Chelsea Hoag, Campus Carrier Managing Editor
SGA is projected to vote on the “Good Samaritan” clause as in addition to the Community Standard section of the Viking Code on Tuesday, Feb. 3. Senior Ben Riggs proposed the clause at the first SGA meeting of the fall semester on Sept. 2, 2014.
Julie Bumpus, associate vice president of student affairs and associate dean of students, spoke about the changes to the Viking Code at the Sept 2, 2014 meeting.
Section G under the “Community Standard IV,” stated that “failure to notify relevant campus authority when there is a reasonable expectation the health or well-being of a student is endangered” will be punished accordingly.
Currently, the new version of the code removed section G. Section F states “Other behavior that is detrimental to the health, well-being and purposes of Berry College and the community.” Section F is now the only section that mentions the responsibility of protecting others’ well-being.
Section G stood out to Riggs. His perspective led him to believe students in the past have failed at contacting officials for help in fear of being punished and having it noted on his or her permanent record.
The “Good Samaritan” clause is based on the “911 Medical Amnesty” law, passed in Georgia on April 24, 2014, granting some immunity to people who seek help during a drug or alcohol overdose.
After the SGA meeting on Sept. 2, 2014, a Student Affairs Committee organized and began the process of creating the newly proposed clause.
In the clause, the application has five detailed sections in which a student has to abide by to be considered a “Good Samaritan.”
“If students take advantage of the rule after a year, then administration should change it, but if this has saved one life, it’s done its job,” Riggs said. “At the end of the day, if one student has acted in the interest of another student’s health and the student walks away alive, then it’s served its purpose.”
Lindsey Taylor, assistant dean of students for residence life, said she has mixed thoughts about the clause.
“If it helps the safety of students, then I’m open to listen. I have some concerns of responsibilities on all parties involved,” Taylor said. I think the motive behind the clause is really good, but I think we are missing a deeper-rooted issue when talking about students who need medical attention because of alcohol.”
The safety of students is the upmost concern, but implementing the “Good Samaritan” clause could change the way students think about drinking on campus and their behavior dependent on perception.
“With this new policy, I don’t want students to think they have a way out. It minimizes their understanding of their limits in being responsible in the choices they are making,” Taylor said.
Senior Jilli Leonard, head resident of mountain campus, said she does not agree with the policy and said in revising the Viking Code, whether you’re for the “Good Samaritan” policy or not, both sides want what is best for the student body.
“I think the hiccup comes into play where you see an increase in issues with alcohol on a dry campus and you worry about policy enabling those issues to continue happening,” Leonard said. “You want a policy that can address growing issues and nip them in the bud or as close as you can. That’s what my understanding of what we want this policy to be.”
Lindsey and Leonard both mentioned misconceptions pertaining to what the Viking Code is founded on and wants to accomplish.
“The premise of Berry’s system isn’t a value-based system based on personal morals or personal ethics. It’s based on statistical data when there’s more alcohol on campus. Berry wants a responsible student body,” Leonard said.
The Student Affairs Committee will meet today to discuss any further changes to the proposal. SGA representatives will vote and discuss the “Good Samaritan” clause, Feb. 3.