Recently, the University’s legal counsel reworded the student conduct code without the approval of the student body’s University Senate. The altering of language in a clause regarding the University’s off-campus jurisdiction for conduct code violations will affect students’ due process rights, allowing the University to become involved in a broader range of conduct code violations occurring at off-campus locations.
In legal documents, minor changes in wording, punctuation and order often have significant implications as to the interpretive clout of policy. The unproved alterations, pushed through under the cloak of “clarification” by the University’s legal council Melinda Grier appear to intentionally broaden the University’s off-campus jurisdiction regarding the student conduct code, infringing on student’s liberties and separation from University accountability in their personal lives.
The original clause approved by the student senate was altered without senate consent in a way that makes its language more ambiguous and widely applicable to violations of the code previously out of University jurisdiction.
The deleted clause in question allows those interpreting the code to further extend the University’s jurisdiction regarding the conduct code off-campus. With the code’s original language, jurisdiction could be extended for two reasons: When “conduct adversely and significantly affects the environment conducive to learning,” and when the conduct “would violate the Student Conduct Code if the conduct had occurred on campus.”
The approved version of the second clause was followed by a statement clarifying it’s implications: “Specifically, the misconduct must meet the following criteria: The alleged misconduct must have involved violence or produced a reasonable fear of physical harm; or the alleged misconduct involves academic work or any records, documents, or identifications of the University.”
Following senate approval, the phrase, “specifically, the misconduct must meet the following criteria…” was deleted for reasons of “clarity.” It is apparent to the Emerald and student legal rights advocates that this deletion makes the entire clause less clear, allowing the jurisdiction to enforce the conduct code off campus to encompass all four points, rather than two, one of which carried two specific stipulations.
Now that the clause “…would violate the Student Conduct Code had it occurred on campus” stands alone as one of the reasons for which The University can extend jurisdiction off campus, the potential for intrusive application of the code is high.
Advocates for student’s rights and independent legal voices have spoken out against these changes to the conduct code. The Emerald emphatically reiterates their concern and encourages the student body to do the same. The representative student senate exists in order to prevent unacceptable violations of student rights such as this, and they should stand up and do so now.
It is both inappropriate and insulting that the University feels compelled to extend its governance into students’
off-campus lives. The rewording of the code shows that the administration does not view its students as adults and that it sees it necessary to exercise this version of paternal policy that treats students like irresponsible and immature children.
The University should consider whether it wishes the type of relationship it shares with its high-paying student-customers to be one of educating, or one of parenting.
Additionally, the University’s legal counsel should explain its decision to alter a student-approved policy away from the public eye and in a way that harms student rights. The Emerald urges the University to make its actions more transparent and ethical in the future.