduct in this case, which we believe is an indication of a lack of intent to offend on Park's part. However, if, as before, harassment involves the rendition of "inappropriate jokes," Park is guilty. This seems a redundant charge.

"Intimidation of any person, which results in limiting his/her access to all aspects of life at the University." The aspect of life to be accessed in this case was Sigma Chi's Halloween party. There is no proof that any students were barred from the door. Park cannot be considered guilty of this charge. The invitation was posted openly online -- all were invited.

Thus, it would appear that Park's punishment is based upon findings of guilt in more areas than could be credibly allowed. The same criticism can be made in the case of the fraternity itself. The Sigma Chi fraternity cannot possibly be guilty of disrespecting the rights of others, although it, indeed, failed to supervise its membership sufficiently and deserves punishment for that.

Park, however, should not be too quick to blame others for this result. Instead of apologizing effusively, he chose to strike a defensive tone throughout the controversy. In his Op-Ed he attempted, puerilely, to justify his hurtful statements, as though the fact of Baltimore's high incidence of AIDS makes a reference to an "HIV pit" any less offensive. Furthermore, the notion that the origins of some of his statements in the mouths of rappers or comedians absolves him of responsibility for their insulting content is plainly absurd. He is no crusader for first amendment rights -- he is just a kid who doesn't realize that Dave Chappelle can get away with more than most of us.

On Wednesday, a rally in solidarity with Park was held on N. Charles Street, which ought to make abundantly clear that Park, who should not be the victim, has become exactly that in the eyes of many Hopkins students. For that, the University is at fault. It has proven itself inept in handling his punishment.

Worst of all, any race-related problems that exist at Hopkins have likely been exacerbated by the decision. The verdict of Nov. 20 is simply breeding more anger.