Outrage at proctor may backfire

Proctor Dave Scott at a news conference earlier this week. Photo: Gerard O'Brien

Calls for University of Otago proctor Dave Scott to resign over his unconventional methods of confiscating illegal cannabis bongs from student flats are an overreaction. The real crime would be if he was forced from his post.

University magazine Critic Te Arohi revealed this week Mr Scott was delivering pamphlets warning students of the dangers of initiations when he saw several bongs inside a student flat. He entered the flat uninvited and removed the drug paraphernalia.

After the story was published, the Otago University Students Association claimed it had received other similar complaints.

Legal experts around New Zealand were quick to condemn Mr Scott's approach, calling his actions unlawful, and a petition, created by an OUSA representative, surfaced calling for an apology and his resignation.

Mr Scott responded on Tuesday with an apology. He acknowledged he was wrong to enter the flat but maintained his intentions - in protecting students - were at the forefront of his actions. In hindsight, Mr Scott says he should have returned to the flat when the students were home and then taken action.

In the wake of finger-pointing and calls for heads to roll, surely it is time we stopped, took a deep breath and added a touch of reality to the issue.

Was Mr Scott wrong to enter the student flats uninvited and take the drug equipment? Yes he certainly was and he has admitted as much.

Students, as do any residents, have a right to feel secure in their homes and not expect unannounced guests to wander in sifting through, and removing, their belongings. University bosses need to address the matter with Mr Scott and make it clear to him where the boundaries lie.

But were Mr Scott's intentions well-placed. Again, yes.

Mr Scott is a parent and former long-serving police officer who rose to the rank of senior sergeant. He was Dunedin area response manager running frontline police activities in the city and was also second-in-charge of the armed offenders squad.

He is, by all accounts, well-liked and respected. Even those he confiscated the bong from have described him as not a ``bad dude''.

Whether people agree or not, cannabis use is still a crime in New Zealand.

Some would look at Mr Scott's intervention as a classic case of old fashioned pro-active policing. There was a time when a police officer would give a young person a kick up the backside and a telling off rather than pursue a prosecution.

That was, more often than not, enough of a fright to ensure they stayed on the right track. Best of all, their parents need not ever find out about the indiscretion.

Does the university and student community really want to see someone of Mr Scott's standing pushed out of his job over this matter?

Are the students who originally spoke to Critic about the missing bongs now feeling embarrassed about the national furore it has caused? In days gone by, owners of missing drug paraphernalia remained quiet in the hope it would never be linked back to them.

But in today's PC world there is a section of society which thrives on being outraged and offended. Invariably they are only too quick to use social media, often under the blanket of anonymity, to vent indignation and often seem happy to throw someone under a bus.

There is no doubt this was an error of judgement by Mr Scott and cannot happen again.

The sad thing is Mr Scott is now likely to think twice about being proactive and may instead contact police to let them deal with tricky situations. Why put his neck on the line and risk another public backlash?

That could leave a student with a drug conviction which could potentially affect future employment or overseas travel opportunities.

Try explaining that to mum.