Code Amendment Recommendations
Last week, after a two month delay, the University of Michigan's Office of the Judiciary finally released the Student
Judicial Board's recommended revisions to the Statement of Student Rights and Responsibilities (SSRR). These
recommendations are now pending review by the Board of Regents. In light of this step in the amendment process, the
Michigan Review proposes the Regents take action concerning the following Student Judicial Board's recommendations:
Striking the word physical from the SSRR's description of physical assault. Striking the physical from the
description of assault at most makes this portion of the SSRR ambiguous at best. While legal experts maintain this
merely clarifies the SSRR's description of assault and battery, the Review fears that this modification merely paves
the way for a speech code. For example, is one student calling another a "conservative" in a political science class
assault if it hurts the student's "feelings?" The ambiguity of this proposal leaves it open to a wide variety of
interpretation by a student judiciary largely untrained in law. What is assault? Is verbal abuse assault? There is a
fine line here, and the Review finds it hard to trust the administration, or astudent judiciary panel, in the application
of this proposed amendment. The Review recommends that the regents strike down this proposed amendment to the SSRR.
Addition of the right to "be accompanied by an advisor or attorney who may act as a consultant but not a
representative during all meetings and hearings." While the Review feels that the SSRR should allow full legal
representation, this amendment is a step towards that goal - after all, a little legal representation is better than none
at all. Being that a SSRR trial has a significant affect on a student's academic career, this seems only a logical
amendment to the SSRR.
Addition of the Advisor Corps as "an optional resource providing information and/or guidance about the student judicial
process." The Advisor Corps would consist of ten students trained in judicial board procedure. This provision is a
wise addition to the SSRR, but if and only if it is passed in conjunction with the above amendment that a student has the
right to be accompanied and consulted by an attorney. This way, an individual would be guaranteed either professional
legal accompaniment and advisory or at least trained Advisor Corps expertise. Then, financial constraints would have a
smaller affect on the outcome of a SSRR procedure. Since students making up the Advisor Corps would be appointed by the
Michigan Student Assembly (MSA), it is assumed that these students will have an active interest in the SSRR. Therefore,
unlike the SSRR amendment hearings, only students with an active interest in the SSRR will make up Advisor Corps.
In short, the Revire recommends this amendment as a necessary evil in the application of the SSRR.
Striking and changing the "30 mile proviso" into a nearly infinite radius. This amendment is, simply put, asinine. While
the amendment recognizes the fact that most actions away from the U-M community will be nearly impossible to monitor
and/or prosecute, it still leaves the University the ability to do so. However, instead of the "within 30 miles of campus"
that it replaces, the proposed amendment, by deletion, extends this "radius of prosecution" infinitely. The Review
believes that a more suitable amendment would be to limit the SSRR only to members of the U-M community only while they
are on the official U-M campus. For the University to pursue violations outside its community is a mindless extension of
power that, civil rights aside, will only be inefficient and expensive to undertake.
Addition of lifting emergency suspension of a student if the given charges are dismissed by authorities or the
student is found to be not guilty in the court of law. The Review believes this is simply a common sense addition to the
SSRR. While this proposal certainly will not ensure the elimination of double jeopardy under the SSRR, it does lessen its
probability.
Changing the minimum number of student judicial panelists required for an amendment hearing from 26 to 21. This
seems logical, in light of the fact that the University had so much trouble gathering 26 of the student judiciary panel
members. However, the Review does question leaving the fate of the SSRR, essentially an all-campus constitution, in the
hands of a small plurality of the students.
Allowing for the right to an open hearing, unless the complaint does not allege sexual assault or sexual
harassment. First of all, adding "sexual" to the description of "sexual harassment" is only logical, after the discrepancy
of this part of the SSRR that took place under the Welch/Lavie hearings. Also, this proposed amendment allows for open
hearings for even student hearings. The Review deems this an essential part of a trial - the right to have it open to the
public. It allows for the monitoring of the trial by outside sources; it acts as a "check" on the University's judicial
process under the SSRR, which, frankly, needs all the "check" it can get.
While the Review firmly believes that the SSRR, or any form of non-academic composed by the University, should be
abolished, the above amendments are a necessary evil in ensuring that the current SSRR is applied somewhat fairly. Let us
all hope that the Board of Regents acts wisely in choosing amendments for the SSRR - the fate of student civil rights
weighs heavily in this decision.
MR