4 OPINION Page 4 Thursday, March 1, 1984 The Michigan Daily Student lead We the undersigned are leaders of the " Students as unequal citizens various school and college governmen- A code for nonacademic behavior ts. We are writing to express our objec- pertaining only to students is based on tions to the proposed student code of the false premise that students should nonacademic conduct. This code is a be treated differently from faculty and direct assault on students' civil liber- staff on matters of general conduct. ties and on the rights we have won for The introduction to the code itself ourselves in the past. It represents a states, "The purpose of the Student reversal of social progress in the United Code of Nonacademic Conduct is to help States, which, over the past several protect the safety and well-being of the decades, has expanded the rights of the campus community . . . The respon- individual. sibility for maintaining such an en- After serious discussion of the issues vironment is shared by all members of raised by this code, we find it objec- the University community." Although tionable and unacceptable. We urge the there should be separate rules for University's rejection of it. separate relationships (i.e. students Our objections are in the following are residents; faculty/staff are em- categories: ployees),drules of this sort should be " Double jeopardy generated and enforced by the mem- First, it creates a judicial system bers affected. However, in matters of which overlaps the existing civil general conduct, uniform rules are criminalejustice system and enables the mThe dnsersits a pamf University to isolate itself from society. munity; this code segregates a part of this community. Let us continue to ex- Is it appropriate for a university to yetcammuchfrLetdentsaswe do separate itself in this manner? Even in from faculty and staff, no less and no the light of all the inadequacies of more! society's judicial system, shouldn't we - Civil liberties and due process denied instead join our welfare with the While the code applies only to welfare of the rest of society and work students, the hearing officer and/or for reform? In addition, the code's board is primarily composed of faculty existence specifically allows for double and administrators. This is a clear jeopardy. Students, for committing one violation of the legal principle that an offense, are punishable by both civil accused individual is- entitled to a trial authorities and by the University ad- bya jury of his or her peers. If adopted, ministration. ". . . A student may be ac- this aspect of the code will give studen- countable to both civil authorities and ts the status of second class citizens. to the University" for the same act, the The proposed code will violate the code reads. In fact, ". . . disciplinary civil liberties of accused students in action at the University will not be sub- various ways: ject to challenge," simply because ".. . a criminal charge involving the same a) formal rules of evidence do not incident has been dismissed or reduced apply (e.g. in a court of law hear- by a court of law." say is not admissible evidence; in ers op the proposed judicial system it would be). b) guilt is based on "clear and convincing evidence" the code reads. In a court of law it must be based on evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt." c) the current code provides that any person who files a complaint may not "initiate or maintain proceedings in a civil court .. . against the same respondent on account of the same act." The proposed code does not include pose c non-academic conduct. However, the University does not and cannot provide the protections of civil liberties which are standard in civil and criminal law. This code places severe restrictions on conduct. Prohibited conduct in- cludes theft, sexual harassment, and possession of fireworks. Unfortunately, it also prohibits civil disobedience and other forms of protest. This cannot be tolerated at an institution of higher education. " Student rights denied/student privacy invaded The code does not sufficiently mat- onduct code 4 'The University is a community; this code segregates a part of this community. Let us continue to expect as much from students as we do from faculty and staff, no less and no more !' may be ". . . forbidden from running for or holding office in any student organization or team," the code reads. We must not allow the University ad- ministration to dictate who can and cannot be officers in our organizations. The University also seeks to extend its jurisdiction to what are traditionally considered non-University residences such as sororities, fraternities, and co- operatives. Are we to allow the Univer- sity to regulate our lives in the privacy of our own homes? While we are critical of this document, we recognize that there are real safety concerns which must be ad- dressed. Students, faculty, and staff have a right to an environment where they will not be harassed. Unfor- tunately, this code is reactive when what we need are more proactive measures which would prevent violen- ce before there is a victim. Preven- tative measures may include increased security, foot patrols, and increased coordination with the Ann Arbor Police Department. We also recommend that counseling and public service be em- phasized as corrective measures in lieu of simply academic punishments. This would show the University's commit- ment to alleviating the pressures that foster deviant behavior, instead of merely punishing its community mem- bers. In fact, the energy used in ad- vocating or opposing this code could be better used in developing creative measures to prevent the inappropriate behavior involved. The proposed student code of nonacademic conduct is abhorrent. It symbolizes a regression to the days of in loco parentis - whereby the University acted as substitute parent. This code is unacceptable at the University of Michigan, for it displays. disrepect toward the members of the University community it is here to ser- ve - the students. This piece was composed by: Matthew Harris, President Inter- fraternity Council; Mary Rowland, President Michigan Student Assem- bly; Lawrence Stock, President Engineering Council; Eric Berman,4 President LSA Student Gover- nment; Maureen Schreiber, President Nursing Council; Donna Sopher, President Library Science Student Organization; Vivian Mon- tegomery, President Music School Student Government; Sheila John- son, President Law School Student Senate; Nancy Hirsh, President School of Natural Resources Student Government; Sonia Nor- dgren, President Panhellenic Association; Anne Ryan, President Public Health Student Association; Jennifer Krause, President Art School Steering Committee; School of Education Student Government and Architecture Student this protection. d) the hearing officer decides whether or not an attorney may participate. e) the hearing board determines the impartiality of any hearing officer if objections are raised by the accused. Further, there are no established qualifications for the hearing officer or board members and their authority is largely unchecked. Obviously the University is seeking to expand its jurisdiction over student ch punishments to violations. Thus, the hearing officer is allowed excessive flexibility in assigning penalties. More importantly, many of the sanctions are academic in nature, up to and including expulsion from the University. But the types of misconduct specified in the code are nonacademic and, therefore, should not jeopardize one's academic record. The code also infringes on students' rights to determine their own affairs. One penalty provides that a student Association. 4 I Stewart Edited and managed by students at The University of Michigan Vol. XCIV-No. 118 420 Maynard St. Ann Arbor, MI 48109 HART BURN,,, "tom- uc 4 ,.f';'1 Editorials represent a majority opinion of the Daily's Editorial Board Broadening the field -I- e %\ VEN THOUGH Gary Hart won the New Hampshire primary, the real winners are the Democratic party and the process of electoral politics. With all deference to former Vice President Walter Mondale, his dethroning from a position of "invin- cibility" will enrich the debate surrounding the Democratic presiden- tial nomination and liberate many voters afraid of throwing away their votes on those candidates not per- ceived as viable. The months of primaries and caucuses are a time for the American public to test the candidates and in- dicate to party leadership the can- didate they feel would best lead the country for the next four years. It should be a time of analysis and debate, not an exercise in foregone conclusions. At this point in the campaign, every candidate should be in a vulnerable position in order to force them to define their political positions clearly. A fron- trunner perceived as being unbeatable is all the more likely to remain aloof and think about November instead of welcoming the political examination that these months require. The strength of the Democratic candidate in September and October will depend largely upon the trials faced during the earlier months of examination and criticism. The Democratic party's strongest candidate will be the one who has won the toughest battles and passed the closest scrutiny. During one of the Iowa debates George McGovern asked that the con- stitutents not fear throwing away their votes, but fear instead throwing away their consciences. The New Hampshire results indicate that the electorate was able to ignore the polls and the predic- tions of the media and vote its con- science. Unhindered by fears that they were voting for a candidate who was not viable, the electorate turned the tables on all of the predictions and supported a candidate previously thought to have little chance of victory. Ultimately a candidate is viable not because the opinion polls say so, but because the voters say so. New Hampshire dictated that there is now more than one person in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination. And all those who stand to gain something from that race - the party, the candidates, and the American public - are better off for it. INDIGESTION, SIR? C- LETTERS TO THE DAILY: A cal/for non-discrimination policy To the Daily: We, the members of the Michigan Student Assembly, wholeheartedly support a non- discrimination policy based on sexual orientation. Such a statement in the form of a presidential policy, would show the University's commitment to the equality of all people. It will demonstrate that discrimination against lesbians and gay men will not be tolerated at the University. Members of the Lesbian and Gay Rights on Campus (LaGroc) have set a deadline of Thursday, March 1, 1984 to hear from President Shapiro about this issue. There has been a great deal of time and energy devoted to the development of such a policy. It is time for President Shapiro to put in to action his previous promises and issue the presidential policy requested. Let the University make a strong commitment to the equality of all its members and set an example for society as a whole regarding such an impor- tant issue. We should not have to wait any longer. - Mary Rowland February 2& Rowland is President of the Michigan Student Assembly. A tightening grip Letters and columns represent the opinions of the individual author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the attitudes of the Daily. Unsigned editorials appearing on the left side of this page represent a majority opinion of the Daily's Editorial Board. 4 To the Daily: A last New Year's resolution of mine was to never mention George Orwell during all of 1984. That resolution must, alas, now be broken. For what seems on the state legislative horizon is too much to keep silent about, to wit, mandatory seatbelting. Even Mandatory seatbelting would give even Big Brother the creeps. -S. Colman Detroit February 18 BLOOM COUNTY by Berke Breathed SAY, PpRTNOY... S .. . .nnnr rV nc I'M 5(JRPRt561? AT YOU! _SAY, ~fNY.. L YOU KNOW .I U6 A' W N (7HRTIN'T YEAH... I WKE T' 1HWK r 1.1/101/ CAC -rvc I nVr_ ,w 7HAT DON' i --.M