4 OPINION Page 4 Tuesday, November 20, 1984 The Michigan Daily . 4 Nov. code d By Eric Schnaufer and Lee Winkleman Last Thursday, the University ad- ministration released still another ver- sion of the proposed student code of non-academic conduct (the code) and proposed University judicial system (the system). The changes from the March 5 code and system to the new Rules of the University Community, as the code is now called, and system still do not represent a significant recognition of student rights. The new rules and system either ignore or deflect students' fundamental objec- tions to the code. The administration has not relinquished its arbitrary authority over student life, not insured that students' due process rights will not be violated, not guaranteed studen- ts' right to dissent, and not recognized students' right to approve or reject both the new rules and system. Unless these basic objections are addressed, studen- ts should not accept any code and con- comitant judicial procedures. Students should not acquiesce to administrative intimidation and compromise their basic civil liberties and rights. In examining the new code, at least six questions must be answered. What changes were made? Did the ad- ministration have the authority to make those changes? Why were those changes made? Are those specific changes significant? What objec- tionable provisions remain? How bad are the new rules and system? The new rules and system are essen- tially the same as all previous drafts of the code and system. Compare them. yourself. Before examining them, it is crucial to reemphasize that the code and system have been revised many times in the past. In each case, the ad- ministration promoted a draft of the code and system as the fairest, most judicious, and most effective it was capable of writing. Yet, after each suc- cessive "revision" the administration conceded that its efforts were unaccep- table. Moreover, after each revision, the administration went to the Michigan Student Assembly to ask for MSA's endorsement of the draft. When successive MSAs rejected successive versions of the code, the administration tried to depict those MSAs as unreasonable or intransigent. The ad- ministration did not realize that the student governments were intelligent enough to recognize that the changes were either insubstantial or tactical. Although the proposed code and system have been revised many times, the ad- ministration has not relinquished any of its assumed arbitrary power over students' non-academic life. The Nov. 15 version of the code and system is not different and could not be expected to be different. In fact, the most noticeable change is the code's new name. President Shapiro has recently admitted that the new rules and system were not written to protect students or other members of the University com- munity. They are instead intended to protect the integrity of the University as an institution. It seems that the ad- ministration has no purpose for rules of conduct and judicial procedures that are either useful or acceptable to students. The administration does not acknowledge that laws and judicial procedures are intended to limit the arbitrary authority of those in power, not legitimate such authority. Hence, renaming the code and system is little more than a simple renaming. The new name is merely a clever bureaucratic maneuver designed to confuse members of the University community and to give the false impression that the ad- ministration has actually conceded something or compromised its inten- tions. So what are the changes? (1) The new rules apply to faculty and administrators. This may amount to no more than equal repression for all. It is also important to note that members of the University community will not be judged in the same manner. Faculty and staff do not have to suffer under the arbitrary discretion and ad hoc procedures of the students' new system but instead will be judged in their own system. The University administration intends now, as it always has, to treat students differently, that is more severely, than faculty or staff. Consider, for instance, the new rules' prohibition on furnishing false infor- mation. Our experience with ad- ministrators is that they have difficulty finding information in their files and accurately depicting information which they can find. Under the new rules students might be able to charge such raft ignores administrators with a violation. But, is only the regents' approval, m it reasonable to expect that an ad- made "pursuant to the ministrator will be punished for his or bylaws". This sounds good her deceit? Most likely, the ad- hollow. The code and the sys ministration will take judicial notice of the regents unilateral authoril the status of the accused and dismiss amendments. The new r the case for lack of evidence. After all, system say only that som students do not know what the fact of bylaw will be used to make an the matter is. ts. Yet, the question was neve student rights ust now be regents' but rings stem gave ty to make ules and e regental mendmen- er whether (2) Students are now allowed juries of their peers. The right to a peer jury might be nice if there was also a right to a jury trial. In the new system, students have a right to a jury trial only if the sanction is suspension for one semester or greater. In other words, you may lose half a semester's out-of- state tuition, be forced to withdraw from all of your classes, and not have a jury trial. Thus, a right to a jury by amendments would be made according to a bylaw. The dispute is over which specific bylaw will be used for amen- dments. MSA contends that bylaw 7.02 (or its equivalent) which gives MSA the power to approve amendments is the only acceptable bylaw for amending the code and system. The ad- ministration, on the other hand, argues that bylaw 7.02 only applies to the code or new rules and not to the system. If the administration is right-which we 'Students should not acquiesce to ad- ministrative intimidation and compromise their basic civil liberties and rights.' whether fair and judicious procedures can be implemented. One cannot assume that proposed procedures will be acceptable to the University com- munity. Second, it remains the case that a student may be punished and even suspended for political activities. In the new rules, moreover, there is no prac- tical difference between suspension and expulsion. No matter how judiciously political trials could be held, the ad- ministration can still use the threat of initiating such proceedings to discourage dissent. There might also be problems determining which activities should receive 'special' treatment and if it is fair that certain persons might receive greater due process protection based on the nature of their act. Third, in proposing the CLB draft procedures for incidents involving political freedoms, the administration is not respecting regents' bylaw 7.02 which gives the University Council the responsibility for such proposals. The administration has improperly usurped the authority of a regentally authorized committee. This is particularly ironic given that the University Council was created to deal with disruptive political activity. The 1968 "Report on the Com- mission on the Role of Students in Decision Making" states that the University Council should formulate rules governing activities such as sit- ins (p. 14). (6) The rules extend jurisidiction over fraternities, sororities, co-ops, and other "University affiliated" housing only in cases of physical harm, arson, and hazing. In restricting the jurisdic- tion of the rules over these autonomous groups, the administration steps in the right direction. Nonetheless, Greeks and co-opers should not be included at all. If someone presents a danger to a student in a fraternity, sorority, or co- op, the proper thing to do is call the police, not President Shapiro. In ad- dition, there is 'no guarantee that the jurisdiction over these off-campus houses will not be extended whenever the administration wants (See (4) above). Another way the ad- ministration can circumvent this change is to contend that a fraternity, sorority, or co-op party comes under the rules because it is a "University ac- tivity". This is likely since those houses are . University recognized organizations. Lastly, the wording of this section still leaves the extent that off-campus housing is covered by the rules to the administration's discretion. (7) Student journalists are exempt when acting within the scope of their journalistic activities. This is not only a major improvement from the code but also an attempt to moderate the Daily's opposition to the code and system. The reason this addition to the code is significant is that the administration does not appreciate the Daily's stance on many University issues. Maybe the administration will give an immunity to MSA representatives next! There is one problem though. If the rules are to ap- ply to faculty and staff, why are only "student" journalists extempted? Probably because the new rules were not and are not intended to be used against faculty and staff. The above is not an exhaustive ac- count of the changes in the March 5 code and system. Even if the actual changes were more significant than w4 know they are, most of the ad- ministration's code and system, as was expected, survived the latest revision intact. The administration retains con- trol over the hearing procedures which are themselves ad hoc. The hearing procedures are biased towards the con- viction of students. Students' right to full representation by legal counsel is still unrecognized. The prosecutor and judge are the same person. The ad- ministration can interfere with a' hearing board's deliberations. Many crucial terms or provisions are still vague, undefined, or ambiguous. The hearings can be secret when the ad- ministration wishes them to be. The administration will still proceed again- st a student in a criminal and/or civil court and in the system. There are many more difficulties with the new rules and system. Studen- ts have not come close to insuring that the code and system do not violate their' rights and freedoms. The new rules and system are wholly unacceptable. Another round in the code battle is waiting to be fought. Schnaufer is chairman of the Michigan Student Assembly's code committee. Winkleman is MSA 's code researcher. one's peers is gratuitous without a con- comitant right to a jury trial. Relatedly, jury trials will reach guilty verdicts when either two of three or four out of five students agree. The administration is obviously not convin- ced that it can convince all of its hand- picked students that a given student is guilty. The students are 'hand-picked' by President Shapiro to serve on hearing boards. (3) There will be no notation of san- ction or violation on a student's academic transcript. Students forced the administration to make this change. The administration claims that it was a "mistake" to have a provision for such notation in the code in the first place. It is sad that students must fight the ad- ministration for two years to correct errors due to its own incompetence. (4) An endments, instead of needing think it is not-or if the administration has the power-which we fear it does-it can amend the system through administrative fiat. In other words, all the changes in the system that the ad- ministration is making so much noise about (e.g. (2) above) are as temporary as it wishes them to be. (5) The administration has charged the Civil Liberties Board (CLB) with developing procedures for violations of the new rules' limitation of certain political freedoms. The administration made this change because it realized that the University community did not trust the administration to write fair procedures for political cases. Although this change is conceptually acceptable, three issues remain. First, the desirability political freedoms at all of limiting depends on .1 LETTERS TO THE DAILY t ae dtaniichig ant Edited and managed by students at The University of Michigan Free speech doesn't stand by itself Vol. XCV, No. 65 420 Maynard St. Ann Arbor, MI 48109 Editorials represent a majority opinion of the Daily's Editorial Board Acode is a code - co IT'S NOW called the "Rules for the University Community," but a code by any other name still stinks. The administration's latest attempt to produce a legitimate code of conduct has failed like its many predecessors. Cosmetic changes have been made, but the basic substance of the code is, and will remain, unacceptable. "Revision #1", as the latest draft has been labeled, promises to be followed by numbers two, three, and four, in an endless succession of minor ap- peasements that won't get to the heart of the problem. The very idea of a University non-academic code of con- duct is flawed. Numerous additions and alterations have been made to the code but its fun- damental injustices remain. While the accused is now allowed a jury of peers and access to counsel in some cases, great problems remain in the judicial system. A defendant may be found in- nocent in a civil court and yet still be found guilty by the University. The hearing board and officer retain the ability to use faulty evidence. The code allows for this saying, "rules of evidence common in courts of law shall not be mandatory." And most disturbing, the hearing officer and board need only feel that there is "clear and convin- ein" vi" liInee nf iuilt rather thain courts. That is, unless the University feels that the courts did not go far enough. Essentially, this provision is no different from the original version which allowed for double punishment. A particularly ambigious section of the new code requires that amendmen- ts to it be approved "pursuant to the Regents' Bylaws." That does not nec- essarily mean that amendments will be subject to bylaw 7.02 which gives the Michigan Student Assembly veto power, it simply means that the ad- ministration will make amendments subject to whatever bylaw they take as appropriate. The regents and ad- ministration made clear that an im- plementation of the old code was not contingent upon an MSA vote, so it is unlikely that MSA's approval will be required either in the implementation or modification of this code. Many questions surround this section of the code. The administration does not deserve the benefit of the doubt. The code is unjust in the most basic sense. It seeks to control the actions of students without an adequate regard for their legal rights. The code is also unnecessary. The statutes, jucidiary, and enforcement agencies of local, state, and federal governments To the Daily: I would like to respond to the letter by Ruth Milkman "Free speech double standard" (Daily, November 17) and to the com- ments by several of the regents that those who were involved in not allowing the CIA to make its . presentation on campus should be censured for violating the right of freedom of speech, "Regents criticize CIA protesters " (Daily, November 17). The assumption behind this line of reasoning is that the right to free speech somehow stands by itself, more powerful, compelling and important than other rights. Milkman says that whether or not the CIA is against free speech is irrelevant, but I have to disagree. The CIA has a long and proud history of subverting all forms of free speech, as is exem- plified by their role in the over- throw of elected governments. This is not a matter of conjecture, but is rather a matter of well- established, and often admitted, facts. Yet despite the exhaustive list of evidence, the CIA con- tinues its deadly and immoral ac- tivites. Witness the recent mining of the Nicaraguan harbor and the "freedom-fighters" manual that calls for the "neutralization" of Sandinista officials. The major reason that the CIA has been able to operate with im- punity is, in fact, a certain lack of freedom of speech that we not only tolerate, but encourage, in our society. Whereas it may be true that anyone is free to say whatever she/he wishes about Correction The new draft of the proposed code for non-academic conduct allows the accused to be represented by an attorney before a five member hearing the CIA, it is not true that anyone can be heard. People who would like to see the CIA punished for its systematic abuse of human rights do not have access to the media by which most people are informed and influenced. These same people do not have access to the large sums of money required to visit every prestigious university, or to place advertisements on TV, radio, or newspapers. Increasingly, as the media becomes more and more the property of large cor- porations, the mainstream press cannot be counted on to tell the truth about issues like these, sin- ce their owners have similar in- terests to those interests promulgated and protected by the activity of the CIA. This brings up a very impor- tant point which is too often overlooked in our society-lack of economic democracy subverts political democracy. So while it is true that we are all politically free to say what we feel, the lack of economic equality among in- terest groups guarantees that certain ideas will be more equal, and will receive more press coverage. The press, no matter how hard it tries, can never be ideologically neutral. For- BLOOM COUNTY 11:30p4m W 7 7p- 68°F. ova . IU tunately, The Daily has realized this and thus commendably sup- ported the anti-CIA action. Lastly, I would like to present to Milkman and the regents the following scenario. Imagine that many of your friends or family had been the victims of heinous crimes. Further, imagine that culpability was well-established; the guilty parties having often admitted it themselves. They have shown no sign of ceasing their activities, nor have they ever been punished. In fact, they seem to operate with the offical blessings of their society. They are now coming to your town to find people who want to help them commit similar crimes. Would you let them have their meeting? Would you welcome a Mafia recruiter to Ann Arbor? Would you not feel that other rights, such as the right of everyone to see these people brough to justice, were more im- portant to protect than the right of freedom of speech. Rights are relative! The patriots who foun- ded this country understood this concept when they authored a document that begins "When in the Course of human events..." 4 -Hugh McGuinnes November 19 McGuinness is a graduate student in biological sciences. 4 Unsigned editorials ap- pearing on the left side of this page represent a majority opinion of the Daily's Editorial Board. .4 by Berke Breathed ELIa . .nd .i, U'n¢iz Ms. M 0 rJ /I ,, -7- 6" jeWAIINt7 _ V1.5 ?)AL-Jri i AIJ n u~7 r u u V115 56W/PAY OW '177/5 Urtk IN DAh7 //7lWI1RPA/;V4 i l P' I Iuim d rkl I 1.0