Students convicted of rioting in Colorado may soon be paying a heftier price for their offenses.

A bill being debated in the Colorado Senate would make students convicted of rioting offenses ineligible for in-state tuition rates and financial aid.

According to the sponsor of House Bill 1173, Rep. Don Lee, R-Littleton, those students found guilty would be ineligible to pay in-state tuition for one year following the date of conviction. The bill also allows a state-supported institution to refuse to enroll a person on the basis of his or her conviction.

“I want to send a clear message to the citizens of Colorado that the taxpayers will not subsidize tuitions of those who are convicted of rioting offenses, and I hope this bill will prevent future riots,” Lee said.

The bill passed easily through the Colorado House of Representatives and is now being considered by the Senate.

Activities deemed riotous in Colorado include engaging in a riot, inciting a riot, arming rioters and failing to leave when instructed to do so during a riot, Lee said.

Enforcing the bill requires the cooperation of both the courts and universities in Colorado.

“The courts would send information of persons who fall into these categories to the Commission on Higher Education who would then distribute the names to the universities,” Lee said.

Not all university administrators, however, agree with Lee’s plan.

Linda Kuk, vice president of student affairs at Colorado State University in Fort Collins, Colo., said she does not think the bill is good legislation because it does not give any more power to the universities themselves in dealing with rioters.

“It doesn’t allow the university to take in individual circumstances,” Kuk said. “As the bill is written now, innocent bystanders may easily fall victim to punishment.”

Kuk said he also questioned the fairness of the bill, saying it may be too harsh for students.

“The legislators aren’t letting students convicted of rioting pay in-state tuition, but they are allowing convicted rapists to pay in-state tuition,” Kuk said. “To me, that just doesn’t make any sense.”

“I would rather evaluate each student case-by-case. It can be difficult to define what a riot is; students could be punished for simply expressing their First Amendment rights,” Kuk said.

Ohio State has had its own problems with rioting, including several riots last spring and fall that involved thousands of students. Damages from the November 2000 post-Michigan football game riot alone exceeded $80,000.

Bill Hall, vice president of student affairs at OSU, said he doesn’t agree with the Colorado bill.

“I think that measures that we’ve taken to educate our students to be responsible and joint policing with campus police and city police have been very effective,” Hall said.

“We’re going to continue to use measures that we’ve used in the past to deal with irresponsible students,” Hall said. “If students riot, I think that the university should be able to decide what their punishment with respect to their status at the university should be.”

Measures OSU has taken against rioters include suspending them from the university and putting them on probation.

Kuk agreed that the students’ academic status should be controlled by the university, and that the university should to a proactive status to prevent rioting.

“We work with the community to monitor events off-campus, and when we see an incident brewing, we keep an eye on things to make sure they don’t get out of control,” Kuk said.

Students at OSU do not believe the bill would be effective in preventing riots.

“I don’t think that making students pay more money is going to make them see that what they’re doing is wrong,” said Kristen Minto, a senior in wildlife management and pre-veterinary medicine.

Laurie Brevick, a sophomore in Spanish, said she thinks the bill is too harsh and does not encourage students to attain a college degree.

“I think that it is too strict. If someone commits a rioting offense, they shouldn’t have to pay $6000 more a year,” Brevick said. “It doesn’t promote school because the students will be more likely to drop out of school because they don’t want to pay that much money.”