When a court issues fines to an offender, the main intention is to punish that person.
But in order to generate money to lessen the sting of coming cuts, Ohio University’s Division of Student Affairs has proposed adding and re-sizing judicial fines. That is an intention we cannot stand behind.
Judicial fines do not serve the purpose of economically supporting Student Affairs. They are meant as a punishment for actions deemed inappropriate under the Student Code of Conduct. They attempt to deter students from repeating such actions, not to balance a budget.
Adjusting fines to raise revenue opens a Pandora’s box for Student Affairs. Higher fines create an incentive to charge more students for even the most minor infraction, especially if the purpose of the higher fines is to make money.
Adding fines does the same thing; more fines means more routes to raising revenue.
This proposal is just a case of the university treating students as sources of income rather than what they are — students. We are here to learn, not raise money for the institution.
Besides, there is no guarantee that adjusting and adding fines will generate enough money. The volume of cases fluctuates each quarter, so there is no reliable way to determine any potential revenue to budget for.
Take for example two Code A offenses: academic misconduct and dishonesty. Academic misconduct went up from 36 offenses in 2007–08 to 42 in 2009–10. Dishonesty, however, went from 89 offenses down to 54 in the respective academic years, according to statistics available on Judiciaries’ website.
Relying on something so unstable is not the best option for generating funds for Student Affairs. There has to be ways to cut efficiently without affecting the services provided, as Vice President for Student Affairs Kent Smith said was the main objective of the proposal.
Editorials represent the majority opinion of The Post’s executive editors.
