Changes in the language of the controversial new student conduct code could alter the code’s meaning and are not in the version approved by the University Senate last spring, Hilary Berkman, director of the Office of Student Advocacy, said Thursday. These changes might add more power to the University’s off-campus jurisdiction.
According to a memo submitted by Berkman at a hearing held by University General Counsel’s office, changes to key sections of the code lack “integrity and good faith.”
Professor Lisa Freinkel, who headed the ad hoc committee that wrote the draft of the code approved in May, and General Counsel Melinda Grier said the changes to a section giving the University off-campus jurisdiction over student conduct actually clarify the meaning of the section and keep the intent of that version.
Student leaders have expressed concerns over the updated code since the committee, which the University Senate created in 2005 for the sole purpose of revising the code, introduced it in May 2005. The ad hoc committee had only one student member, said ASUO Student Outreach Coordinator Mike Filippelli, who was at Thursday’s hearing representing the ASUO Executive.
When the University senate voted May 10, all five students on the senate voted against the code, but it was approved in a 24-7 vote.
Thursday’s hearing was the final opportunity for community members to voice their opinions on the proposed changes before the document is sent to the Oregon Secretary of State’s office.
In the version of the code approved by the senate, the section regarding off-campus jurisdiction includes a section that says the misconduct must “specifically” “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.”
The version presented at Thursday’s hearing lacks the “specifically … ” clause. Grier, who wrote the newer version, said the changes were made to make the code compatible with state law, which requires the conduct code be in the language of administrative rule. She said the changes were intended to clarify the language – not alter its meaning.
Although she is “not unsympathetic” to Berkman’s concerns, Freinkel said she believes the removal of the clause makes the intent of the rule more clear and holds true to what the senate wanted.
“The ad hoc committee was concerned about the weirdness of the ‘OR…,’” Freinkel wrote in an e-mail.
The committee theorized that, combined with the removed clause, the word “or” could cause the code to be interpreted as saying that the misconduct would need to involve both a violent crime and academic misconduct for the University to have off-campus jurisdiction.
Berkman said the change to the off-campus jurisdiction section broadens the University’s scope of control over students’ off-campus behavior and expressed concern that the changes violated the democratic process.
“Now it’s like, if you violate the student conduct code, it looks like a laundry list. It could be anything. Now, they can extend jurisdiction if it would have violated the student conduct code had it occurred on campus,” she said.
Filippelli said the sudden changes had “usurped the democratic process.”
Berkman said that changing the document without notification violates the law.
“The Oregon administrative rules require that the University approve these changes and that students have impact on all rules and regulations that impact students,” she said.
The next step in the process of getting the conduct code approved is for Grier’s office to review all testimony given at the hearing. After the review process is complete and decisions have been made regarding the testimony, the code will be sent to the Oregon Secretary of State for approval.