Stanford’s Faculty Senate approved two proposed amendments to the Judicial Charter earlier this month. One of these amendments would “extend off-campus jurisdiction to offenses that ‘threaten the safety and integrity’ of the Stanford community,” according to an article published in the Stanford Report. This change, effective immediately upon President Hennessy’s approval, addresses the disparity between the consequences of committing crimes within and beyond campus boundaries. Several administrators believe that eliminating this disparity corrodes the weight of Stanford’s Fundamental Standard by creating double standards for the types of behavior acceptable on and off campus. Should it come into effect, the implications of this amendment may be more symbolic than material, but they nonetheless deserve student attention.

The proposal to extend off-campus jurisdiction to offenses committed within the Stanford community highlights the dual nature of the existing system. Currently, some crimes committed on campus are dealt with as internal affairs. Students may have hearings before committees composed of faculty members, administrators and their peers. Sentences that are within the University’s capacity to enforce are doled out as penalties. Expulsion could be a consequence but a jail sentence is usually out of the question. The system is somewhat codified and bureaucratic, but it retains the flexibility of a university’s internal judicial process. The existence of that judicial structure holds a promise as comforting and welcoming as a drive down Palm Drive — it is a promise of Privilege, Invulnerability and Entitlement. It suggests that as Stanford students, we may have our pie and eat it, too.

The proposed amendment marks a significant divergence from the handling of jurisdictional issues to date as it highlights and challenges at last the grand tradition of collegial privilege. From a disciplinarian’s standpoint, the reasoning behind it is flawless: A crime is a crime no matter where it is committed and crimes that are serious enough to “threaten the safety and integrity” of the campus community should be met with the full force of the law. However, a sterner message lurks behind the cool logic of maintaining the Fundamental Standard. The administration is sending a clear message that students must grow up and face real world consequences. This amendment demands a student body that is less enamored with its invincibility and more vulnerable to legal discipline.

The capacity to take consequences for one’s actions signals maturity and perhaps that the administration is taking a step in the right direction by encouraging greater responsibility. Nevertheless, there are knotty questions to be answered. After a long history of maintaining independent jurisdiction over internal matters, why does the Faculty Senate choose this moment to change disciplinary policies? Who will decide which crimes “‘threaten the safety and integrity’ of the Stanford community,” and will those demarcations be enforced with consistency? Does this amendment mark the beginning of a slippery slope whereby the University will defer to the policies of government entities in other areas where it currently exercises jurisdiction? Imagine the uproar if administrators decided to extend local minimum wage laws to campus. While this example hardly parallels issues of law enforcement and security, the point cannot be overlooked.

As Stanford students, we should not see ourselves as so exceptional that we may escape the consequences of our mistakes. We, too, are citizens in a world that is greater than our immediate sphere, and learning about this greater world, after all, is the objective of higher learning. On the other hand, we must see Stanford for what it truly is and recognize that the school could be damaged by a staid, tightened environment. We should never wholly abandon those elements of our independence, idealism and flexibility that allow us to be unique yet grounded, productive yet humble.