Recent riots have prompted a state senator to introduce a bill
that would expel students who commit destructive acts.
Though often harmless fun, college parties can sometimes lead to
destruction of property and endangerment of life, which led Sen.
Abel Maldonado, R-San Luis Obispo, to introduce a statewide bill
aimed at reducing the risk that can sometimes result from college
celebrations.
Several instances have occurred recently in the state and the
nation that have caused concern, said Tom Kise, Maldonado’s
spokesman, citing riots in Santa Barbara, Davis and Chico in
particular.
The most immediate event that caused Maldonado to introduce the
bill was a riot following a Mardi Gras celebration in San Luis
Obispo, where “there was a massive amount of damage to public
and private property” and the students put “the lives
of themselves and police officers in danger,” Kise said.
The bill, SB 337, is aimed at reducing destruction and death
associated with these types of parties.
“The intent of the bill here is to create a disincentive
for students who engage in a riotous type of behavior … that is
the result of parties that get out of hand,” Kise said.
But some University of California officials and students oppose
the bill because they say it unfairly targets low-income students
and imposes a punishment that does not fit the crime.
Though there have been instances of rioting at other campuses,
Nancy Greenstein, director of police community services with the
UCLA police department, said none have occurred in Westwood
recently.
The UC has its own mechanisms for dealing with rioting, should
it occur, and so the bill would not affect UC procedures,
Greenstein said.
The UC Board of Regents determines the policies for the UC
system, and the bill would only be able to make recommendations,
but not requirements. The regulations set down in the bill would be
mandatory for California State schools and community colleges.
In the bill, riotous behavior is defined as “any use or
threat to use force or violence, disturbing the public peace, by
two or more persons acting together,” Kise said.
This includes participating in or inciting a riot, remaining at
the scene of a riot after being asked to leave, and lynching, among
others.
If a student is accused, prosecuted, and found guilty of such an
offense, he or she will be expelled from school.
After a year, the student would be eligible to reapply for
admission into the university, but it would be another two years
before the student would be eligible to receive a Cal Grant.
This latter clause of the bill has caused concerns for the
UC.
“By revoking a student’s eligibility for a Cal Grant
award as a penalty for certain offenses, the state would be
imposing a penalty on poor and middle-income students,” said
Ravi Poorsina, a spokeswoman for the UC Office of the
President.
The penalty would not affect wealthier students who are already
not eligible for Cal Grants.
The UC also expressed concern that the punishment of expulsion
is too harsh for the type of crimes that are included in the
bill.
“It is not clear why the Legislature would single out this
class of crimes, as opposed to more serious … violent
crimes,” Poorsina said.
Though Kise said the bill would apply to celebratory events that
lead to riots and would “not … infringe on anyone’s
First Amendment rights,” there is concern that it may do
exactly that.
The offenses included in the bill are “frequently
associated with expressive speech and protests for denial of access
to higher education or Cal Grant aid eligibility,” Poorsina
said.
The UC Students Association has opposed the bill because it may
restrict students’ rights to protest, said Jennifer Lilla,
president of the UC Student Association.
The bill was introduced in February and is currently under
review by the Senate Education Committee. Kise said he could not
yet estimate a timeline for the bill’s possible passage.