Students' Rights, Code Wrongs
Guilty Until Proven Innocent

By C.J. Carnacchio

Once again it is time to play U-M history trivia. What infamous University policy went into effect on January 1, 1996? Here are a few hints: As a result of this policy, the student body's civil rights and liberties became the personal playthings of then Vice President for Student Affairs/Student Oppressor Maureen "Damn the Constitution, give me absolute power!" Hartford. The weight of the administration's iron boot became a little heavier on each student's throat. The University seized our ships, occupied our cities, and did violence to our citizens. (Well, maybe not the last one.) Give up? It was on this dark day that the most recent version of the draconian Code of Student Conduct went into effect. Copies are currently available in both English and the original German.

During the Code's drafting and initial implementation there was a strong anti-Code spirit among the student population. There were anti-Code activist groups and demonstrations. Most student groups sided against the Code. The American Civil Liberties Union attacked the Code's inherent civil rights violations. Both the Review and the Michigan Daily printed numerous editorials condemning the Code and the secretive, undemocratic process by which it was conceived. Students and alumni even signed "reverse pledges" which stated that they would not give the University a penny in donations until the Code was abolished and students' rights were restored.

Unfortunately, sometime during these last two years since the Code's implementation, the student body's anti-Code fervor and activism turned into apathy and acceptance. The student campaign against the Code greatly resembled France's participation in World War II: token resistance followed by total surrender. The Michigan Student Assembly (MSA) even played the role of Vichy; a government which betrayed its people and collaborated with the enemy. This is no big surprise, considering that MSA has always proven itself to be a government of the administration, by the administration, and for the administration. A true parliament of political whores.

It is high time that someone refreshed the student body's collective memory as to how tyrannical, insidious, and just plain evil the Code truly is. Let's begin with the Code's most serious violation of students' civil rights: placing Code violators in double jeopardy. The Code states: "Because some violations of these standards [the essential values of the University of Michigan, listed in the Code's introduction] are also violations of law, students may be accountable to both the legal system and the University." This clause allows the University to punish students again for acts which are already illegal and under the court system's jurisdiction. A student who is sanctioned by both the legal system and the University for a particular violation is effectively tried and punished twice for the same crime.

The language of the Code also implies that even if a student is acquitted of a crime by a court of law, they may still be subject to prosecution and sanction under the Code. So, even if a student has been found "not guilty" by local, state, or federal authorities, the University has given itself the right and the means to judge and punish that same student for the same violation, regardless of the legal system's rulings. This represents the height of this Academic Gulag's arrogance and tyranny. The University justifies this unjust power with a statement in the Code which reads: "Because the University establishes high standards for membership, its standards of conduct, while falling within the limits of the law, may exceed federal, state, or local requirements." Again, what arrogance!

Another of the Code's serious violations of students' civil rights involves its denial of legal representation to students during Code arbitrations. The Code states: "Each party involved in arbitration has the right to be assisted but not represented by an advisor of her or his choice." This brings to mind the old saying, "A man who represents himself has a fool for a client." The University defends this deplorable clause by twice stating in the Code that its resolution and appeal processes are administrative functions and "should not be equated with the procedures used in civil or criminal court," nor are they "subject to the same rules of civil or criminal proceedings." Of course, these rules do not apply because in a court of law individuals actually have real rights protected by the Constitution, and are not subject to the arbitrary and absolute power of University bureaucrats who take pleasure in robbing students of their sweet liberty. One choice clause reads: "All procedural and interpretive questions concerning the Code will be resolved by the VPSA or designee." Call me paranoid, but does anyone else feel a tad uneasy about relying on University administrators and their lackeys to inform students of their rights and protect them?

Another tyrannical facet of the Code can be found in its geographical jurisdiction. Not only does the Code's power extend over University controlled property and University sponsored events/programs, it also encompasses the city of Ann Arbor and outside Ann Arbor as well. The reach of the University's power should extend no farther than its property lines. When a student is off University-controlled property, he should be subject to the same local, state, and federal laws as everyone else and nothing more. The University has absolutely no right to place its students under the Code's jurisdiction when they are acting on their own time off University property. Society's laws are presently sufficient without the aid of a University code of conduct to maintain social order and restrain and protect its citizens, including U-M students.

The Code is little more than an attempt to control the lives of students. The University's advocation and implementation of a behavioral code sends the message that students are still children and not adults (or real citizens with rights and liberties). Federal, state, and local laws provide sufficient restraints on the conduct of adults outside the University. There is no reason these laws should not be sufficient restraints for students who are, despite the administration and regents' view, adults and citizens as well. The University's in loco parentis justification of the Code is just another weak rationale for its usurpation of students' rights and liberties.

Administrators and regents argued during the Code's formation that it was the federal government which mandated the University have such a code, and given the University's dependence on federal funding they had no choice but to comply. But the federal government simply mandates that all federally funded institutions of higher education implement policies regarding alcohol abuse, drug abuse, and sexual harassment and assault. The U-M Code of Student Conduct goes far beyond these minimum federal requirements. The Code, in its current all-encompassing, civil rights- violating, double-jeopardizing, kangaroo court form, is the product of the administration and the Board of Regents' demented and dictatorial desires to regulate students' lives; not to meet federal mandates.

A September 13, 1995 Review editorial offered the perfect solution to satisfy both the federal government's policy mandates and the student body's concern over civil rights. The editorial suggested the implementation of a minimal code which would simply read: "The University's policy on drug and alcohol use and sexual harassment is to let the judicial system handle it." The editorial further reasoned that, "With such a policy in place, the federal government would be satisfied, the administration and regents would have a 'code,' and the rights of students would remain intact." The only flaw in this logic is that it assumes the administration and regents simply want a code to meet federal mandates, when in reality they desire to rule students' lives with an iron fist. MR

This article was published in the New Student Issue of The Michigan Review (Volume 18, Number 1).
For questions or comments, see the Contact Information page.