Campus faculty, staff and graduate employees have been very vocal in their criticism of the University’s recent reissuing of its ethics policy in the form of a newsletter two weeks ago. But the voices of the group of University employees arguably facing the greatest effect from all this ethics interpretation have been silent so far.

For many who work for the University, there exists a separation between home and work, off the clock and on. University Housing paraprofessionals, however, face the complication of home being work, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Resident advisors, multicultural advocates and program advisers work to make University residence halls safe, welcoming and positive communities for every student in them. To achieve these ends, these student employees plan events, ensure the observance of housing policies and deal with residents’ interpersonal situations (among many other responsibilities) – in short, they are in constant contact with the students with whom they work. These employees are also full-time students themselves.

A huge number of questions arise from the unique situation of working in your home, where all the resources provided to you are property of the University. And unfortunately, the University does little to clarify the line between personal time and resources, and those of employment. In response to a separate e-mail I sent listing some of these possible concerns, the Ethics Office simply offered the guideline that Housing paraprofessionals should use their best judgment, as the Ethics Act includes no consideration of the situation of students who are employed within University-owned living spaces.

Sure, most paraprofessionals were probably aware prior to now that it would be questionable of them to host an explicitly partisan political event as a housing program, or create a bulletin board of partisan material. It’s likely they also know that they cannot post partisan fliers around residence halls.

But it’s even stickier than that. Are employees’ bedrooms considered their offices, and if so, are they discouraged from posting any type of partisan political paraphernalia on the outside of their doors, visible to residents (many of whom have such material on their own doors)?

Internet and e-mail are resources provided by the University to these student employees. Does this mean paraprofessionals are prohibited from having partisan political discussions over University e-mail, regardless of whether these communications are with residents? Can they receive partisan e-mails from campaigns? Can they post their opinions to political blogs using University-supplied Internet?

The freedoms of individual expression asserted by students – are these also in question? I have to wonder whether paraprofessionals too are barred from attending political rallies on campus, or from having conversations within the hall with residents about their political stances. All of this depends on what’s considered “work time,” which is completely redefined in the position of a paraprofessional.

Some of these inquiries may sound ridiculous (and in fact, I hope they do), but they exist because the Ethics Office and the Ethics Act itself fail to account for these kinds of employees, whose living and work situations are so inextricably linked. It would be foolish to expect the state government to have included resident advisors, multicultural advocates and program advisers in the Act, but the University should have had the foresight to consider the number of its employment positions filled by students, grad and undergrad, and especially those who work through their living environment.

Worse still is the fact that the newsletter encourages questions regarding what is prohibited, but the answers to these questions, at least in regard to Housing paraprofessionals, are apparently too complicated to determine. Since even the Ethics Office doesn’t know how far these restrictions can be taken in the circumstances of these employees, residence halls become prime targets of the “chilling effect” so poignantly mentioned in a letter to the editor on Monday – regardless of what is enforceable by the University, political dialogue of any kind gets quashed by concern over its potential prohibition.

Even without being explicitly partisan, paraprofessionals’ opinions on issues and legislation can add up to paint them as such in the eyes of residents. So perhaps the reason why these students (because that is what they are, first and foremost) have yet to make their voices heard is because they have been rendered voiceless by the fear of retribution. On a college campus, a setting whose educational experience centers on dialogues of opinion, how many opinions and educations must be compromised to maintain ethical compliance?

Chelsea is a senior in English and music and needs to learn to sleep when she’s tired and eat when she’s hungry.