One of three students suspended last month from Lake Michigan College for being registered sex offenders of children has won reinstatement after successfully appealing the college's decision.
Two of the students made their appeals on Friday. Separate committees granted one student permission to re-enroll and upheld the other's suspension. The third student chose not to appeal.
The two students appeared before two separate committees composed of students, faculty members, and administrators. The committees determined whether to lift each student's suspension based on a majority vote.
The students were suspended last month after the college created a controversial rule to bar sex offenders of children from enrolling. In devising the rule, the college noted that children frequently visit the campus for activities, including day care.
But a rule that bars all students who are sex offenders of children without individual consideration raised legal questions, and Michelle D. Stone, a professor of sociology who sat on one of the committees, said she did not think it was fair.
"They're not considering [students on an individual basis], and I think that's a mistake," she said. "I hope the continued deliberations on campus will modify the rule."
While there has been no word as to whether the rule will be revised, Robert Harrison, the college's president, wrote in a campuswide e-mail message on Friday: "At this point, we will review our college policies and procedures related to this topic and determine from there how we will proceed."
Mr. Harrison also wrote that "the decisions of the committee are final." However, Ms. Stone said that she did not think the issue was settled. She said that at least one of the suspended students had hired a lawyer.
Comments
1. dhubin - March 16, 2010 at 08:02 am
Sex offender registries are a "blunt instrument," the purpose and definition of which have changed over the years. The registries often fail to distinguish true sexual predators from individuals who, when 18, were caught having sexual relationships with willing partners who were 16 at the time. Then, in a frenzy driven by the legitimate desire to protect children from harm but unguided by understanding of the heterogeneous nature of the sex offender registries, the public allowed, and even encouraged, legislators, employers, and university administrators (often with mixed motives) to use these registries in ways that are indefensible under the banner of protecting our children. Decisions must be made on an individual basis with respect for the rights of all and sensitivity to the particulars of the situation.
2. greeneyeshade - March 16, 2010 at 10:48 am
Even worse are situations in which individuals who caught for viewing child porn material are lumped together and punished as though their offenses were all heinous crimes. Common sense tells us that there is a range of seriousness to this offense from passive voyeurism to those who are clearly on a path to act out thgeir fantasies. Federal law does not distinguish between the former and the latter.
An individual I know was caught in this web and now languishes in prison, isolated, emotionally devastated, fed only by tubes, and facing branding by a society that considers "just looking" to be proof that he is a sex offender whose criminal mind must be isolated forever. I have no respect whatever for laws that do that to a man.
"Just looking," granted, is not a good thing. Neither is speeding 85 MPH in a 70 MPH zone. But speeding gets you a ticket and hefty fine, not the prison time one gets for vehicular manslaughter.
3. dmaratto - March 16, 2010 at 07:49 pm
dhubin has the right idea, and many places now have laws that differentiate between, say, an 18 year old having sex with a 16 year old, versus a 'true' predator, a grown adult having sex with children.
greeneyeshade, I think you may not realize the damage caused by so-called 'passive voyeurism.' Do you not think that child porn really affects children? Someone is sexually assaulting children to make the movies! Speeding gets you a ticket and a hefty fine because it has the *potential* for hurting people, and possessing or viewing child porn gets you a jail sentence because it actively causes the hurting of children. After all, the movies wouldn't be made if pedophiles didn't watch them!
4. oscarw - March 25, 2010 at 08:28 pm
greeneyeshade thinks that "just looking" is harmless behavior. A child had to be raped so that greeneyeshade's friend could find arousal. Children in diapers get violated, as do little kids just out of them, so that sex offenders can enjoy themselves. As there is no effective treatment for these monsters, only death removes the threat these horrible creatures represent.