his year, the University decided it was time to revise its Student Conduct Code, and a draft of new rules was presented May 11 to the University Senate. The code is not yet finalized. Charged with drafting an updated code is a panel of four students and four faculty members termed the University Senate’s Student Conduct Code Committee.
Unfortunately, it seems the committee’s atmosphere while drafting the new code was not one of cooperation. An Emerald article last week indicated the new rules reflect more faculty than student influence. Among contested issues were students’ right to legal representation and an array of violation definitions that could make it easier to find students guilty of code violations. According to student committee member Corey Harmon, “the students made more of a compromise than the faculty did.”
Some University staff members have responded to these claims that the revised code reflects faculty rather than student opinions or needs. Director of Student Judicial Affairs Chris Loschiavo said the existing code doesn’t hold perpetrators of violent crime as accountable as possible because students shy away from reporting crimes because they don’t want a defense attorney to cross-
examine them in a hearing.
All of these points are legitimate, and it is easy to see the validity of both student and faculty opinions within the University Senate’s Student Conduct Code Committee. Less understandable, however, is the fact that faculty opinion apparently trumped student input at the end of the day.
It may be expected that students an
faculty differ on their viewpoints, but it is
absolutely reprehensible that when students are asked to share their opinions on important University policy, that opinion is ignored. There is no reason students should have to compromise their wishes; it is those four committee members who best represent the
University at large.
Ex-officio committee member Hilary Berkman questioned the faculty argument that lawyers can hinder a victim’s likelihood to seek prosecution. Berkman said “what’s important is that the conduct code process gives students a fair opportunity to present their side of things … limiting students’ access to procedural rights doesn’t necessarily further that goal.”
Berkman makes a critical point, but there is little evidence that student arguments such as these have received much attention from the faculty committee members thus far.
Student committee member Michael Sherman said that, in general, students on the committee did not agree with the conduct code revisions.
Luckily, there is still time to remedy these faults. The committee has not yet voted on the entire code. Before that time comes about, the voice of students should be heard, loud and clear, in the proposed changes.

[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]