The Statement of Student Rights and Responsibilities has a new face and name: the Code of Student Conduct. The new Code came about after about six months of work by a workgroup composed of students hired by the Office of Student Affairs and Vice President for Student Affairs Maureen Hartford. The first draft appeared three weeks ago and has undergone several changes since then. The Code is to be proposed to both MSA and the Board of Regents this week.
What makes the new code different from the old one? According to Hartford, "It is a value-based statement" and the document itself proclaims that "it describes possible behaviors which are inconsistent with the essential values of the University community." Values cited include civility, dignity, diversity, education, equality, freedom, honesty, and safety. The Code tries to use these specified values to say how students should conduct themselves.
The new code lays out a process for mediation and arbitration which is more palatable than in the old SSRR. The Code seems to almost emphasize mediation rather than arbitration or a hearing; complaints can be heard through mediation first and may never even get to a hearing. Previously, the University official in charge of implementing the Code was Judicial Advisor Mary Lou Antieau. Now, she's still in charge, but with the title of Resolution Coordinator. Essentially, she still coordinates the Code, just with a more benign title.
The old SSRR specified a 30 mile radius in which violations could occur. The new Code says that violations can occur only in the city of Ann Arbor, at University sponsored events or on University controlled property. One significant exception is that Code violations can occur "if the behavior poses an obvious and immediate threat or harm to any member(s) of the University community."
Previously, student panelists were selected randomly from the student population as a whole regardless of school enrollment. In reality, the panelists were not really selected randomly as in one case where the professor in charge of the hearing reselected panelists to get a "more mixed" group after getting too many undergraduate males in his first selection. In the new Code, student panelists would be appointed proportionately to their school's enrollment rather than randomly. This would remove any disproportionality or bias from panelist selection. In the Code draft, though, "it is expected that each [school's] student government will appoint a diverse pool of students."
There are twelve specific sanctions specified in the new draft of the Code, which are the only ones that can be used. There are new twists on possible sanctions, including attending a class or workshop, completing an educational project, and community service. The new Code allows for records to be maintained and available to accused students but has an exception to protect privacy rights of individuals. Historically, this exception has been used to shield all records from public scrutiny.
What isn't different from the old Code? Students may still "be accountable to both the legal system and the University" - double jeopardy. The Vice President for Student Affairs can still suspend a student in an emergency situation. There is still a lack of documented due process. A student is still not allowed any legal counsel during Code proceedings. And the six month limitation in which complaints may be initiated is still there, but now it can be waived if "a late submission is reasonable." Who is to know what any particular person's values at the U-M are? Surely the new Code could not reasonably expect to uphold the values of all different people. It is almost like the administration is forcing these values upon the student body. Yes, the pursuit of many of these values is honorable, but the values can be interpreted in different ways, leaving room for unfairness and bias.
The new Code limits its jurisdiction, but it has one major loophole; violations can still occur if it is determined that behavior poses a threat to University members. Having student panelists selected for a "diverse" group raises many questions. Whoever is in charge of appointing panelists can pick whoever they want for any reason. Diverse is a controversial word these days. Diversity in race, sex, religion, martial status, or what? Perhaps random selection is the way to go - as long as lists aren't returned for not being "representative" as has happened in the past. SACUA, the faculty senate, has recently said they are opposed to the new Code draft. Prof. Joan Lowenstein, of the Communication Department, believes the new Code has the same legal problems it had in the past. An ACLU lawyer has supported the new draft, or at least favors it more than the old SSRR. In reality, what any of these groups or people say has little impact on whether or not the Code is adopted. Ultimately, it lies in the hands of the Regents; not even with James Duderstadt, Maureen Hartford, Mary Lou Antieau, or any other administrator.
The Code Workgroup, in cooperation with Hartford and apparently MSA President Flint Wainess have been releasing revised drafts of the new Code over the past several weeks. In fact, a new draft is expected to be released for this week's MSA and Regents meetings. The continual flow of drafts only serves to confuse students; students already apathetic towards and sick of hearing about the Code.
The fundamental flaw - making the Code value-based - could spell its demise. Since values are inherently vague, this makes the Code inherently vague. Too much leeway is left to interpret sections in different ways. The Regents had asked for a less legalistic Code, but the Code Workgroup may have gone too far to the other extreme.
The Regents are not bound to accept this draft nor any other draft presented to them. They could easily write up their own Code, without any student input. Maybe it doesn't really matter because the new Code draft says it may be amended by majority vote of the Regents, leaving no provision for student input or influence.
Hartford has said that the new Code draft isn't written like she would have written it. This underscores her lack of awareness of student opposition to the Code itself and of course the contents of it. The new Code is much more acceptable than the old SSRR. But it still contains glaring violations of student rights which must be addressed. The Code may have received a fresh coat of paint, but its obvious flaws are still apparent.