Page Ten

I1-It MICHIGAN UAILY

Wednesday, November 10, 1971

Page Ten U-IL MI(JI-Il(iAN LIAILY Wednesday, November 1 0, 1971


I

U' Council difficulties delay judiciary solution

(Continued from page 1)
However, since the University
court cannot operate without the
rules it was designed to enforce,
the University will continue, for
now, to operate under the Regents
Interim Rules - a situation which
most students find unsatisfactory
since the harsh Interim Rules, un-
like the proposed legal system, ap-
ply only to students. The new legal
system would apply uniformly to
students, facmry, and adminis-
trators.
The Regents Interim Rules are
a set of rules and penalties im-
posed by the Regents in April
1970-the end of an academic
year which saw major disruptions,
building take-overs and protests,
culminating in the Black Action
Movement class strike for in-
creased minority admissions.
The Regents imposed the rules
at that time out of reluctance to
let the University continue with-
out a definite conduct code while
a permanent judiciary was being
formulated.
The rules were instituted with
the understanding that they would
ultimately be replaced by the con-
duct code drawn up by UC and
the judicial mechanism decided
u p o n by the Committee on a
Permanent University Judiciary
(COPJ).
For at least the past five years,
there has been a general recogni-
tion of the need to have some type
of internal legal system at the
University which would reflect a
more tolerant attitude toward
various forms of political protests
than does the civil law.
However, University adminis-
trators, faculty, and students tend
to hold different opinions as to
what actions should be prohibited,
what penalties should be applied,
and how guilt should be deter-
mined.
As might be expected, the fac-
ulty and administrators have been
generally in favor of stricter
rules and penalties than the stu-
dents, who tend to favor lenient
standards.
Both UC, which is working on
the conduct code, and COPJ,
which just finished the judicial
mechanism, are tri-partite bodies
-composed of administrators, fac-
ulty and students.
The need for compromise in
formulation of the conduct code
For the student body:
Genuine
Authentic
Navy
PEA COATS
$251
Sizes 34 to 50
CHECKMAT
State Street at Liberty

is especially great because the
Regents bylaw which created UC
specifies that the rules must be
approved by SGC, Senate Assem-
bly and the Regents before they
can be implemented.
The judicial mechanism, while
not subject to formal approval by
Senate Assembly or SGC, could be
effectively vetoed by either group
should they refuse to appoint, re-
spectively, faculty or student
members to the court.
The judicial mechanism as fin-
ally approved by the Regents rep-
resented a major achievementin
reconciling differences between the
three interest groups.
Under the new court system, a
defendant would be tried by a
jury of six peers-a student by
students and a faculty member by
faculty members.
Guilt or innocence and punish-
ment must be determined by five
votes. Originally, faculty mem-
bers had favored a verdict decision
by a simple majority vote of the
jury, while students had pressed
for a required unanimous ver-
dict.
The jury system replaces the
Interim Rule provision for a sin-
gle "hearing officer," chosen by
President Robben Fleming from
outside the University community
to determine the guilt or inno-1
cence of the defendant and impose
sanctions.
The new court system also al-
lows a "complaint referee"-an'
outside legal expert who would
hear complaints concerning rule
violations and decide whether the
case should be tried.
Another controversial point of
the court system concerns the role
of the presiding judge. Under the
plan as approved by the Regents,
the presiding judge - who must
be a lawyer - makes the final
decision on all "points of law."
The associate judges - one stu-
dent and one faculty member -
act only in an advisory capacity.
The associate judges have an

actual vote only in deciding mat-
ters of decorum - such as whe-
ther or not a person should be
excluded from the courtroom.
Students had previously advo-
cated the original COPJ proposal
-that all judges be given a vote
in all matters.
A one year trial period is Iro-
vided for the judicial mecha-
nism( after which time it would
be subject to review by the Re-
gents.
The judicial mechanism also
orovides for a court of appeals
which would consist of six stu-
dents and sixcfaculty members.
The appeals court in addition to
hearing appeals from the lower
court, has the function of appoint-
ing member of the lower court.
Student members to the appeals
court will be appointed by a pro-
cess involving SGC, an inter-
viewing committee and the Re-
gents.
An interviewing committee picks
12 candidates to be submitted to
the Regents who may approve
any or all of them. From among
the candidates approved by the
Regents, SGC picks - presumably
with the advice of the interviewing
committee-the six who will serve
on the court.
The interviewing committee is
composed of three students chosen
by SGC and one student and one
faculty member chosen by COPJ.
A parallel process involving
Senate Assembly instead of, SGC
operates to pick faculty members
to the court.
At the present time, SGC has
picked two members of the inter-I
viewing committee and is expected
to name its third member this
week. The faculty interviewing
committee has already been op-
erating for several weeks.
Operation of the judicial mech-t
anism will be according to a man-
ual of procedure written by COPJ.
COPJ recently completed a final
review of the manual. It will now
be reviewed by UC before going to
the Regents for final approval.

While the court system has pro-
vided an example of successful
compromise between student and
faculty viewpoints, the conduct
rules-which the court system will
enforce-demonstrate the extent
of division between the viewpoints.
The first draft of the conduct
rules, released by UC last Febru-
ary, was rejected by both Senate
Assembly and SGC for entirely
opposite reasons.
The UC rules, like the Interim
Rules, prohibit certain types of
conduct-disruption of University
facilities, damage to property, use
of physical force against another
member of the University com-
munity, and continued occupation
of buildings.
However, unlike the I n t e r i m
Rules, the UC rules contain maxi-
mum penalties for the stated of-
fenses and would apply to faculty
and non-academic University em-
ployes as well as students.
There are three principle areas
of disagreement between students
and faculty members on the rules.
The first concerns the issue of
"double jeopardy." Although the
UG rules specify that the same
complaint cannot bring charges
against the same person in both
civil court and the University
court, it is possible that if two
people are simultaneously af-
fronted by a single defendant, one
could bring charges in civil court
and the other through the Uni-
versity court-thus subjecting theI
defendant to two trials for the
same offense.
Students claim this constitutes
double jeopardy and should not be
allowed. Many faculty members.
however, believe the same person
should be allowed to press charges
in both civil court and the Univer-
sity court.
The second area of disagreement
involves the use of expulsion as a
penalty. The UC rules allow a per-
son convicted of disruption for the
second time in one calendar year
to be suspended for up to one

semester, with the right of re- the University president or his
admission at the end of that time. designee, if the continued occupa-
Students generally= have taken tion would create a "substantial"
the position that suspension is not interference with University oper-
justified for any non-academic of- ation or risk of harm to persons or
fense, especially disruption. Dis- property.
ruption is defined as "depriving Faculty members have tended
any person of needed quiet, heat> to fear that the stipulation of
or other physical conditions of "substantial' interference or risk
work." Iwill difficult to rv i n r

0

Faculty members, on the other
hand, have supported outright ex-
pulsion for repeated infractions of,
the rules.
The final area of contention be-
tween faculty and students in-
volves the offense of occupying a
University building.
The UC rules prohibit the con-
tinued occupation of a University
facility after being given at least
half an hour notice to leave by
Order
Your
Subscription
Today
764-0558
I 2O

il A e u olic iu 1,a P 'v I II cour .
and thus provide a loophole mak-
ing successful prosecution almost
impossible.
Students, on the other hand,
often regard peaceful sit-ins as a
valid protest tactic, and disagree
that it should be an offense at all.
They also view the "substantial"
provision as a catch - all which
would be invoked for any building
takeover.
Keep Your Image
GET A SHAG
UM BARBERS
MON.-SAT.

Wed., Nov. 10-4 P.M.
A LECTURE on
Sufi ysticism
Dr. Mekdi Haeri,
from TEHRAN, IRAN
Second in a Series
'Dimensions of Religious Experience,
NOV. 18--"Christian Mysticism"
DEC. 1-"Philosophical & Scientific Aspects
of Yoga"
DEC. 8-"On Consciousness"
ANGELL HALL-Auditorium D
Sponsored by the Program on Studies in Religion
and the Office of Religious Affairs

I

am

i

AIRPORT
LIMOUSIN ES
for information call
971-3700
Tickets are available
at Travel Bureaus or
the Michigan Union
32 Trips/Day

"Cougar," shown above. Water-resistant. Self-winding, automatic
day-date calendar and 17-jewel, Swiss precision movement. Avail-
able with black or white dial and matching stainless steel bracelet.
$95.00.
Jacob~oi5

1

71

New

from

t'

I

101

FOREST
FIRES BURN
Cl0R E
THAN
TRE ES

MEMM"

. . . . . . ..:..........
NATURAL GOOD FOODS STORE & RESTAURANT
314 EAST LIBERTY
(BETWEEN 5TH & DIVISION)
TEL. 761-8679
T14F CTnQF If, MnW AA rmEln Ur VAI

I


SPECIALS
Humble Pie-Performance

(2-LP set)

Who-Meaty Beaty Big and Bouncy . .
J. Geils Bond-Morning After ......
John Lennon-Imagine ...........
Jeff Beck-Rough & Ready .........
Commander Cody-Lost in the Ozone

I


#2%w

/ alir l%

i


SIII