Recently a freshman relayed to us a troubling story: He was helping a friend, too drunk to walk, safely back to her residence hall. She was intoxicated, so the CAs wrote her up. Fair enough. But then, in a twisted turn of events, the CAs wrote the responsible Samaritan up for possession of an alcoholic container. Where was the container? Clinging limply to him: they considered the drunken damsel a container of alcohol. Actions like these from authorities and supposed âÄògood examplesâÄô send a destructive message to students about caring for their comrades. In a blatant stretch of policy designed to keep residents safe, the culpable CAs chose to place the harassment of a partygoer before the best interests of all. This isnâÄôt the only example of CAs stretching policy beyond its reasonable limit. Taken right from the handbook: âÄúIt is prohibited to have open flames or other materials that constitute fire hazards on University housing property. Hookahs or any smoking paraphernalia that have the potential for an open flame are also not allowed.âÄù The policy should simply prohibit open flame indoors, not a âÄúpotentialâÄù for open flame, which arbitrarily restricts the rights of residents who exhibit nothing more than a potential to partake in legal activity outdoors. CAs also often deem hookahs âÄúdrug paraphernalia.âÄù Hookahs heat tobacco, apples feed us, both can be paraphernalia; neither is. Housing and Residential Life must re-evaluate unrealistic policies and ensure that all CAs enforce policies reasonably upon students who pay far too much to be treated so immaturely.