Undoubtedly both Dr. Schmotter and Sharon Guck are correct in their interpretation of Mr. Fry's potential punishments. Hallucinogenic drugs can be uniquely dangerous in a university community, and those taking them can be a danger to themselves and others. I do wonder, however, why no one expressed their concern or condolences to either Mr. Fry or his roommate. Regardless of whether Mr. Fry enjoys shrooms, he was, in fact, indisputably a victim: a victim of a frightening armed robbery. So was his apparently totally innocent roommate. So were the residents of Pinney Hall who were interrupted from studying for finals in a most disturbing way.
Yet rather than being ready to apologize to these students for the lapses in security that caused the robbery in the first place, it seems that the university's main response had to do with scapegoating a student who was a victim of their incompetence for his drug use. This seems both unfair and mean. Certainly it may have been the case--though I have nowhere as yet seen it alleged--that there may have been a connection between the two. But this is beside the point: just because a student may be engaging in activity that is illegal or violates school policy does not mean that he, his roommates, and the other students in his dormitory do not have the right to expect the university to have safeguards in place to protect them from armed robberies. It is very disappointing to me that the university has shirked responsibility in this way, particularly by passing the buck onto a student who was a victim of the attack.
