The University’s Student Conduct Code is being completely revised for the first time since 1964, but members of the committee charged with drafting the new rules of student conduct said they don’t all agree that proposed changes are in students’ best interests.
The University Senate’s Student Conduct Code Committee presented a draft of the nearly complete, 23-page revision to the University Senate last week. Committee faculty co-chair Bill Daley described the changes, which are based on a popular model conduct code in use at a number of universities, as consistent with the best national practices.
“We have changed the tenor of the document,” Daley said. “We’ve changed the flavor, the thrust. So we’ve gone from a legalistic, punitive kind of system to an educational kind of system.”
Although the existing code has been criticized as being dry and outdated, committee student co-chair Michael Sherman said the students on the conduct code committee generally disagreed with proposed changes.
“The model code is much more flexible in allowing the University to determine if a student had violated the student conduct code,” Sherman said. “You end up with having a trade-off between flexibility and the rights that students have in the student conduct code.”
“Our (current) code is much more legalistic,” he added. “Not only in the language that it uses, but also in the types of procedures. It’s much more protective of the rights of an accused student.”
Corey Harmon, a student member of the group, said the four students and four faculty members in the committee have often been divided when discussing elements of the code.
“The students went with the faculty, and not necessarily willingly.” Harmon said. “I would say that the students made more of a compromise than the faculty did.
“There are some student rights that, we would say, are hindered by (the code),” Harmon said, adding that the proposed code is worse than the one the University has now.
Sherman said he feels like the updated code widens the definitions of violations, meaning more actions are considered offenses.
“You’re making it easier for students to violate the student conduct code and you’re making it easier for the University to find students guilty of those violations, and the sanctions are the same,” Sherman said.
Harmon and Sherman both said that they took issue with students’ legal representation.
“An attorney can still participate, (but) their role is much more limited,” Sherman said. “In serious situations, you have a chance of being expelled from the University, such a large loss for a student. If they are going to be expelled from the University, we think they should be able to have representation if they choose to do so.”
“Speaking from the student
perspective, there was nothing wrong with the existing code,”
Harmon said.
Director of Student Judicial Affairs Chris Loschiavo, ex-officio member of the committee and supporter of the proposed code, said he doesn’t share that viewpoint.
“We have a lot of students who are victimized by other students — who feel like the conduct process does not meet their needs,” Loschiavo said. “(The existing code) silences victims of violent crimes and discourages them from reporting and having violators held accountable.”
Loschiavo explained that when an accused student chooses to utilize the rarely used formal hearing process, a complainant or witness may be questioned by a defense attorney, a stressful situation that doesn’t encourage that person to explain the whole truth.
“Many times, what happens is that the victim says, ‘I don’t want to face a cross-examination,’” he said.
Loschiavo said the complicated process discourages students from voicing complaints.
“We don’t have a safe campus if, in some of our most violent offenses, the people who engage in those are not being held accountable,” Loschiavo said.
He added that in the proposed code, a student can still choose to appear before the faculty student hearing board in a formalized process. Attorneys can be present during process to give advice to the accused.
“Many times, what happens is that when attorneys get involved in the process, instead of the student talking about the situation … it’s the attorney doing all the talking,” he said of the existing situation. “A conduct process is not intended to mimic the criminal justice process; learning is supposed to occur through that process.”
In return, the University wouldn’t hire its own lawyer to perform the prosecution, Loschiavo added.
“Yes, the students don’t have the same representation that they once had. At the same time, the University isn’t hiring a very, very well educated attorney to prosecute them. I don’t believe that the University should be against any student in the conduct process.”
“(The model code) is educationally focused. It’s grounded on the best practices around the country,” Loschiavo said. “It creates a process that is fair for all students involved, much easier to understand, much more efficient and much less intimidating than the process that we already have.”
Hilary Berkman, director of the ASUO office of student advocacy and also an ex-officio committee member, said students should be allowed to exercise their rights to the extent they believe is warranted.
“I think that every student learns differently,” Berkman said. “To assume that one method works for everyone is not a good assumption. I think that some students learn from getting help … and some learn by speaking for themselves. I think all students learn from going through the process and I don’t think that their learning is dictated by the amount and type of help they receive.”
“What’s important is that the conduct code process gives students a fair opportunity to present their side of things,” Berkman said. “Limiting students’ access to procedural rights doesn’t necessarily further that goal.”
Loschiavo said the four students on the committee voted for many aspects of the model and that feedback from students outside the committee was gathered as well.
Sherman said while students approved a number of aspects of the code, the committee hadn’t yet had a chance to vote on the code in its entirety. After the committee votes, the revised code will go to senate review committee.
A new senate ad hoc committee will review the revised code once the existing committee approves it. Daley said the proposal should reach the University Senate floor by winter term 2006.

[email protected]