Letters to the Boston Globe About BC's Expansion

The Boston Globe published two letters-to-the-editor in response to their editorial earlier in the week that questioned the merit of part of Boston College's master plan related to undergraduate housing.

Pilar Landon, editor-in-chief of BC's student newspaper, The Heights, writes that "it is unfair to ignore the many academic, extracurricular, and athletic achievements of students and to discount them with these sweeping generalizations," such as "a well-earned reputation for hard drinking and loud partying."

Eva Webster of the Chestnut Hill Reservoir Coalition stated that the Globe editorial missed pointing out BC's poor choice in locating some dorms directly across the street from the reservoir. "If some other school wanted to build undergraduate dormitories on the edge of Jamaica Pond, would anyone be surprised by public opposition to that?"

Do BC Students Behave Well in Off-Campus, Large Apartment Buildings?

Father William Leahy, S. J., President of Boston College, recently told Boston Herald reporters and editors in a meeting that "larger apartment buildings which also host numbers of BC students rarely encounter the same kind of problems" as found in 1- or 2-family houses occupied by students.

For those unclear what those "problems" are, according to the Herald, Fr. Leahy said they are the "ones with absentee landlords and no one to ride herd over student behavior or those weekend parties." The Boston Globe editorial board is more direct: "The students have a well-earned reputation for hard drinking and loud partying."

Do BC students in large, off-campus apartment buildings really behave so much better than those off-campus students in 1- and 2-family houses, as Fr. Leahy claims?


Testing the Leahy Hypothesis

In a meeting earlier this year, a BC official stated that around 40% of the residents of the apartment tower at 2000 Commonwealth Avenue in Brighton are BC undergraduate students. Sounds like a good test case for the "Leahy Hypothesis" -- that the students would be comparatively well-behaved in a tall, off-campus building.



A quick trip to "apartmentratings.com" produces 20 resident-supplied ratings for the apartment complex, only 20% of which would recommend the apartments to someone wanting to rent. Out of all the apartments listed when entering zipcode "02135" and having more than one review, 2000 Commonwealth Avenue comes out in last place in the user-ratings.

The written comments on the website are disturbing and describe an awful living experience:

"Noisy and worse...": Almost any night of the week parties can spill into the halls. It is literaly threating to have such drunkin people wandering loudly around the building.

"I wasted $54,000 over the last 2 years": But over the last year and a half management seems to have lost control. I now paying top dollar to live in the "ANIMAL HOUSE". If you like to party all night and don't plan on sleeping for your entire stay here then move on in. Otherwise, stay away. I'm "OUT OF HERE ASAP"!!!

"It is a dorm!": Now for the negative, it is a dorm! Most of the building is BC students that love to party and don't care a whole lot if they blast thier bass all night long! Keg parties, beers in the elevator, students running up and down the hallway, breaking things. Trash left in halls, puke in the elevator.

"Stay Away from This 'Luxury' Dorm!!!": This is a real DORM for spoiled boston college kids... If you are older than 21 and have a job - STAY AWAY from this place. IT IS NIGHTMARE!!! All that bs below about "couple bad apples" is simply NOT true. Come and see by yourself after 10pm on Friday or Saturday.

"Noisy Dorm": The sole problem (and it's a BIG problem) is with some of the BC students. The few bad apples made living in the building unbearable. They had loud parties to all hours of the night, left garbage where ever they felt like it and generally had no respect for their neighbors. Most of the BC students were not like that, but because such a huge portion of the residents are BC students, the small percentage of "bad apples" made up a fairly sizable group.

"Stay Away... Really": I also warn parents that are considering a lease for their precious indulged babies that this is a building infested with unruly parties. I wish could show a video of the drunken idiots in the halls.

"BAD": Biggest mistake of my life. I am going to have to break my lease...late night parties..vomit on floors...beer cans on elevator floors...just a few of the problems...not LIKE a dorm...WORSE than a dorm..

It goes on.

But one person seems to think otherwise:

"Pool and Parking!!!! And an ATM...": Any time there has ever been a noise complaint (and maybe I've only had 2...same as any other building I've ever lived in) the 24 hour concierge responds immediately and the noise stops within 5 minutes.

though "Pool and Parking" seems to be drowned out by all the spilled beer in the other reports of hard partying.

I think the evidence is sufficient to reject the Leahy Hypothesis. I am convinced: I'll never move there.

Maybe Fr. Leahy ought to spend some quality time with his charges at 2000 Commonwealth Avenue before making such claims. And the editorial board of the Boston Herald might think about fact-checking their interviewee's claims prior to publication.


Why Would Fr. Leahy Make Such a Claim?

Why would a prominent BC official be making a claim that seems, in retrospect, at least a bit divorced from reality? As part of their institutional master plan, BC has proposed to house an additional 610 undergraduate students on-campus -- but leave another 600 or so undergraduate students still living off-campus. Something still needs to be done about those other 600 off-campus, partying students.

BC's idea seems to be that, by restricting those remaining off-campus students from living in 1- or 2-family houses, they will not cause the neighbors to complain endlessly about the partyers next door. (Their off-campus, restricted-housing proposal has been presented at meetings, but not formally in any document.)

Here's an even more cynical idea: BC thinks that all they have to do is move the students out of the particular neighborhoods with the most complainers. At Brighton community meeting after community meeting, the complaining neighbors are typically from the Radnor Road area (including upper Foster Street, Lane Park, and Kirkland Road) or the Lake Street area (including Undine Road and Caltha Road). I've looked at many lists of attendees, and they just don't come from 2000 Commonwealth Avenue. The meeting attendees come from the streets listed above -- themselves living in 1- and 2-family houses, mostly not big apartment buildings.

Why don't community attendees come from such large apartment buildings? Non-student renters in such buildings are typically, albeit not exclusively, residents who are more "transient," i.e., they often move every year or two. They may live in Brighton this year, but last year they were in Allston, and two years from now they might be in Jamaica Plain. Such renters are, on average, younger, may not know much about the neighborhood, be less likely to know who to complain to (at the city, police, or BC), be unclear on what their rights are regarding noise disturbances, etc. They could potentially also fear retribution from residents in the same building.

It's a common issue probably faced by many communities: community activists tend to be of a certain age. Twenty-somethings just aren't a regular part of community meetings, even though they constitute such a large fraction of our neighborhood's residents.

In the end, BC's proposal for restricting students' off-campus options sure looks to be pitting one part of the neighborhood (residents who live in 1- or 2-family houses) against another (residents who live in larger apartment buildings). We'll see if the neighborhood takes the bait. I bet they don't.


Compare Off-Campus and On-Campus Behavior

In the most bizarre aspect of this story, BC officials have been presenting the case for the on-campus housing in their master plan using the opposite argument.

Time after time, the community has been told that on-campus BC students behave worse in tall dormitories, but better in housing with four stories (or fewer). BC officials insist on not increasing the height of the undergraduate dormitories on their Main Campus using this argument despite plea after plea from the neighbors.

Why would these students behave poorly in a tall, on-campus dorm -- but magically behave better in a tall, off-campus apartment building? As described above, at least one tall, off-campus apartment -- without resident advisors, BC police, or patrolling campus officials -- seems to be quite a problem, so claiming otherwise is just a sleight-of-hand.

But put the same building on campus, add back in the resident advisors, police, and officials, institute an alcohol policy, and... voila! Common sense dictates that it could only be better on-campus, not worse. But, then again, why would we want to listen to common sense?

Will Boston College Experience a Matt Ryan Effect?

While most fans of Red Sox Nation were probably watching Hideki Okajima retire all seven batters he faced, the Boston College football team (ranked #2 nationally) were eeking out a 14-10 come-from-behind victory over Virginia Tech (ranked #8) on ESPN under the leadership of BC quarterback Matt Ryan.

The stunning football victory has reminded many a fan of Doug Flutie's Hail Mary pass in 1984 giving BC a 47-45 victory over Miami.

Urban legend is that BC experienced an upsurge in admission applications in the following spring, which is now referred to as the "Flutie Effect".  Sports directors across the country use the term to justify university financial support for the big sports teams under the expectation that a winning team will lead to many more student applications -- and the feeling that their school is more desirable to attend.

Not all people believe the Flutie Effect actually occurred.  BC Magazine in 2003 published a story about how the media, without apparent factual basis, have reported increases in the number of applications by 25, 33, or 40%; in reality, applications went up 16% in 1984 and another 12% in 1985, which combine to a 30% increase over two years.  John Maguire instead argues that these increases were more due to other, ongoing processes at the school, and that the Hail Mary pass just added a modest number of applications on top of the already increasing admissions rate.  He notes how applications went up 13-15% for a number of years in the 1970s, including an increase of 9% in 1978 despite the football team's 0-11 record.

Now that current BC quarterback Matt Ryan has his own dramatic, game-winning pass with eleven seconds to go, will BC experience a revisited Flutie Effect -- the Matt Ryan Effect?  Hard to say, since BC's major sports teams (football, basketball, hockey) have all been having very successful seasons lately, so it may be difficult to pin any increase down on a single sports team.  (Women's Soccer Effect anyone?)  BC received 22,451 applications in 2004, 23,823 in 2005, and 26,584 in 2006 -- that's a 11.5% increase in the last year alone, and a 6.1% increase in the previous year.

Club Kirkwood Gets Clubbed

The two-family house in Brighton at 62-64 Kirkwood Road has long been a source of noise and loud parties according to nearby neighbors, and has been dubbed "Club Kirkwood" in the past by its residents. Off-campus Boston College undergraduate students have long been thought to occupy the house, and it was classified as one of 18 "problem houses" in the Kirkwood/Radnor area in 2006-7 by the Radnor neighborhood's group of residents who have been tracking the activity in their area.

62-64 Kirkwood Road's partying days appear over.

Boston College Police, in their joint patrols with Boston Police and moonlighting officials from the Office of Governmental and Community Affairs, visited the house three times since late August -- once finding around 80 kids there having a good time -- and found some dangerous conditions. As Bill Mills noted at the October 16th meeting of the BC Task Force, they allegedly found smoke detectors had been removed from the ceilings, missing CO detectors, underage drinking, and so on. A sting operation was planned for inspectors from the city's Inspectional Services Department, which identified other problems -- such as residents illegally housed in the basement, others housed in parts of the attic that don't meet height requirements, and locks on the bedroom doors (that might have constituted an illegal boarding house). Oddly enough, though, ISD issued no fines.

BC officials learned just what the neighborhood monitors have known for awhile: it can be difficult to track down the owner of some of these properties. The property was purchased in 2006 for $1.6 million -- way over its 2006 assessment of $1.04 million, i.e., probably one which the owner expects to charge high rents to large numbers of willing students -- by "Kirkwood Realty LLC." The listed address for that group was on Lincoln Street... but is no longer there. They tracked it down to someone in Watertown, and held an ISD hearing with him (and his lawyer) recently. Mills stated that the owner claimed to have terms in the lease banning parties, and that the owner agreed to initiate eviction proceedings if there are additional parties at the house.

The owner will be applying to the Zoning Board of Appeal to legalize some of these living conditions, such as the basement apartments. Paul Holloway of the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services said that it is city policy to deny such applications if the basement apartment is more than 50% below grade; it was unclear if this is the case for the house. Neighbors will have to be on the lookout for a ZBA hearing about the owner's application for a variance.

Some of the student residents' parents were notified about the living condition and partying problems, and many of the parents apparently met during parent weekend.

And, after all that, the house has been eerily silent the last few weeks. Club Kirkwood seems to have been clubbed at the knees.


Student Behavior Incidents Down Compared to Last Year

BC Task Force member Rosie Hanlon commented that off-campus student behavior has been a lot better this year compared to last year. Paul Chebator, Interim Dean of Students at Boston College, detailed a comparison of last year's student incidents with this year's, showing that the numbers have dropped. Note that his numbers refer to campus-wide incidents, rather than being broken down into off-campus incidents.

	September 2006	September 2007
Arrests	6	3
Situations	42	24
Students reported	160	94
University probation	unavailable	6

No students have been suspended or expelled yet this year, according to Interim Dean Chebator, but that would be unusual given that it is still early in the school year. Bill Mills noted that this year they are, in general, not seeing the large, 150+ student parties that were more common in the last few years.

Joint police patrols have made 52 visits to houses as of September 30th, where four of the houses were visited more than once and five of the houses turned out not to contain BC students. The hot spots? Upper Foster Street had 12 visits, Commonwealth Avenue, Kirkwood Road, and Radnor Road each had six, and Chestnut Hill Avenue had four.

Several residents commended BC officials on their job to contain off-campus partying. "We appreciate what you guys are doing," said Sandy Furman. But they noted that the ultimate solution to the off-campus student behavior problem is not going to be stepped-up enforcement, but rather a plan to house all BC undergraduate students on-campus. "This is a systemic problem," said task force member Kevin Carragee. "It will not go away until they are housed on campus." Having so many students occupying one- and two-family houses drives up the cost of housing, driving "working people from our neighborhood."

Police Sawhorse Souvenir: Not a Good Idea for a Party House

From the Allston-Brighton TAB's coverage of the police and last weekend's parties.

Shortly before 2 a.m. on Saturday, police and BC officials broke up a party at 249 Foster St., where they observed between 25 and 30 college students drinking. Police confiscated the tap to a beer keg and gave it to Tom Keady, Boston College’s vice president of governmental and community affairs, for donation to charity. Police warned the nine lessees that further complaints would result in arrest.

Police also removed a Boston Police sawhorse from the basement of the apartment. The residents said it had been there when they moved in.

I have a feeling that those police won't give the guys at 249 Foster Street a second chance after confiscating that sawhorse.

Meeting for BC Off-Campus Students, Landlords, and Residents

For Boston College Students Living Off-Campus

September 26, 2007
6:00PM

Fulton 511

Who should attend?
Students Living Off-Campus, Local Residents, Landlords & Property Managers.
Off-Campus students requested to send at least one representative from each address; attendance will be taken.

Who will be there?
Boston Police, BCPD, ODSD, Residential Life and more!

Directions to Fulton Hall
Campus Map

Questions?
Paulette Durrett 617-552-3480

Parking? Visitors may park in the Commonwealth Avenue garage here at Boston College. They can access the garage by driving onto the campus through the More Drive/St. Ignatius gate. The rates are as follows:

First 2 hours - FREE
$2.00 - Every hour after
$10.00 - Daily maximum

Please note that visitors must park in the garages third floor and above. If you need any more information please feel free to contact: Colleen [Salmon], BC Office of Govt and Comm Affairs

Boston College Student Behavior Policies

Several residents have been asking what exactly is BC's student behavior policy. It is available online in their Student Guide, where section 5 "Behavior Policies" is the relevant portion. I reproduce here several excerpts.

More information on alcohol-specific policies (and Massachusetts State Law) can be found here.


NOISE DISTURBANCES

A city ordinance prohibits all noises which would disturb neighbors beyond 50 feet of the residence hall areas between the hours of 12:00 a.m. and 7:00 a.m. Students responsible for noise violations are subject to University disciplinary action. Within residence areas, any noise or sound heard outside one's immediate room/suite/apartment is unacceptable. Violations of Quiet Hours as posted in the residence halls will be dealt with as a student disciplinary matter by the Residential Life staff.

ALCOHOL POLICY

Students must be 21 years of age or older to consume or possess alcohol.

• Students who are of legal age may only possess small amounts alcohol for personal consumption.
• Students under the age of 21 may not host a guest who possess or consumes alcoholic beverages in their room, suite or apartment regardless of guest age.
• Providing alcohol to minors or intoxicated persons is prohibited.
• Unacceptable behavior by a Boston College resident as a result of abusing alcoholic beverages will be subject to University judicial action which may result in suspension or dismissal from the residence halls and/or the University.
• The unauthorized use of alcoholic beverages in common areas (i.e., corridors, public lounges, Mod backyards and porches, on the grounds, etc.) is prohibited.
• All "central sources" (i.e. kegs, large containers filled with alcohol, punch, home brewing kits, etc.) will be confiscated and disposed, and responsible students will be referred to University disciplinary action.
• Drinking games and/or any other activities which promote the use or abuse of alcohol are prohibited. This includes, but is not limited to funnels and gaming tables used for drinking. When found, these items will be confiscated and disposed of without compensation to the owner.
• Students of legal drinking age who are hosting guests are responsible for assuring that all guests consuming alcoholic beverages are of legal drinking age.
• No empty containers of alcohol are permitted in the residence areas of students who are under the age of 21.
• Alcohol containers, advertisements, and paraphernalia can not be displayed on windows or on doors, or used as decorative pieces.

Off-campus Disturbances

As members of both the Boston College and the neighborhood communities, students who reside in off-campus apartments have a responsibility to demonstrate respect and concern for all members of the local community. As a result, Boston College imposes an obligation upon all its students to demonstrate responsible citizenship in the local neighborhood. Excessive or unreasonable noise, the illegal use and/or sale or distribution of alcohol or drugs, objects being thrown out of apartment windows, excessively large parties, and/or rude and abusive language or behavior are not in concert with the obligation. Numerous off-campus arrests have occurred for such offenses as false IDs, disorderly conduct, illegal sale or possession of alcohol, and public drinking. Therefore, the University reserves the right to refer any students identified as being involved in this type of behavior to the University's Student Judicial System for disciplinary action. If found responsible, students are subject to sanctions up to and including loss of University housing privileges or suspension or dismissal from the University.

Off-campus Misconduct

Whether or not alleged misconduct constitutes a violation of criminal law, students may be sanctioned by the Student Judicial System for violations of the University Code of Student Conduct occurring on or off the Boston College campus. Accordingly, persons who are not members of the Boston College community may initiate a complaint with the Office of the Dean for Student Development.

BC Announces New "Zero-Tolerance" Policy on Student Behavior -- Then Denies It!

At the last Boston College Task Force meeting on Tuesday, August 21, 2007, BC officials apparently presented their new (or updated) student behavior policy. The A-B TAB came through with a report on that policy.

I hadn't blogged on it for a few reasons:

1. I didn't attend the meeting, being away on vacation;
2. BC provided an online copy of their presentation [PDF] made to the task force meeting, but that document nowhere states what their student behavior policy is, meaning that the policy was only presented verbally (if at all) at the meeting;
3. The TAB reporting seems confused about who has a "zero-tolerance" policy towards student behavior -- BC or the Boston Police Department [see below];
   
4. BC was planning on notifying the students of the behavior policy, so a written notification could provide clues and insight; and
5. I wanted to talk to some residents who attended the meeting to figure out what was actually said.
   

Thursday we find out that lots of people, including students at BC, are confused about the BC student behavior policy. I was not alone in my confusion.


Confusion Over BC's Student Behavior Policy

It is now abundantly clear that BC's student behavior policy is unclear.

BC's student newspaper, The Heights, reports today in an article titled, "Off-campus Policy Causes Confusion", that nearly every action spelled out in the BC Task Force meeting on August 21, 2007 is just a continuation of existing BC policy. I am not making this up! Nearly everything is unchanged from before, according to The Heights:

University officials purport that there has been no change to BC policies and that there were inaccuracies in an Aug. 22 Allston-Brighton Tab [sic] article.

That sounds to be in line with how BU's The Daily Free Press is reporting it:

"There was a misperception among students that somehow BC was encouraging Boston police to arrest students," said BC spokesman Jack Dunn. "Nothing could be further from the truth. . . . We are reminding our students that if they break the law in the neighborhoods, they will be held accountable."

Students say they do not understand the policy's logic, though, and are even calling the new initiative hypocritical.

"It's really absurd for a university to target its students," said sophomore Charlie Mangiardi, creator of a Facebook.com group opposing the policy. "BC prides itself on how well it takes care of its students, so to then go out and say that to please their neighbors they are going out to arrest us, that's just infuriating."

Here is a list of elements of the student behavior policy that are not new:

• Boston Police Arresting Students:

  "The manner of the conversation was my attempt to warn students about an ongoing yearly event. Boston Police comes in and makes sweeps of problem neighborhoods at the beginning of every year," [BC Police Chief police chief Robert] Morse said.

  See also the quote [above] from Jack Dunn: "There was a misperception among students that somehow BC was encouraging Boston police to arrest students."

• BC Hiring Boston Police Details:

  "BC has been hiring Boston Police to supplement the normal neighborhood patrols every year," [Morse] said.

• Deputy Sheriff Powers: BC Police appear to have had these powers within Suffolk and Middlesex Counties for several years.

What is the one thing that is new, according to Morse?

"The new thing about the supplemental patrols has been the addition of one BCPD officer to the patrol in problematic [areas]," Morse said.

There is actually one other new policy this fall: off-campus student liaison Steve Montgomery will be working Thursday nights (PDF, see page 8), in addition to Friday and Saturday nights.

Basically, the article in The Heights contradicts several of the points raised in the article in the Allston-Brighton TAB. My summary of their "new" policy on student behavior: staying the course, but having one BC Police officer join BPD officers in a joint patrol.

At the BC Task Force meeting, did BC really pitch the student behavior policy as something new? You would think that based on one official's comment:

“We are sending a message, setting the tone, and we want to see how this works,” said BC’s vice president of [government and] community affairs, Tom Keady.

Yet "BC officials" (presumably Dunn and/or Morse) convinced the student newspaper that nothing but the joint patrols is new. And they are trying to backtrack on BC police chief Morse's comments at the meeting:

“Zero tolerance means they’ll be arrested,” Morse said. “We’re hiring Boston Police to arrest students.”

What Was Actually Seen Over the Weekend

Morse's new claim -- that this policy is nearly unchanged -- doesn't exactly jive with what neighbors and students saw over the weekend:

• Several university officials were walking the neighborhood in the afternoons of Thursday-Saturday;
  
• BPD cruisers were parked in the area and often seen driving down nearby access streets (this is an historically uncommon occurrence, according to neighbors); and
  
• Groups of BPD officers -- as many as seven or eight at one point on Radnor Road! -- were seen on foot patrol in the areas of off-campus undergraduate housing.

There was one report of undergraduates who were worried by the visibly-increased police presence, while several neighbors report that they are waiting until after the next few weekends (now that the students' parents have left) to see if there is any change.

Several neighbors tell me that this police presence is an increase from the past, which appears to contradict Dunn and/or Morse's assertion that nothing is new except one extra BC police officer on the patrols.


Confusion Over the Meaning of "Zero-Tolerance"

While the A-B TAB reported BC's policy as "zero-tolerance" for poor student behavior, that doesn't sound like an accurate description of the actual policy:

Any student arrested is put on university probation, and another incident will result in a one-year suspension from the school, [interim Dean of Students Paul] Chebator said.

BC's new rules are that one arrest results in probation, two arrests in suspension, and three arrests in... unspecified, I think, but presumably expulsion. That sounds like a "three-strikes-and-you're-out" policy, not "zero-tolerance." "Zero-tolerance" would mean expulsion after only one arrest. A decade or so ago, "three-strikes-and-you're-out" was the phrase on everybody's lips (to deal with repeat offenders in California), while "zero-tolerance" is a term more popular in recent years.

BC Police Chief Robert Morse clarified: "zero-tolerance" is a reference to arresting off-campus students at disruptive parties, rather than just breaking up the parties and sending them home.

So this is what it means:

• BPD Captain Genevieve King is pushing a "zero-tolerance" policy towards student party houses in arresting students rather than simply breaking up parties.
• BC is pushing a "three-strikes-and-you're-out" policy towards student off-campus behavior, with an interim "two-strikes-and-you're-suspended" policy.
  

Student Concerns and Push-Back

It sounds to me like BC is sketching out to the neighbors a broad crackdown on off-campus student behavior, but is denying it when talking to the students. What a dance!

The truth will come in the next couple of weeks: if there are widespread arrests by BPD at a particular party house, then we'll know that BC is encouraging BPD's policy; if not, then it will all be smoke-and-mirrors with the neighbors.

I bet BC gets a lot of push-back from the students on a policy that could seem Orwellian to them. Expect to see letters, op-eds, and editorials in the student newspaper, The Heights; anger directed at neighbors perceived as the instigators; parents steaming mad when students call for bail money and explain their sudden return home following suspension; etc. In fact, we are already seeing some of it: 200 BC students have signed a petition and delivered it to BC President Leahy.

The larger situation of off-campus behavior -- a conflict between the neighbors and the students -- may get worse before it gets better.


What Is Going On At BC?

Why is BC taking this giant leap into possible wide-spread arrests of their students? Most likely the combination of the past year being the worst in the past five for unruly student behavior off-campus (according to BC VP Thomas Keady, Jr., at the May 15 BC Task Force meeting) and BC's desire to get a new institutional master plan approved by the Boston Redevelopment Authority -- an IMP that still would leave many undergraduate students living in off-campus houses. If BC officials think that cracking down on student behavior will lead to the neighbors acquiescing on the proposal for undergraduate dorms on the former seminary land, then I think they are quite wrong.

My prediction is that the community will welcome the BC administration taking a more active and aggressive role in dealing with off-campus student behavior, but will not back down on housing all the undergraduates on the Main Campus. I'm not sure that BC's new student behavior plan, however, is exactly what the neighborhood -- or the police -- would have preferred.

In July, new Captain Genevieve King of BPD D-14 told me she considered it to be stronger punishment to suspend students, rather than arrest them; apparently, students have been arrested many times in the past without their parents finding out, but once they were suspended the parents found out and all hell broke loose. I too have heard students complain vehemently about parental notification, so Captain King makes a convincing point. It is quite conceivable that BC could crack-down on the behavior without hiring any BPD police details, making student arrests, seeing the cases through the Boston Municipal Court system, etc., if BC's "zero-tolerance" policy instead consisted of immediate suspension for unruly behavior off-campus. Quite simply: BC could solve the problem if they had the resolve, but it is obvious they "don't want to go there." It is a university, after all.

The new plan may be a good move, nonetheless, and bodes well for improved town-gown relations in the future. We'll see how effectively this program -- whether or not it is new -- can be implemented.

Two BC Football Players Charged in Bar Brawl Near North Station

The Boston Herald reported that two Boston College football players, Gosder Cherlius and DeJuan Tribble, as well as off-duty state police Sgt. Joseph Boike, have been charged with assault and battery for a brawl at the Greatest Bar near North Station in early July.

In a previous post, I tried to sort out the mess of details in the original Boston Globe report. I couldn't figure out what to believe:

Depending on whose story you believe, the 6-foot-7 and 318-pound Cherilus may have only been breaking up a fight by one-arm bear-holding/carrying Maney, or he may have been strangleholding Maney while Tribble punched Maney. Maney may have initiated the fight by sucker-punching Boike, or not. Boike may have hit Maney over the head with a bottle, or not. Everyone seems to deny that they did anything wrong. I had to read the Globe article several times to figure out all the accusations and counter-accusations.

Based on the charges that have now been filed, the police appear to believe the story of Maney, the victim who suffered spinal injuries requiring emergency surgery, not the story by BC footballers Cherilus and Tribble or off-duty state police officer Boike. Based on the little information we have, though, I would doubt that any of us know the true story yet.

The football players' status for playing this season, as well as their status as students, may be in question based on BC's new "zero-tolerance policy" on undergraduate student behavior. But BC appears to have already decided that they can play ball, according to the Boston Globe:

A BC football spokesman said that Cherilus, 23, a 6-foot-7-inch, 319-pound former standout at Somerville High School, and Tribble, 22, a 5-foot-9, 190-pound cornerback from Cincinnati, remain in good standing on the team. Both are graduates who remain eligible to play as fifth-year seniors. They practiced with the team after testifying at the court hearing.

Keady: "Those three houses will be coming down"

Will Boston College consider options other than razing the three houses at 188/192/196 Foster Street?

Thomas Keady, Jr., Boston College's Vice President for Government and Community Relations, offered a subtle answer to the newspaper BostonNOW:

The college made it plain: preservation for the more than century old structures it owns is not in the plans.

"I don't believe that they are [historically significant]," said BC spokesman Tom Keady. "Those three houses will be coming down."

And he huffed, and he puffed, and he... well, actually, I think they use wrecking balls these days.

Two BC Undergraduates Indicted on Drug Trafficking Charges

Two Boston College students were recently indicted after BC Police allegedly found cocaine (19.5 g), marijuana, and mushrooms in their dorm room on Valentine's Day, according to a report in the Allston-Brighton TAB. A third man, Zack Taylor, was not indicted and is not a student at BC, although his case is still open with the Newton District Court.

Students John Sherman, 18, of Pasadena, Calif. and Daniel Carr, 19, of Brooklyn N.Y., were both charged with trafficking cocaine over 14 grams, distribution of a Class C drug, and possession to distribute a Class D drug.

Sherman and Carr were arrested Feb. 14 by Boston College Police.

[...]

Carr and Sherman were suspended [from Boston College].

Might I suggest a bit stronger punishment for such alleged extracurricular activities?

Accusations and an Admission at the BC Task Force Meeting

The June 19, 2007 meeting of the BRA's Boston College Task Force was a lively, noisy, and, at times, unruly sideshow. While I previously reported on the substantive material presented as part of the unannounced agenda -- and also on a past police log incident apparently related to the individual who caused a disturbance late in the meeting -- there was more going on in the meeting than has been reported to date.

After Mark Alford objected to the meeting being held on account of the failure to provide advance, public notice of the agenda, Patrick Galvin levied a general accusation that -- here, I'm guessing on a few of the details because it was hard to hear clearly over the air conditioners -- one or more members of the BC Task Force had accepted "gratuities" in the past from BC. No specifics were given as to the individuals or the gratuities, although I heard somebody, I believe, mention something like, "tickets for athletics events."

Now, normally I wouldn't post an unsubstantiated accusation like that on the blog, except that task force member John Bruno later responded with some specifics. First, Bruno admitted that he had, in the past, received some tickets to BC games (like hockey) which he had then handed out to youth players when they showed up to practice and/or games. These kids thus got to attend a college athletics game. He expressed the opinion that this was a pretty good thing, and it's hard to argue with him on that; BC even touts such giveaways as part of their community benefits. It is unclear if these youth ticket giveaways were the gratuities implied by Patrick Galvin's comments, or if Galvin meant something else, since I believe Galvin had let the room by the time that Bruno made these comments.

Bruno's second admission, however, was a whopper. He confirmed that his son currently attends Boston College on a full, tuition-free scholarship: "Yep, my son is there. I see $40,000 a year" in benefits from the scholarship. I assume he means $35,150/year for 2007-8, which is the tuition cost to attend BC as an undergraduate. Since Bruno is a resident of Allston-Brighton, his son's scholarship is presumably one of the ten "Allston/Brighton Scholarships" allocated annually by BC to A-B residents as part of community benefits agreed upon through past Article 80 master planning processes. (It was touted as such by Thomas Keady, Jr., BC's VP for Governmental and Community Affairs, at the January 16, 2007 meeting of the BC Task Force.)

I must say that I was personally surprised to hear a member of the BC Task Force acknowledge that he is the recipient of $35,000-$40,000 per year from the very institution whose master plan he is supposed to be studying, discussing, and eventually voting up or down to recommend to the BRA for approval or disapproval. I also find it rather odd that the A-B TAB's article fails to mention this admission by Bruno, although their reporter appears to have been present both at the beginning of the meeting (for Alford's and Galvin's comments) and the end of the meeting (for the ejection/scuffle with Costello). Strangely, they reported the unsubstantiated allegations of "gratuities" without reporting the response later in the meeting.

What do you think about all this? I welcome comments to this post -- as I do to all posts -- but the comments cannot be anonymous (or offensive), and I note that they are moderated.

Two Perspectives on Sale of St. John's Seminary Lands to Boston College

First, Seán Patrick Cardinal O’Malley, in his blog, writes about his perspective on the sale of most of the remainder of St. John's Seminary to Boston College:

Proceeds from this sale will allow the Archdiocese to invest resources for the benefit of our parishes, clergy, St. John’s Seminary and the many important programs that serve a large number of people.

Several of those items were made very clear in the unprecendented release of the Archdiocesan financial records in the past year, but it is hard to avoid pointing out an apparent omission from Cardinal O'Malley's list: financing the settlements with the victims of sexual abuse by Archdiocesan priests.

Second, the head of St. John's Seminary resigned (a month earlier than scheduled) to protest the sale:

The Rev. John A. Farren, rector of St. John's Seminary since 2003, had been scheduled to step down on June 30 to take a new assignment in New York City, but Farren resigned last week after the school's board voted to support the sale of 18 acres of archdiocesan land to Boston College. Farren e-mailed a letter of resignation to the board on May 24 that detailed his fierce opposition to the sale, which includes the seminary's Bishop Peterson Hall as well as the seminary library.