In early November, University Housing officials terminated Witte housefellow Matt Morin because he allegedly lent his room key to a non-resident.

Citing Morin for placing the safety of other residents at risk, the UW officials fired him despite his clean record, good reputation and the outpouring of support from his residents that followed the incident.

The decision to fire Morin, while within the bounds of university policy, appears excessive when the issue is fully analyzed. This is not a question of the letter of UW policy; rather, the equal enforcement of the policy.

In his appeal with University Housing, Morin wrote that other housefellows are rumored to have committed similar violations on various occasions without facing dismissal.

While separate cases always involved somewhat different circumstances, we confirmed that an incident regarding the mishandling of a key and the forcible entry into a restricted area at Witte’s front desk did occur approximately one year ago among a group of Morin’s peers. When officials were made aware of the breach in conduct, the parties involved faced only censure by University Housing — not termination.

Tuesday, Morin presented this incident and others to UW Housing as evidence that he is facing unfair treatment. Morin did break the rules and should face consequences in some form; even he admits this. Yet, given the circumstances surrounding his dismissal and the testimony of at least 30 of his residents and supporters at his appeal, there is ample reason to suggest broader motivations may be at work.

Morin claims his boss repeatedly told him to be careful about the political or social viewpoints he publicly expresses after one or more unidentified students complained to his supervisor, claiming Morin’s testimony during an Oct. 14 SSFC hearing was inappropriate.

During the public forum portion of the meeting, Morin, in reference to the budget proposal by the LGBTCC, said in part, “I understand these services are indeed valuable … but to how many people are these valuable? As a housefellow, I’ve run LGBT programs and have seen very small turnout. It is becoming increasingly apparent that this issue may not serve the greater campus community. How many people does this actually serve?”

Such testimony is not only irrelevant in the determinacy of Morin’s value as a UW Housing employee; we found it at best grounded in common sense and at the very least thoroughly un-inflammatory. Housefellows have every right as both citizens and state employees to present their views in a public forum such as a student government hearing.

Furthermore, Morin’s comments only focus on encouraging SSFC to practice fiscal responsibility with the budgets it approves. He never questioned the viability of these programs’ existence; he simply called into question — based on his experience as a coordinator for housing programs — how many students LGBTCC truly serves.

Should University Housing uphold its original decision to terminate Morin, it must present clear and irrefutable evidence that his punishment fits his crime and warrants this hazy break from precedent.

We implore UW to examine its own policies and publicly ensure their equitable enforcement.