Student government and University Senate officers met Monday to debate the contentious revisions to the Student Conduct Code, addressing the key issues of the University’s jurisdiction to punish students who violate the code on and off campus, student group punishments, legal representation for the accused and accusers, and access to personal files.
The Student Conduct Code is the rules and procedures manual University officials use to punish student misconduct on campus. Through a hearings process, students found responsible for egregious violations of the code can be suspended or expelled from the University or have a degree revoked.
Forum participants went back and forth on who should or could be held responsible in the event of a conduct code violation occurring off campus.
Parties disagreed on what crimes – or violations – should be dealt with by the University’s Office of Student Judicial Affairs, and which ones should be dealt with in the city or state criminal justice system.
“Not every crime should be within the University’s purview,” Student Senator and University Senator Mike Filippelli said.
“If the University feels there’s a compelling reason to deal with misconduct (that occurs) off campus, it should,” ad hoc committee co-chairwoman Lisa Freinkel said.
ASUO Programs Administrator David Goward said the proposal to allow the University to revoke an ASUO student group’s recognition as punishment under the code is illegal.
Goward said Melinda Grier, the general counsel to the University, told him that the conduct code can only be used to suspend an ASUO-recognized group, not revoke its recognition completely. To revoke a group’s recognition, he said, requires the approval of the EMU director and both the president and vice president of the ASUO.
Another key point of the dispute is the question of legal representation during the process. In the current code, students accused of breaking the conduct code and their alleged victims have the right to a lawyer. The revised code would shy from using lawyers and have students speak on their own behalf – in the presence of their attorney if desired – and confront their accuser or victim in a casual, conversation-based hearing.
Some have said students who speak English as a second language or who have a disability hindering their ability to present their case to the five-member hearings board would be disadvantaged.
Freinkel said such students should have someone from the University community, a faculty member, friend or even family member represent them.
Cassandra Day, another student government representative on the original Student Conduct Code Committee, said this approach brings more disadvantages. For example, a student could have a professor represent them who could better articulate and argue a case than the average student, which would put the average students at a disadvantage, she said.
Another issue discussed was the access to a student’s personal records of misconduct. Currently, the University provides copies of students files, but with the revisions, students would only be allowed to look at the files, not copy them.
Filippelli argued that this is unreasonable because students would then be unable to show their file to an attorney for advice.
Freinkel proposed making the University “pony up some cash” to pay for such copies, but no formal agreement was reached.
The University Senate ad hoc committee and student government will now meet again before the University Senate votes on the revisions on May 10.

Contact the campus and federal politics reporter at [email protected]