On issues ranging from the Jena Six to student arrests, it seems that Obies are up in arms this fall. Amid concerns over any number of national and global justice issues, the voice of protest has been most audible in response to what many perceive as an injustice against one of our own: the dismissal of Macedonian international student Zoran Stanishich, affectionately known by his friends and acquaintances as "Zoki." Passionately vocal student groups have criticized both the rationale for Zoki's expulsion and the manner in which his removal was handled. However, underneath the discontent – which at times gives the appearance of absolute consensus – lies a complex web of issues. The delicate balances between privacy and transparency, between rights and security, and between student franchise and administrative license are at a tipping point and our time has come as students to step up – not only to critically examine the administration's decisions, but to demand clarity, justification and accountability so that we can use the considerable power of our voices in an informed and judicious fashion.

Accusations of administrative foul play have dominated the conversation about Zoki's complicated situation thus far. A list of apparently minor infractions, compiled by his roommate, appears utterly disproportionate to the harshness of the sophomore's punishment; indeed, students have received more frequent and severe write-ups without precipitating such harsh disciplinary measures. The suspicion that his presence as a financial aid recipient was factored into his removal also seems to have taken root among many. Such a superficial glance at the issue leaves indignation as the only logical response to apparently heavy-handed and unjust treatment. However, some suggest that other factors – including but not limited to Zoki's academic standing – also contributed to his removal. Ultimately, dialogue within the student body seems to consist of little more than wildly varied rumors based on limited and conflicting information. Attempting to make any conclusions feels ill-advised.

Privacy laws complicate matters further; the administration is legally prohibited from making specific information about the nature of the expulsion public. This does not, however, excuse us from our duty to demand as much transparency as legally possible. The administration certainly must fulfill its obligation to protect the students of Oberlin College, but it also has a moral duty to treat its students with equity and fairness. Within legal privacy bounds, it is incumbent upon the President, the Dean of Students and the Community Board to prove that this decision was made in accordance with school rules, regulations and bylaws, as well as principles of fairness and neutrality. Conversely, we as students have the responsibility to one another and to ourselves to demand this justification. Situations like this make or break administrative legitimacy and trust, and the students of Oberlin College must make it clear that we do not grant ethical carte blanche.

The public will never know if the information that the administration holds confidential does provide justification for Zoki's expulsion. The fact remains that the way the procedure surrounding his removal was handled is cause for concern, highlighting the more troubling aspects of student disciplinary regulations in all their vagueness and inconsistency. When we do question the administration's neutral adherence to its own rules, we may find that the problem isn't the level of procedural integrity, but the rules themselves. Though Student Regulations, Policies, and Procedures allows for its definition of due process, it does so vaguely and noncommittally – the bylaws allow the Dean of Students to set aside these rules and "act with power" if he or she sees fit. Zoki's decision to host town residents banned from campus constituted an immediate enough danger in the eyes of Dean Gates that she exercised the power granted her in this clause of the bylaws.

While important to some in this specific case, the ethics of canceling Zoki's ostensibly guaranteed appeals process are less the disease than the symptoms of the bylaws' unsettling attitude toward disciplinary power. Even if a student poses no visible threat to the community, the clause allows the Dean virtually unrestricted authority to revoke the right to due process. It is a sad irony that Oberlin College, known since its inception as a bastion of progressive thought, has institutionalized a dismissive attitude toward the rights of its own students. Without a doubt, swift executive action is necessary in certain limited circumstances for the protection of the College's well-being. When the rules allow curtailment of due process to an all but unlimited extent, however, Oberlin has gone too far.

In the past two months, Oberlin students have reaffirmed their concern for social justice, and done so with style. From protests in Wilder Bowl to Tappan Square rock paintings to petition tables, we've shown the world that we care about people hundreds of miles away just as we care about our classmates. Whatever the issue, our voice is too powerful to easily ignore, and this situation is no exception. The final decision on Zoki's case now rests with President Krislov, but the degree to which he publicly defends his decision will be largely defined by the level of student protest. If our administration and our governing codes do indeed respect the proud Oberlin traditions of democracy and egalitarian thought, we must demand that they prove it. Balancing privacy and transparency will be a difficult task and only time will tell if the administration is up to the challenge.