Erika L. Nestor

Colleges and universities are a distinct community in the world of education. Traditional-age students usually live on campus for their first year and immerse themselves in their new community of academia. Administrators, faculty, and staff attempt to create communities where everyone feels safe and supported. But often what happens is that individualism encroaches on the attempt at creating very strong communities. This article shares an incident that occurred in the fall of 1998 at The University of California at Berkeley and how the university could have responded more positively to maintaining community values rather than responding to individual rights alone.

On August 26, 1998, there was a noisy and emotional student demonstration at the University of California at Berkeley. Was this over rising tuition, diversity, or injustices in third world countries? No, the students were outraged over one of their fellow students, a college sophomore, who reportedly walked away after his best friend attacked and strangled to death a seven year old child, Sherrice Iverson, in a Nevada casino the previous year. The student, David Cash, kept quiet about the crime and did not report it to authorities when his friend, Jeremy Strohmeyer, confessed. Strohmeyer has since pleaded guilty and is awaiting formal sentencing of life in prison.

Students at Berkeley demonstrated because they wanted Cash to be expelled by the University. Cash did not stop his friend or report the crime to the authorities, and students were outraged by this behavior. Yet Cash, according to law, had committed no crime. UC Berkeley Chancellor Robert Berdahl stated, "We cannot simply take arbitrary action against him on the basis of moral outrage" (Daily Cal, 5 October, 1998). While the students understood the University’s hands were tied legally, they still wanted to see university action taken against Cash. "We feel that David Cash should be held responsible for the tragedy he could have prevented" (Daily Cal). The students were outraged that someone from their community could go unpunished after knowing and remaining silent about a heinous and immoral act.

Community is a buzzword that we often hear in academia. Colleges and universities are intellectual, scholarly communities where learning and knowledge are part of our common goal. Presidents, faculty, administrators, staff, and students support the college community in a variety of ways: donating to their colleges, attending various dinners and lectures, and being available at odd times to meet and work with students or colleagues.

Ernest Boyer (1990), in his report Campus Life: In Search of Community, offers interesting statistics on academia and community. College presidents and chief student affairs officers were asked to respond to certain variables that would improve campus life. More than any other suggestion, "a greater effort to build a stronger overall sense of community" had the highest agreement rating by both sets of administrators. Seventy-one percent of college presidents felt a stronger sense of community would improve campus life and 77% of chief student affairs officers agreed. Ninety-six percent of presidents also agreed with the following, "I strongly believe in the importance of ‘community’ for an institution such as this" (p. 65). Boyer’s report demonstrates the importance of community from upper-level administrators, but how do undergraduates perceive it? He asked undergraduate students their attitudes toward moral issues on campus. Fifty-six percent agreed that colleges should provide a code of conduct for students and that undergraduates known to use illegal drugs should be suspended or dismissed. Over half of these students interviewed were looking to the college community to provide role models for moral-laden issues.

Our country is based on the principle that an individual’s rights are considered before those of the community. "Democracies tend to focus on enhancing the freedom of individuals to do what they wish and to focus on meeting the needs of communities only when forced to do so" (Fried, 1995, p. 13). The Cash incident at Berkeley illustrates Fried’s concept that individual rights are of paramount importance to the American legal system. Is this best for our communities? I do not believe it is. Can UC Berkeley take a stand against David Cash? Should it? The University risks being accused of acting as the "moral" police but has an obligation to do something; otherwise, the University is condoning Cash’s behavior. It is far easier for the University to do nothing, but this is not what is best for this community.

"Individualism causes people to sever themselves from the community and to leave society at large to itself" (Fried, 1995, p. 57). This is precisely what Cash did, protecting himself and his friend, thinking of no one else, certainly not Sherrice Iverson, her family, her community, even his own community. The only person that David Cash was concerned about was himself. Knowing this about Cash, do college and university officials want him to graduate from their institution? The faculty and staff at UC Berkeley should work with Cash and educate him to be a responsible member of society. One of the missions of colleges and universities is to produce productive members of society. "The goal of student development education is to ‘move the student toward fulfillment as a realized person and an effective contributing citizen of the community and the world’" (p. 99). Do we believe that David Cash will be a contributing member of the community when he graduates from UC Berkeley in three years? If educators allow Cash to graduate without any action being taken, then we have not fulfilled our promise of graduating a contributing citizen of the community. What can we as college and university officials do?

At UC Berkeley, Chancellor Berdahl was sympathetic with the students’ moral outrage. He expressed his own outrage at the crime, but he explained that the University has a legal responsibility to protect the due process rights of the student who has not been charged with any crime. However, Chancellor Berdahl explained to the press following the demonstration that,

We need to build a safer society by ensuring that each of us takes the safety and well-being of our fellow citizens as our own personal responsibility. As a public university we strive to educate students to assume that responsibility. (The Berkeleyan, 2 September, 1998)

Yet, by not taking action against Cash, UC Berkeley has ensured society nothing. The University had an opportunity, a teachable moment, and essentially chose to ignore it.

How can a university take seriously the effort to ensure that we each take responsibility for our fellow citizens when a student who has so blatantly disregarded others remains a candidate for graduation? Is UC Berkeley building a better society by allowing Cash to remain a student? Not at all. Do they believe they can educate him to be a good citizen or is it simply that legally there is nothing they can do to Cash? Chancellor Berdahl has stated he cannot take any action, yet he can and he should. There are other options that exist for university consideration and action. Three options for UC Berkeley are taking institutional action against Cash, influencing social change and expanding the University’s code of conduct.

Option One: Take Institutional Action Against the Individual

We as educators send a strong message to our students when we stand up against something we believe is immoral and take appropriate action. At certain times, college officials must do what they believe is right and risk an impending lawsuit. This action would help many more students to become contributing members of society. In Cash’s case, the institution could temporarily suspend him and require community service or an experience that could help him understand the importance of being a good citizen. For the institution to do nothing, as Cash himself did, is a crime as well.

Some would argue that Cash remaining on campus and being ostracized by his peers might be the best punishment for him. Yet, this is the easy way out. Cash himself does not seem concerned with the way his peers feel; he remains at UC Berkeley because it has one of the finest engineering schools in the country. Obviously, Cash feels he has done nothing wrong and the fact that he can go on with his life as it was only proves this to him. Unless the University takes some additional action, people like David Cash may never understand the unbelievable crime to humanity they have committed. As Boyer (1990) stated, "a caring community not only enables students to gain knowledge, but helps them channel that knowledge to humane ends" (p. 54). In this case, the University must help Cash understand why his lack of action was so wrong.

Option Two: Influencing Societal Change

Perhaps institutions of higher education could better influence this culture of individualism over the culture of community. Many students will find the effort to balance community and individual rights difficult. "Individualism and a powerful emphasis on rights as opposed to responsibilities has left Americans with a strong mistrust of any force which suggests that some aspect of individual freedom or gain should be sacrificed for the common good" (Fried, 1995, p. 61).

This imbalance has left us with a serious and destructive mistrust of one another. The University could use its knowledge base in an applied way to change state or federal laws. Laws exist in some states that would make the inaction of David Cash a violation. The states of Nevada and California, however, do not have such laws. Why not? The University should pursue this as an appropriate action. Boyer (1990) states, "a college or university is an educationally purposeful community, a place where faculty and students share academic goals and work together" (p. 9). There could be no better educational undertaking, in this instance, than the faculty and administrators working with the morally outraged students to improve society.

Option Three: Expanding the Code of Conduct

College and university administrators should review student conduct codes and mission statements. If we are truly committed to the personal development of our students, then we need to show with our words and actions when we are morally outraged. Public institutions, in particular, have moved away from any concern with students’ behavior off-campus. It is time to revisit this issue.

Codes of conduct should establish certain behaviors to be considered of such concern that, with due process, an individual’s status at the institution would be subject to change, whether that behavior occurred on or off campus. Boyer (1990) states, "build academic communities in which people learn to respect and value one another…while at the same time defining the values shared by all those who join the university as scholars and citizens" (p. 35). In Cash’s case, his fellow students have demonstrated that they do not value or respect him as a citizen, yet they have no power to do anything about it. The codes of conduct could be amended to allow these matters of moral weight to be considered by a group of students, faculty and staff at the University.

We currently "talk the talk" of educating our students in holistic ways, now is the time for universities to "walk the walk." In the case of UC Berkeley, the institution should take a definitive stand against Cash’s lack of action. The University as a community has protested in order to show its disapproval for Cash’s actions. It is time now for the University to take action against Cash, influence societal change or expand the code of conduct or, ideally, all three. At the moment, UC Berkeley has taken the easy way out. The president agrees that there is reason to be morally outraged but has allowed the institution to do nothing. Certainly, this is not the example academia wishes to set for its students. Any one of the above options demonstrates to students that the University is concerned and willing to do something. The legal system cannot take a stand against Cash’s actions, but the University can and should.

Boyer, E. (1990). Campus life: In search of community. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Fried, J. & Associates. (1995). Shifting paradigms in student affairs: Culture, context, teaching, and learning. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

Erika L. Nestor received her bachelor's degree in 1988 from Indiana University. She is currently a second-year HESA student and the Coordinator of Special Projects at the UVM Women's Center.