a OPINION Page 4 Tuesday, March 27, 1984 The Michigan Daily 1a Conduct code no good to NO CODE! By Eric Schnaufer and Andrew Boyd NO CODE! is a slogan, a campus- wide movement, a comprehensive critique of the code, and a student organization. The following is an outline of the organization's critique of the proposed student code of nonacademic conduct and proposed {University judicial system, informally known as "the code." NO CODE! has three major areas of concern: 1) con- tent and amendment procedure, 2) ap- proval and revision, and 3) rationale and justification. The conclusions of this critique are that the current proposed code must be rejected in its entirety and that, if there is to be a student-only code, students must write, revise, and approve this new code. NO CODE! encourages each and every student to read the actual code - available at the Office of Student Ser- vices, 3000 Michigan Union. We are confident that if students read the code they will reject it. Content and amendment procedure There are no guarantees of students' basic rights and liberties in the code. There is nothing in the code which prohibits the use of improperly ob- tained evidence in a hearing procedure. The code explicitly limits students' right to legal counsel. The code softens the criteria of guilt from 'beyond a reasonable doubt' to 'clear and convin- cing' evidence and from a unanimous to a majority verdict. The code jeopar- dizes legitimate civil disobedience, a right that can be defended in any federal, state, or local court. The code eliminates the right to a jury of one's peers. In fact, the code gives the University administration grand jury power. Un- der the proposed code, any student or "eligible" student must appear before a University tribunal. He or she must then give administrators whatever in- formation they request for an "official" University purpose. While this student may not be formally charged at this time, the information provided may later be used against this person. So much for the Fifth Amendment! The code's jurisdiction is doubly problematic. First, the code only ap- plies to students in violation of Regents' Bylaw 7.02. However,President Harold Shapiro has stated that faculty mem- bers may find themselves under a similar code soon enough. The second problem with the code's jurisdiction is that it applies to fraternities, co- operatives, and sororities. The Univer- sity has no right to interfere in the private lives of students living in these non-University houses. The code sometimes conflicts and of- ten overlaps with the existing criminal and civil judicial system. The code ex- pressly states that the University may try a student in its court even while local, state, or federal action is being taken. The University does not want to graduate students who it finds un- desirable. In' addition to selling educational credentials, the University wants to sell moral credentials. Since neither a criminal nor a civil court can mete out academic penalties for nonacademic behavior, the University has set up its own court system. The code's amendment procedure eliminates students' rights just as the substance of the code does. Once the code is approved, the regents have the power to unilaterally amend it. If, for example, co-ops are removed from the code's jurisdiction to placate co-op members, co-ops could again be added to its jurisdiction at the regents' whim. President Shapiro, moreover, has the power to add at any time any prohibitions he likes to the code. NO CODE! demands that MSA have the power to approve any amendments to any student-only code. Approval and revision Currently, MSA, the Senate Assem- bly, and the regents must approve the code under bylaw 7.02. Even before the University encountered strong student opposition to the code, it proposed to remove all student and faculty control over approval of the code. Over a year Bylaw 2.01 he has the sole prerogative to provide for health, diligence, and order among the students. We at NO CODE! believe that it would be the gravest affront to the democratic functioning of the University and to students' rights if 7.02 is changed, suspended, or deleted. NO CODE! demands that 7.02 be frozen as it presently stands, (i.e. that MSA and the Senate Assembly have a right to approve, reject, or renegotiate the code and that the code apply equally to been as closed and undemocratic as the code's approval process will be once the regents tamper with 7.02. NO CODE! encourages students to read successive versions of the code to see that the University has not compromised on any key section of the code to which studen- ts have objected. Student "input" into the code has so far consisted of a solicitation of ideas from various student leaders. Needless to say, the input from these students was largely ignored. The University ignores student input because it wants just those sections which the students find so objectionable. Hence, if there is to be a student only code, NO CODE! demands that students control the revision of the code. It should be turned over to MSA and the widest array of student groups and eventually be put to a vote of the student body. Currently, President Shapiro and the executive officers wholly control the revision of the code. We are not so naive as to believe they will relinquish their power over it, especially over the amendment sections. Thus, though NO CODE! believes the entire code must be stopped, students expressing particular concerns about the content of the code should also ask for the in- clusion of MSA approval in the amen- Ament sections of the code. Rationale and Justification Administrators have two basic arguments for the new code. First, other "peer" institutions have similar codes. This begs the question of the justice and fairness of the code. The code must be considered on its own merits. Just because another univer- sity has a bad code does not mean the University should too. The second argument is that the University is ill-equipped to' deal with students who present a danger to othep students in the University community: If this was the main reason for the code, then 75 percent of the code's prohibitions could be eliminated. The code prohibits everything from heckling, to lying, to being in the UGLI afterhours. Most of the code haA nothing to do with the safety and well being of students. It has more to do with the University's desire to, control student life outside as well as inside the classroom. The University already has effective and judicious means of dealing with dangerous individuals: stringent dorm leases, civil injunctions, criminal san- ctions, the present Rules of the Univer6 sity Community, and Regents' Bylaw 2.01. President Shapiro wrote to the regents that "the proposed code and judicial system do not provide the University with anything it does not already have under the existing rules of the University community and judicial system." Nor does the proposed code promise swift results; there are sub- stantial delays in the various stages of the adjudication procedure. The code does promise efficient results, if et ficient means the results the University wants when all is said and done. What the University wants to do is purge the University community of those it finds undesireable without protection either of the victims' or victimizers' rights. NO CODE! demands that the code be scrapped. If there is to be a new code, it must protect the rights and liberties of all students, including victims and vi4 timizers. It must be democratically approved, revised, and adjudicated. NO CODE! This article is endorsed by mem- bers of NO CODE!. Daily Photo by DAN HABIB NO CODE! is a student organization that is opposed to the University's proposed code of non-academic conduct. ago the University made plans to disen- franchise the student body and faculty through a revision of 7.02. There is a strong possibility that these plans will be carried through, perhaps as early as the April regents' meeting. President Shapiro claims the right to recommend such changes because, under Regents' all members of the University com- munity). It does not matter that President Shapiro claims absolute control over student conduct un- der Bylaw 2.01; students and faculty have a right to determine which of their behavior is acceptable or unacceptable. The code's revision process is and has &wI aigan I al'j Edited and managed by students at The University of Michigan LETTERS TO THE DAILY: Administration should abide by vote Vol. XCIV-No. 140 420 Maynard St. Ann Arbor, Ml 48109 Editorials represent a majority opinion of the Daily's Editorial Board Is anyone listening? I T'S AWFUL to suddenly realize that the person you're talking to is only nodding and saying "uh huh," not listening to a single word you say. Being ignored outright is annoying, but a feigned sense of interest patronizes in a much more painful way. The regents and administration are patronizing the student body. They look everyone in the eye and say that they are willing to listen - they even give an individual the opportunity to speak to them for five minutes once a month at .the regents' meeting. Perhaps most importantly, the regental bylaws state that no new provision will be ratified without the approval of the Michigan Student Assembly. But when it comes right down to it, the student voice goes in one ear and out the other. The student community has made it perfectly clear that it does not support the proposed student code of non- academic conduct. Student leaders, including the presidents of the Inter- fraternity Council, Panhellenic Association, most school governments, all of the candidates for next year's MSA, and the current assembly have uniformly rejected the code. The administration, however, has selective hearing. It is easy to listen when you like what you hear. University President Harold Shapiro's problem is that he doesn't like the sound of all this student disapproval. In order to be able to ignore the noise, he is considering the removal of the student body's right to approve the code before it can be enforced. Shapiro in a memorandum to the regents said that: "it may be necessary either to amend Regents' Bylaw 7.02 to take away the Michigan Student Assembly's ratification authority or to revoke it." At that point all of the disapproval in the world won't matter, the fact is that the code will pass. That would solve a big problem for Shapiro. He and the regents would have their code and eventually all of the fuss would die down - futility has that effect on people. But it would create another problem. It would force a questioning of the role the administration feels students play at this University. Do students have a legitimate voice concerning their experience here, or are they to be coddled and ignored for four years? An opportunity to voice disapproval of the code and the administration's attitude toward the student voice will be provided by two questions on today and tomorrow's MSA ballot - one question asks if the University should support a code, and the other asks if the code should be supported without first putting it to a student vote. The message most certainly will be that the student body does not want a code and that the issue should be put to a vote. Unfortunately, the administration won't really care. As Vice President for Student Services Henry Johnson said, "The bottom line is that the regents will approve (the code) one way or the other.'' It is time to wise up and realize that no one is listening to the students. Students and the administration cannot communicate on a common level. It's all too clear who is on top. To the Daily: The recent move by the regents to propose abolishing bylaw .02 is one of the most disturbing manifestations of paternalism which exists on this campus. I question the implications of such a move. Do the regents feel that a University is a place where there should be a free exchange of in- tellectual dialogue or do they feel that this exchange is one-sided, excluding the students. I per- sonally see the request to change the bylaw as a means of implying that students are not responsible members of the University com- munity at large. The proposed change also indicates that the faculty will be removed from the process. That leaves the policy process only to the ad- ministration. How many classes do they take? President Shapiro stated in his letter that the Michigan Student Assembly had no intention of par- Mudslinging t To the Daily: Like a true Democrat, Andrew Hartman has decided to spice up the 1984 MSA elections by 'slinging a little mud. 'LMNOP most qualified to lead MSA," (Daily, March 23). Unlike the barbs flying in the national primary, Hartman's charges are unsubstantiated and usually wrong. The candidates, while some are less experienced than others, are all sincere and none suffer from any lack of integrity. I share none of Hartman's con- cerns about the future of the student body regardless of who wins. Unfortunately for the LMNOP candidates, Hartman's letter detracts from that party's credibility. Candidates who slan- der their opponents are generally perceived worse and their image of honesty and integrity suffers badly. Furthermore, Hartman should realize that after the elec- tion, each party will have representation on the assembly. By fostering hostileaattitudes among candidates, Hartman is hindering the performance of next year's assembly, par- ticularly if LMNOP candidate Dlrewl Pit-vin wxins ticipating in the revision process of the code and thus finds it necessary to change the approval process. This is an interesting comment, considering that at the time he wrote the letter, the current MSA had not yet taken a vote on the issue. In fact, the assembly has put the issue out to a student referendum. It will ap- pear on the MSA election ballot, thus forcing MSA to abide by the decision for the following year. If the president finds it necessary to force the passing of the code above the students heads, I do hope that he does not disqualify the students from participating in some revision process, a formal one, I may add. Essentially the students have no power on this campus. The committees which I appoint students to are only advisory, in most circumstances. Even when there is some policy process in- volved, the students are over- whelmingly in the minority. The University Council proposed the code which was formulated with student input. I wonder how much time the students took to get out and ask other students their opinions. I think that the administration should abide by the student referendum because it will hopefully represent a broad opinion on the issue. - The one place where the students did have some power was in the approval process of th code. The -proposed change A bylaw 7.02 will take away this power. I regret this fact and hope that the regents will take a little more time to think about the im- plications of such a move. - Susan Povich March20 Povich is MSA 's Vice President of Personnel. Students should examine issues 4 To the Daily: I find it apalling that some of the candidates in the MSA elec- tions are playing .on voter ignorance to further their own political goals. When preparing our platform, we did extensive research into campus issues and existing campus services. Ap- parently, not all the parties did. YOU, with presidential can- didate Ron Senkowski, proposes 19 items in their tri-fold flyer. Of these 19, five already exist (i.e. alumni network, minorities in the recruitment process to boost minority enrollment), two have better systems in existence (AD- VICE station at CRISP and bulletin boards in the UGLi) and two have no rational reason for existing (credit evaluation and the referral system). Con- sidering the above, one must question the campus knowledge of Senkowski and his YOU ticket. Additionally, the LMNOP party and Drew Plevm, its presidential BLOOM COUNTY candidate, suffer from the same syndrome. Plevin was unable to answer a student question in the presidential debate asking why many of his proposals are not new, but.instead are already un- der consideration or in existence. Examples of these include the "Student Bill of Rights" (curren- tly being considered in the college of LSA by the Joint Student-Faculty Policy Commit- tee), active recruitment of minorities, and all of LMNOP's ''proposals'' regarding the student career planning services. Students should look closely at the issue stands of all candidates involved. : . do some of these "new ideas" already exist? If so, ask yourself why the need for this attempted deception. Also ask yourself if these people lie to you during the campaign, what will they do in office? -Jim Fieg March 23 Frego is candidate on the presidential the RAP ticket. 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. by Berke Breathed HCULO NURSE. IM DR. OPUS. I'0 ACK TO2 W'e.CRI86 SOW SPECW LMEL71CAT/ON FOR MR1I. IOAUA5 £OWN THERE?6IN ROOM 316... cLes65e,, A 20,9z. SIRLtOIN 5TrCAK, STIFFEP A"ICWYKE5, .5AL/T66BELGIUMVb1MUSHROOMS, s17R#1W8ERKY CREPES, 5EURA(. U-M5, A CASE OF 1rCQUI(/, RN/P AN AFFECTIONATE, 5WE0ISH MA55CL5e." HERC56171 PL-AIN TIFF, AU. OF WHICH, AMRIAU.Y, 15 CXCClGa4T FOR 1THE CAIZPIOV005(CMAR'.. 71E CAROIOVA51r I5... ME/ CARNI... THE &Lt5. lA RECS1-Ug PENVANT, 5i' 0 #or UIT MVl-f' UWE 1T~~Ir r F~ .. :":;ji{ ?rii :-::>'i:ii ii'is :: :i:<:i:':'i:i::_::>::ii: iiiiJ:C: i:::i:%;::::::::::iY:i:/' i:<:i::!: ::: .. ... .. - - - I ................ ... .....................