On May 10, the University Senate is scheduled to vote on major proposed changes to our Student Conduct Code.
Our current code was written in the 1960s and reflects the student judicial philosophy of those times. Over the last 12 years, the Student Conduct Committee (made up of four faculty members and four students) has been meeting to discuss changing the Student Conduct Code. We feel that the changes now proposed will bring our conduct process in line with contemporary best practices and with the educational mission of the institution.
Over time, several shortcomings have become evident in our conduct process. The proposed revised code addresses these shortcomings. One of these shortcomings regards violence other than stalking or sexual misconduct that occurs off campus. Currently, a student who is physically abused off campus has no recourse on campus and would have to attend classes with their attacker. By expanding jurisdiction off campus to cover incidents of violence we hope to be able to address this issue.
The other significant issue is the role that lawyers play in the conduct process. The current formal hearing process is modeled on the legal system. A representative from the Department of Justice prosecutes the case on behalf of the University, and the accused student is defended by legal counsel. In the current system, both accused students and any witnesses can be cross-examined – just as they would be in a criminal or civil court. For many of us, the prospect of being cross-examined by a lawyer is enough to keep us from reporting possible conduct code violations or from using the system at all. Even more importantly, the current system creates an adversarial environment. In the current process, the University’s primary role is to prosecute the case – not to find out the truth, and not to educate.
The new code would still allow accused students to have an attorney present for the hearing, but their role would only be to advise their own client and to give an opening or closing statement. They would not speak for their clients or cross-examine witnesses. In our view, this change rightly puts the focus on the parties involved and not on the attorneys. The change also levels the playing field as in our current process accused students have free legal representation provided by the Office of Student Advocacy whereas complaining parties – that is, the students affected by the alleged code violation – have no legal representation unless they hire their own attorney. This difference creates a disadvantage to those from lower socio-economic backgrounds.
There are many other changes that are less significant than the two outlined above. We encourage you to attend one of the small group presentations or the town hall meeting to learn more about these changes and to share your input. Indeed a great deal of input from faculty, staff and students has already gone into this document over the last 12 years. Please include your voice. For the times and locations of these meetings, see the ads from Monday, April 3, and Friday, April 7, 2006 in the Emerald.
It is your code. Together, let us create a code that enhances the educational mission of the university and one that provides a safe campus for everyone. If you have any questions or want to attend a feedback session, please e-mail Lisa Freinkel at [email protected].

Bill Daley, Lisa Freinkel and Laura Lawson are representatives from the Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Student Conduct.