Proctor Dave Scott publicly admitted yesterday he went into a flat about three weeks ago while delivering a letter to students, and took ``three smoking cannabis bongs'' away while the flatmates were either away or asleep.
While he regretted his behaviour, he did not consider it made him a criminal, he said.
His admission and apology followed an article in Critic Te Arohi about the incident, and since the revelations came to light other students have also said he visited them at home and tried to confiscate their bongs, and one student told Critic of an incident in 2016.
A ``Proctor Protest'', calling for a code of conduct for Mr Scott, has been organised for 1pm tomorrow at the university and about 900 people have indicated on Facebook they will attend, and a petition for Mr Scott to resign has now reached nearly 2000 signatures.
Vice-chancellor Prof Harlene Hayne said yesterday Mr Scott ``had the best interests of the student flatmates in mind'' and said there would not be any repercussions for him from the university, or any new code of conduct.
``Mr Scott has acknowledged both to me and publicly that his actions on this occasion were wrong and not to be repeated.
``I do not consider disciplinary action against him to be called for,'' she said.
The proctor's actions have drawn criticism from legal academics at other universities and lawyers who have said he could technically have committed burglary or theft.
OUSA recreation officer Josh Smythe, who organised both the petition and the protest, claimed three other students had also contacted him with stories about the proctor going into their homes while they were there and confiscating cannabis bongs.
Mr Scott admitted taking bongs from picnic tables in the past, and acknowledged it was ``an error of judgement''.
However, Prof Hayne said the university was not aware of any complaints about similar behaviour.
Comments
When someone is in a position of privilege, these actions are considered "technically" theft, and "he did not consider it made him a criminal"? What!
He entered someone's home and stole, while performing his role with the University. He admitted it and that he knew it was wrong. His boss then publicly endorses him and says there will be no repercussions! How many other bosses would take no action against an employee who intentionally entered a customers property, and stole their stuff? What would their customers think if they did this!
It IS theft, and he IS a criminal. Theft as a servant is a crime taken seriously in New Zealand and no-one, student or employee, or the University as an organisation, is above the law. It is that simple. Both Scott's justification of his actions, and Hayne's response, speak volumes to the warped perception of privilege the University's hierarchy has of it's role in society, and in the lives of students.
Now that this is being played out publicly, it is so important that students, employees and the general public see that no-one is special here, no-one is above the law. Appropriate action MUST be taken!
It is simply not acceptable for anyone to enter other peoples property and remove items. It simply doesn't matter if the person is a university employee with a silly title or a professional thief. It doesn't matter if the stolen items are gold watches or bongs.
This bloke has lost all credibility as any form of law enforcement officer. It is gross hypocrisy for the university to assert that their employees are above the law. If Prof Hayne doesn't understand that then she should also be sacked.
Call the Police and make a report then, it is theft no matter how minor.