Imagine this: A male University student attends a party near campus, gets drunk and has what he thinks is consensual sex with an intoxicated female student. The next day, she files rape charges with the police. The man is charged with sexual assault. He doesn’t go to trial, however, because the district attorney cannot prove that he is guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Later, he’s tried in a secret campus court where he isn’t guaranteed legal representation. His punishment, including possible expulsion from the University, can be decided by a simple majority consensus of a small tribunal.
Such a scenario would be possible under proposed changes to the Student Conduct Code, a set of rules that prohibit and outline punishments for actions such as underage drinking, on- and off-campus sexual assault and plagiarism.
The University Senate, which consists of student and faculty representatives, will decide Wednesday whether to approve recent changes to the code. The revisions dramatically expand the code’s jurisdiction over off-campus activities and limit student rights to legal representation; they have garnered negative feedback from attorneys who defend students and from student government officials.
We also find the revisions concerning, and we urge senators to reject the code in favor of a less restrictive document. Although the code has useful applications regarding academic dishonesty, it’s time that the University forgo its role as a parental surrogate and yield disciplinary power over crimes to government courts.
Foremost, the code can result in a type of double-jeopardy. For example, this problem arises when students cited by the Eugene police for underage drinking also must pay fines to the University.
Proponents of the code and its revisions argue that it is designed to be less legalistic than municipal, state and federal courts, encouraging students to take responsibility for their actions and to learn from their mistakes. But serious crimes, such as sexual assault, should not be handled on campus; they should be dealt with in criminal court where people can publicly confront their accusers with assistance from attorneys.
Code advocates also assert that students willingly subscribe to the morals of the University when they choose to attend the institution. Public education, however, is not realistically just an option for many students; it’s required to succeed in life. And unlike private colleges, the University is a government-funded entity that should not have its own criminal regulations beyond those that apply to the general public.
Some specific aspects of the revisions are also troubling. The proposed code defines sexual misconduct as “unwanted penetration” and “nonconsensual personal conduct.” It also states that drunk people may be unable to consent to sex. Thus one party may easily accuse another of sexual misconduct.
In addition, lawyers and advisers may only cross-examine the other student party if both sides agree. This favors accusers, who may simply refuse to submit to questioning about their motives.
After 12 years of revising the code, it is understandable that senators might vote in favor of it simply to see the process of drafting and re-drafting finally come to a close. However, we encourage senators to critically examine the code placed before them and decide if students will truly be treated fairly under it. It is infinitely better to hold out for appropriate provisions than to rush the approval process.