News
Jim Bailey: Unwelcome in rez.
the Gauntlet

Rez crackdown

Publication YearIssue Date 

"On Wednesday night, me and two of my friends were at the Den, celebrating the end of the first day of U of C 101. We met people at the Den, and decided to go to Rundle afterwards," said student Jim Bailey. "We were a bit loud, the Community Assistant told us to be quiet, and we were giving them a hard time, harassing them jokingly."

Bailey, a U of C 101 team leader and Students' Union Communication and Culture Faculty Representative was en route to a friends' apartment when he was told by the Residence Life Co-ordinator that he and his friends were being too loud.

"It was Wednesday and school hadn't

started yet," Bailey protested.

Bailey and his colleagues were given two choices: Leave immediately, or their friend in residence would be "interviewed" in the morning. Bailey and company left, and were told never to return.

RLC Camille McFarlane would not comment specifically on the case, citing privacy issues, but instead referred to the Residence Student Handbook.

The Handbook states: "It is illegal to be intoxicated in a public place or common areas of the Residence Complex," and "Guests who violate the Community Standards may by banned from the Residence Complex."

Bailey was officially told to stay away from the residence complex on Thu., Sept. 12. After classes started, a lecturer announced that Campus Security was waiting to see Bailey outside the classroom for the purpose of having him sign a document before Campus Security and officials from residence, agreeing that he would never return to the residences, nor use the Dining Centre except while performing his U of C 101 or SU duties. His ban comes amidst complaints from some residence inhabitants that the rules are being enforced too strictly.

"They're cracking down a bit too much and are being anally-retentive," said a former residence inhabitant who did not wish to be identified out of fear of reprisal by CAs. "Last year, they were known as a cult who no one could approach."

Bailey agrees.

"They're cutting down on the Rez experience, which makes things that much more fun," he said. "I loved my first year in Rez but I wouldn't go back if things had been like this year."

Tags: 

Section: 

Issue: 

Comments

I find it extremely difficult to believe these individuals were banned from the Residence Complex for simply being too loud. I've lived in Residence, have known many of the CA's, and have myself been told on occasion that I needed to quiet down or face further consequences. It seems unfair to the authoritative members of UofC residence that they be beaten upon here without a chance to give their full side of the story. Reading this article leads me to believe either the full story has not been told, or that there has been previous encounters between these individuals and the CA's leading them to take this course of action.

Re: It seems unfair to the authoritative members of UofC residence that they be beaten upon here without a chance to give their full side of the story.

(They declined to comment.)

did it occur to the writer that a possible reason for Rez employees refusing to comment on the situation could have something to do with FOIPP? Perhaps he should attempt to be a little less biased in his next piece of propaganda.

"RLC Camille McFarlane would not comment specifically on the case, citing privacy issues, but instead referred to the Residence Student Handbook."

I think this clearly is not a biased recall of the events. Rez refused to comment, citing privacy issues. That's what he wrote. They were given the opportunity to comment and they didn't, whether it was due to FOIPP (which would be in keeping with "privacy issues"), or matters of policy is, right now, unkown. If the writer had assumed either and claimed it as fact, it would have been irresponsible. Also, if the writer had left the comment out--suggesting that rez services were not contacted at all--that would be irresponsible (and, let's hear it, BIASED!), as well.

I'm not sure what your complaint is, or what could have been done differently. Maybe you'd like to clarify. Perhaps I have misunderstood you.

-james

I still feel that it is a very biased article as the U of C rez staff can NOT comment on this issue even if they wanted to becasue they have to follow FOIPP. So my question for the author is how is it a fair story if one group is forced BY LAW not to tell their side of the story?

So what would we have done to adhere to your standards of journalism? Not ran the story since one side can't comment? First, it would be irresponsible to not report on relavent news to the students who pay a substantial portion of our funding. Second, that would open the door to anyone, when they didn't want something reported, simply killing a story by refusing to comment.

It was news. We reported it. We never claimed the university was at fault or refused to comment for "evil" reasons, just that they declined comment for privacy issues. Unfortunately, we can't make up quotes. Would you have perfered that?

-james

Wow, who is this person. I lived in Res, and yes there are a few fucks that can be loud at times. Especially some of the drunk ones. Fuck, if you got kicked out of res, im happy.

Well, I lived in rez for six years (yeah, yeah, I know), and I don't find it at all surprising that someone was banned for making noise. Every year Residence Services becomes more authoritarian at the beginning of the school year to set an obedient "tone" for the year. This is just more of the same silliness always seen. They apparently adhere to the philosphy that the best way to stop a bunch of teenagers fresh out of high school from misbehaving is to be overly strict. Yeah, that always works...

Yeah... this piece of news is really crap... people get banned from the Den for misbehaving all the time and you don't see a story on every one of those incidents now do you? Seems to me that a spoiled frat boy who doesn't get what he wants is just raising a stink....

Another rule of the Rez Complexes is that all guests be accompanied at all times... It states in the story that he was "en route to a friends' apartment" meaning that he wasn't with that friend and also meaning that he was tresspassing... interesting.....

re: "It states in the story that he was "en route to a friends' apartment" meaning that he wasn't with that friend and also meaning that he was tresspassing..."

Or, his rez friend was one of the people he was traveling with. Your version requires him to break in to rez without anyone noticing, nor filing B+E charges afterwards.

No your are wrong. All that he has to do is be in rez and not in the company of his friend. You can very easily be tresspassing without B&E. That is why they are 2 separate charges under the criminal code...

RE: "Yeah... this piece of news is really crap... people get banned from the Den for misbehaving all the time and you don't see a story on every one of those incidents now do you? Seems to me that a spoiled frat boy who doesn't get what he wants is just raising a stink..."

In response to this rant, and the stuff you wrote previously which could be construed as logical arguments, Mr. Bailey was reported on because he was a public official whose ability to serve in that capacity may be hampered by his banishment from rez, as was stated in the story, not because he belongs to any fraternal group.

Re: No your are wrong.

What part of "Bailey... was en route to a friends' apartment..." do you not understand?

If he was not with a friend who was living in rez at the time, he could not have gained access to rez without bypassing the access control device on the door (B+E) and then he would be trespassing.

Also, the original poster (and you) seem to be confused (hence the weird tresspassing assumption) about the fact that Mr. Bailey can have both a rez friend in his party, and another rez friend who he could visit in rez.

So to clarify.. I have never heard of a SU position that has as one of it's job requirements a need to get drunk and wake up rez people and to harrass the CA.... what position is it again that has these requirements?

Re: Sara
(Reading conveys information about things you don't observe directly.)

I think that all of you are focussing in on certain parts of the story and forgetting to look at the broad picture. First of all, I don't remember it ever being stated in the story that Bailey was a member of a frat? Do you? I'm pretty sure that it wasn't in there. Secondly, the residence complex also includes the Dining Center which can be necessary for both U of C 101 and SU people to be able to enter. And as for Sara's comments (could this be a certain Sara Wilson), maybe you should get some more facts and talk to the actual perpetrators of this act, and then you can comment on this issue. As of now, you just sound like an RSA official trying to save RSA's ass.

At the end of the day, whatever your situation is, there's a good saying: don't piss in your own pool.

I don't know for sure whether or not the banning was appropriate. BUT, if it was, then I have no sympathy for his situation. If you're involved in U of C 101 or the SU, don't do things that will get you banned from places you need to work in. If an SU official did something to get banned from Mac Hall, the same logic would apply. Just b/c they NEED to be somewhere, doesn't make them exempt from respecting the space.

Again, the REAL story should be whether or not the decision was legit. IF it was, how it will adversely affect his life, SU, U of C 101 or otherwise, is up to him to deal with. If it was wrong, then it should be fixed.

-James