Last week, the University Senate made renewed efforts to change how administrators will cooperate with government agencies that are seeking student records and was updated on the process of expanding disciplinary procedures for students.
These two issues, while unrelated, carry with them consequences and benefits that must be recognized.
In its first order of business, the Senate declared that requests for private student records must be cleared through the University General Counsel’s Office before they are released.
“While privacy issues are governed by both state and federal law, the University’s interest in privacy goes far beyond its commitment to comply with law,” the Senate’s policy statement declared. “… Students, faculty and staff should be aware that the University supports their freedom to inquire, discuss and experiment with ideas without fear of improper government intrusion or public exposure.”
While bound to have little material impact in the long run — after all, the federal government could fight the efforts, most likely very successfully — the University administration’s efforts symbolize faculty disapproval of Attorney General John Ashcroft’s secretive and covert attacks on civil liberties. Further, the action shows that the Senate is looking out for the interests of University students before the questionable tactics of outside agencies.
In another action that could more drastically change the way students behave off-campus, the Senate heard an update from the Student Conduct Committee that widened the scope of criminal behaviors that the University can punish. Currently, only students who commit sexually motivated crimes off-campus can be disciplined with the Student Conduct Code; the proposed changes would add “any act of physical violence or threat of violence against another student that causes a reasonable person fear of physical harm” to that list.
The justification?
No law prohibits it, according to Director of Student Judicial Affairs Chris Loschiavo. And while the conduct code process is meant for educational purposes and won’t take the place of criminal prosecution, Loschiavo pointed out, we question the need for double punishment.
One wonders, too, whether the University has a legitimate claim on punishing crimes that didn’t happen on its property, and that only happens to involve people affiliated with it. For a body that stressed student privacy in the same meeting, there’s at least some hypocrisy in standing by while the Student Conduct Committee expands the University’s ability to meddle in events that happen off-campus.
That being said, if the new rule can curtail harassment and assault, then the outcome may outweigh the unintended consequences.