The spring break Residence Hall closing notice reads as follows, “spring break will begin at 6 p.m. on Friday, March 5th, 2010.” Further on in the text the notice reads, “during the break period, each room will be entered by college personnel to ensure compliance with health and safety standards as described in the Guilford College Student Handbook.” On Friday, March 5, Campus Life personnel began their break inspections at 1 p.m.

“We had no choice to move the inspections up because we are so short-staffed,” said Director of Residence Life Susanna Young, who is the head of the Resident Advisor and Hall Director programs.

According to www.Guilford.edu, “closing notices are posted two to three weeks prior to the breaks and at the end of each semester.” When Residence Life changed the time of the inspections, they failed to send another e-mail to the students updating them on the change. The students thought the normal inspection protocol, as the e-mail they received said, would be implemented.

“There was a break in the link because the change was never communicated to the students,” said Bryan Hall director Nick Pendergraft.

Young and the Residence Life staff take responsibility for their oversight.

“It was due to poor communication within our office,” said Young.

Therefore, these inspections turned in a different result from most inspections done in the past.

According to Associate Dean for Campus Life Jennifer Agor, break inspections usually yield one to two room searches. These most recent inspections yielded six. And according to Agor, Campus Life found a higher number of health violations than usual, although she does not know the exact amount.

Aside from judicial charges, students had a problem with the early inspections because many of them were not done cleaning their living spaces, and thus were charged with health violations, which result in fines.

“After being told the search would be conducted during spring break, the surprise raid was deceitful, and the fines took a lot of money out of the students’ pockets,” said junior Laura Kaufman.

Vice President for Student Affairs and Dean of Students Aaron Fetrow offers a solution for students who feel unfairly charged by the inspectors.

“That’s why we have an appeals process,” said Fetrow, alluding to an e-mail appeal students can send in response to the e-mail they receive that lists their charges.

The appeals process does not include judicial charges. For example, students can appeal fines for excessive trash but cannot appeal judicial charges for having illegal substances. The early inspections caused panic amongst the student body right before spring break, and a busy day for Community Senate President Nancy Klosteridis.

“I had hundreds of calls and people were stopping me all over campus to ask what I knew,” said Klosteridis. “I had found out that they had announced the searches in The Beacon, which is a newsletter aimed at faculty, staff, alumni and parents; students were really upset about that.”

Due to suddenness and perceived lack of communication regarding the searches, many students felt lied to and angered by the inspection.

“What they did was a violation of trust between the students and Campus Life,” said junior Wes Good. “I guarantee you they were looking to find illegal substances in kids’ rooms.”

“We have to fight the stigma of being the bad guy on a daily basis,” said Young. “We don’t want to betray the students’ trust in any way because we are here to help them.”

The inspection may not have targeted students from a judicial standpoint, but some students feel the searches did violate their privacy.

“I slept until one and woke up to them knocking on my door,” said sophomore Connor Cross, who is still confused as to why Residence Life failed to alert the students once they knew they moved the inspections up. “They just looked up and saw the covered fire alarm and said, ‘automatic room search’.”

The inspections yielded inconsistent results as well. As the panic spread across campus, some students were fortunate enough to clean their rooms just in time.

“I heard about (the search) a couple minutes before they came,” said sophomore Peter King. “I ran back to the suite and warned everyone.”

While Residence Life took responsibility for the breakdown in communication, Agor said that students still need to take responsibility for their actions.

“Just because you take (the cover on a fire alarm) down and we don’t see it doesn’t mean it’s not a problem,” said Agor.

After a meeting with Agor, Cross, although still angry about the violation of his trust and privacy, took accountability for his actions, and his violation of Campus Life’s trust.

“I do feel bad about (covering the alarm),” said Cross. “If everyone covered it, it could be bad.”

Klosteridis urges students to follow in Cross’ footsteps.

“I believe this was a one-time event based on lack of communication,” said Klosteridis. “Students should not have illegal things in their rooms, and should pay more attention to administrative policies and movements on their behalf.”

Residence Life acknowledges their failure to communicate, although an explanation to the student body is still pending.

“I apologize, Campus Life apologizes,” said Pendergraft. “A mistake was made – I don’t think a breakdown like this will ever happen again.