The Code must Go

On Friday, April 21, the University of Michigan Board of Regents may very well make the reprehensible Statement of Students Rights and Responsibilities, widely known as the Code, a permanent policy. Supported by such administrators as University President James Duderstadt, Vice President of Student Affairs Maureen Hartford, and Judicial Advisor Mary Lou Antieau, the Code, currently an interm policy, tramples on the rights, liberties, and privacy of U-M students. Perhaps this is why student protest against the Code is growing steadily greater, and that students are looking upon the administration with lessening respect. Student sentiment over the Code is remarkably negative; therefore, if the administration passes the Code next Friday, the Review calls for students to demand the immediate resignations of Duderstadt, Hartford, and any regent who votes in support of the Code.

Why such a bold and harsh demand? Because never before have such a diverse and vast array of students stood united to show such a strong disapproval of any University action or policy. In recent months across campus, from the offices of the Michigan Daily to the offices of the Review, from the Michigan Student Assembly (MSA) headquarters to the meetings of the Student Civil Liberties Watch (SCLW), and from campus computing sites to the gatherings of the National Women's Rights Organization Coalition (NWROC), the shouts of protest and the words of resistance have echoed with resonance in an uproar against the Code. If the University administration and the Board of Regents ignore such strong student opinion, they have no place at the University, for with the passage of the Code, the administration will have shown a blatant and deplorable lack of respect for U-M students and their rights.

The many flaws of the Code are innumerable. The Review extensively has chronicled and exposed the Code's dangers throughout the last few years. But as a brief overview, the most obvious and glaring flaws of the Code are among the following:

1. A lack of student input in the Code's formulation. While the University did hold town meetings and supposedly sought student input in the Code's formulation, it is clear that any student input fell onto deaf ears. The Code is opposed by a huge portion of the students; indeed, a 1992 MSA ballot question found that 92 percent of student voters opposed the implementation of the Code. Yet this is the type of input the University chooses to ignore.

2. The lesson in buffoonery known as the amendment process. The University's amendment process is an exercise in idiocity. Not only did it take months and months to actually hold an amendment hearing, the bureaucracy that one encounters in trying to propose an amendemnt is staggering. Student input on Code amendments is weak at best.

3. The interm period of the Code has been less than successful. The Code has brought many students to trial durings its time as an interm policy. Most of these cases proceeded with a suspicious amount of vagueness, incompetence, and secrecy. Many students tried under the Code have come away with reactions of resentment and helplessness. The Code has yet to prove that is necessary to or capable of maintaining order at the University.

4. En Loco Parentis: In the place of parents. Plain and simple, students at the University of Michigan have reached the maturity of adulthood. The University's paternalistic dictatorship is both unconstitutional and unnecessary.

5. Innumerable violations of civil liberties, individual freedoms, and constitutional principles. The Code has the ability to pry into oneÕs non-academic and offÐcampus activities, restrict one's freedoms of speech and action, and usurp the civil court system as well as the right to due process. The Code is no less than a transgression against the civil liberties of students.

It would seem logical that the University President, the Vice-President for Student Affairs, and the Board of Regents would notice the hugely negative outcry that resonates across the campus. The students have spoken; the question is will the administration listen. If they do not, and the Code is not abolished, the University of Michigan students will have no choice, but to demand the resignation of the administrators that are supposed to be looking out for our best interests. MR