In early September, Student Life reported on Washington University’s now one-year-old expungement policy, in which certain student conduct violations can be expunged following periods from as short as four semesters to as long as 10 years. Student Life’s reporting drew attention to the policy’s inclusion of sexual and physical violence offenses as being capable of being expunged following a period of five years. It also included drug offenses as requiring this five-year buffer, while academic integrity offenses remained ineligible for early expungement.

The details of the policy were alarming to our Editorial Board, along with many members of our student body. This led many of us to initiate conversations regarding expungement and restorative justice, grappling with how to best forefront restorative justice while holding each other accountable and keeping our most vulnerable safe. The article also spurred a joint initiative by MeToo WashU, College Democrats, and WashU Survivors & Allies for Social Support, drawing further attention to the issue and calling on students to sign a petition voicing their opposition to the policy. 

The concerns brought by the WashU community led the Student Affairs leadership team to alter the policy on Oct. 11 — just under five weeks after the story broke in Student Life.

To us — and, no doubt, many others — the implementation of the policy change so soon after opposition was surprising. There is no shortage of calls for change directed towards the University, but said change is often slow to come. It took years and the efforts of the Washington University Undergraduate & Graduate Workers Union and other allies to secure a $15 minimum wage for over 1,000 full-time campus workers. It took years and the input of members across our entire community for the University to prioritize need-blind admissions — a goal that was achieved just last year. 

So, yes — a swift administrative response to criticism is surprising. But it shouldn’t be.

As students, we are constantly beholden to powerful institutions that feel like they’re beyond our control, from the Supreme Court to our own university. It doesn’t always feel like there are many ways to make concrete changes, and there is a tendency towards apathy among our student body that discourages some of us from having the hard conversations that bring about change. It’s easy to be intimidated into silence — to choose not to care rather than to care and be ignored. 

The current expungement policy is the result of extensive drafting, Student Union and administrative feedback, and redrafting. With the initial input of Student Union last year, the reporter who took the story, the work of campus groups and student leaders who drafted a petition, and the 150 community members who signed it — every voice contributed in a way that was pivotal to the alteration of the policy and the removal of the possibility of an interpersonal violence offense being expunged.

There’s power in caring enough to share an article, sign a petition, or pass along an Instagram post. Institutions that are meant to prioritize our needs don’t always seem to care about what we have to say, but that should never discourage us from saying it. The change in the expungement policy is proof of that.

There is, as always, much left to do. As an institution, WashU has come a long way and has a long way to go. We have yet to expand our capacity to fully address student mental health concerns (namely, by separating WUPD from mental health crisis calls); we still fall short in supporting survivors of sexual violence; and it will require a lot of work to truly make WashU the diverse, equitable, and inclusive environment it claims to be. Even within the expungement policy, conversations are still taking place regarding to what extent a five-year buffer period for expunging a drug violation — and no eligibility to expunge academic integrity violations early — reflects the restorative justice we are striving for.

However, in what often feels like fruitless work, even incremental change should be celebrated. We want to commend those who made their voice heard — those who kept, and continue to keep, a careful eye on what the institutions around us do.

The process of redrafting and revising that our expungement policy underwent is one that we’d like to see continued as our community continues to discern what justice should look like. The implementation of an expungement policy was a step forward, one that many peer institutions have yet to make. The alteration of the policy in response to opposition was another step in the right direction. Moving forward, we urge students to continue to hold the administration accountable as we journey towards policies that reflect the justice — and the world — that we deserve.

Staff editorials reflect the opinion of the majority of our editorial board members. The editorial board operates independently of our newsroom and includes members of the staff. 

Reilly Brady, Managing Forum Editor

Jamila Dawkins, Managing Forum Editor

Ved Patel, Managing Chief of Copy

Jared Adelman, Senior Multimedia Editor

Cynthia Chong, Junior Multimedia Editor & Head of Social Media

Clara Richards, Managing Sports Editor