Another year, another Code. The process of creating a comprehensive policy for non-academic conduct has continued with interim drafts so long that hardly anyone even remembers what life was like before the Code. Finally, over the course of the past several months, this slow process came to a head. After voicing their disapproval of the old Statement of Student Rights and Responsibilities (SSRR), the regents ordered Vice-President for Student Affairs (VPSA) Maureen Hartford to begin anew and draft a new code with more student input. This eventually resulted in a Code workgroup of paid graduate students, and on October 24, the first draft of the new Code of Student Conduct (CSC) appeared in the Michigan Daily.
The CSC was intended to be a monumental leap away from rules and punishment, and toward the upholding of values, and unfortunately, this is where the CSC fails most miserably to protect students' rights and civil liberties. In the introduction of the CSC, these values are specified, including such words as "dignity" and "diversity." While upholding basic values may seem like a good idea, many of these values lack clear legal definitions, and some, such as civility, are personal matters, with which the University has no business meddling. Furthermore, the very concept of a policy attempting to enforce values instead of regulations is frightening; the purpose of a code, if one is necessary at all, should not be to control student behavior, but to protect students in those limited cases in which the actions of their peers puts them in immediate physical danger or makes the learning atmosphere of the U-M hostile toward them. Instead, the CSC attempts to erect some manner of grandiose Brave New Michigan, in which students are regulated to the point where they have no option but to be pleasant, quiet citizens.
Additionally, the CSC continues some of the worst features of the SSRR. Students can still be tried under the CSC for violence, murder, and many other actions that are already local, state, or federal crimes, and this prosecution under the CSC is in addition to prosecution under governmental laws; a student of the U-M, unlike other citizens of the United States, may be placed under double jeopardy through the CSC. The CSC, like the SSRR, also gives the VPSA the right to expel students under emergency conditions, another example of redundant policy, since the president of the University already has this power through the Regents' Bylaws.
However, surely the worst failing of the CSC is its openness to reinterpretation. Critics are correct in seeing the CSC as not being a literate document, and as being vague to the point of irrelevance. For instance, the draft of the CSC appearing in the Daily accorded to the VPSA the power to name a designee to handle the emergency suspension of students. It places no bounds, however, on who this designee may be, and places no restrictions on this power. This first draft of the CSC also allowed for any action that violates its list of values to be prosecuted, whether or not it was specifically listed as an offense within the CSC.
Of course, some of these things are being changed. In fact, at yesterday's meeting of the Michigan Student Assembly (MSA), the fifth draft of the CSC was released. This occurs well less than a month after the original draft appeared in the Daily! While this does show the workgroup's willingness to accept outside input and make necessary changes to its document, it also highlights the poor nature of the original draft. Considering the Code workgroup was given such a large amount of time to write this draft, and considering its members were paid to do it, this reflects very poorly on the workgroup. The workgroup was clearly either incompetent or ignorant on many issues concerning legality and the writing of legal documents.
This new Code must not be approved by students for simple reasons. First, while a code that is restrictive is a very dangerous thing, a code that is unclear is far worse. If students are to be held responsible by the University for non-academic conduct, then they must at least know the specific crimes for which they will be held accountable. Also, the University has no place in mandating that students adopt a set of values, whether these values come from the Board of Regents or from a group of graduate students. These values, like civility and diversity, threaten to destroy free speech on campus through the whim of the administrators, to whom the CSC essentially gives the power to re-interpret these values in any way they please.
The regents must vote to reject the CSC. Although this will result in the control of the Code's contents passing to the regents themselves, the CSC cannot be put in place if student's rights are considered to be of any importance at all.