I read two Northeastern News articles (“Northeastern’s arm of the law is too long” editorial and “Casino trip draws scrutiny” Oct. 29) relating to the planning of Senior Week Events for the class of 2008, of which I am a member.

The arguments from fellow students Chris Haner and Tom Kelly dictate that the space at Mohegan Sun is ample and provides various events for students in a centralized location. Though Haner mentions that he will not be gambling, his personal actions at Mohegan Sun are irrelevant to the debate itself. The university is probably not concerned with any particular individual’s actions at the site, but on the principle of endorsing events with questionable merit (especially those surrounding politically controversial activities like gambling, drug use and the like).

I can see the debate from both an administrative and a students’ rights perspective; however I question the motives of students (in particular Haner and Kelly) to put on an event of this caliber and to use it to challenge university jurisdiction policy via my Senior Week activities. Perhaps Mohegan Sun is a good space because it is large and offers a broad range of activities. Why not, though, go a bit further and see what kinds of possibilities exist and leave this debate for an administrative session?

I find it hard to believe that Haner can stand with a straight face and tell university officials gambling is not a primary objective of the trip. However, I also admire Haner and Kelly’s tenacity in trying to get this trip approved, and I question why the university approved a trip two years ago to the same establishment, whereas this year it is such a difficult endeavor. I would advise Haner to use the precedent for the 2006 event at Mohegan Sun as his main argument for the 2008 approval. This is actually a wonderful illustration of the difficulties associated with badly managed and enforced bureaucratic processes: the ever-infamous NU Shuffle.

For Haner to make jurisdiction an issue of student enjoyment is one I question deeply. I know the pitfalls of gambling and addictive behaviors associated therein, and there seems a lack of consideration for some members of the class of 2008. What is to be said for those students who have experienced, either first-hand or through a family member, the terrible pains of gambling addiction? It seems the choice of Mohegan Sun is disrespectful, if not at least inconsiderate, to them. That said, I do not believe Northeastern should have jurisdiction in matters that occur outside of a university.

I do hope the university will protect its image and uphold good values for its students. And I hope the student body can find a suitable solution to this problem, not only for this trip, but to the policy of jurisdiction on a whole. Clearly, the policy is not working as there are obvious inconsistencies in its application and much concern on the part of students.

The university should be doing everything it can to educate its students, not punish them. Perhaps our jurisdiction policy needs to be revisited by the Northeastern administration to account for variations in law across state and international lines, and to account for obvious logical flaws in its application.

– Stephen Hakansson is a senior economics major.