Scanned image of the page. Keyboard directions: use + to zoom in, - to zoom out, arrow keys to pan inside the viewer.

Page Options

Download this Issue


Something wrong?

Something wrong with this page? Report problem.

Rights / Permissions

This collection, digitized in collaboration with the Michigan Daily and the Board for Student Publications, contains materials that are protected by copyright law. Access to these materials is provided for non-profit educational and research purposes. If you use an item from this collection, it is your responsibility to consider the work's copyright status and obtain any required permission.

January 13, 1986 - Image 3

Resource type:
The Michigan Daily, 1986-01-13

Disclaimer: Computer generated plain text may have errors. Read more about this.

The Michigan Daily - Monday, January 13, 1986 - Page 3



administration debate nears end

(Continued from Page .2)
good intentions, their work could be
ammended later to become more
repressive, Rose said. Early drafts of
the code, in fact, denied students the
right to veto any changes in the rules.
Rose added that he felt the code was
unnecessary, because "there's
nothing in what I've seen that can't be
done through the civil courts, which
have evolved over a long period of
time to ensure the rights of the ac-
cused." Responding to ad-
ministrators' concerns about not
being able to bar dangerous students
from campus, Rose said that an in-
junction could be granted by the cour-
ts, or the accused could be barred
from campus as a term of their bail.
Such actions, however, would be on
relatively a short term basis. Drafts
of the code, would give administrators
the power to expel a student, though
they could be readmitted later, for
example, after undergoing
psychological treatment.
ROSE ALSO pointed out that under
the code, the University would be able
to take action through the civil courts,
as well as through an internal Univer-
sity judicial system. "Double jeopar-

dy" was also an important point of
opposition by students against the
In fact, a provision that remains
constant through all five revisions of
the first draft, states "a student may
be accountable to both the civil liber-
ties and to the University...
disciplinary action at the University
will not be subject to challenge
(because) a criminal charge in-
volving the same incident has been
dismissed or reduced."
"A student can be found completely
innocent by our court system and still
be punished by the University. If they
(the University) can't make their
charges stick, they shouldn't try to get
them through their own courts,"
Schnaufer said.
tend that without this provision, the
University would only be able to sit by
helplessly if a dangerous student slips
through the criminal court system.
Speaking about rapists who might be
allowed to return to campus, Shar-
phorn said, "We are concerned with
protecting due process, of course. But
we also have to be concerned with the

Works in Progress presents a program of original pieces tonight. Ron-
do, Caper, and Thaw, by Stanley Ryder and Ruth Bradley, followed by .
three new plays: Biddy Can't Sleep, by Linda Kendall; Fine Old
Feathers, by Buzz Tourbin; and Requiem, by Erika Block. Also, part two
of Tail of the Comet, by Jack Strubbs will be performed. The show begins
at 8 p.m. at the Performance Network, 408 W. Washington.
Michigan Theater Foundation - A Hard Day's Night, 8 p.m., Michigan
School of Music - Recital, Piano, 8 p.m., Recital Hall.
Chemistry - C. Frank Shaw III, "The Inorganic Biochemistry of Gold.
(I) Thiolates: Unique Anti-Arthritic Drugs," 4 p.m., room 1200,
Chemistry Bldg.
Near Eastern and North African Studies - Brown bag lecture, Joel
Fordon, "The Rise and Fall of Nasser's Free Officer Movement, 1949-
1954," noon, Commons room, Lane Hall.
Committee Against Racism and Apartheid - 7 p.m., Ecumenical
Campus Center.
Multiple Sclerosis Society - Counseling group; Significant Others
group, 7 p.m., Washtenaw United Way.
Tae Kwon Do Club - Practice, 6 p.m., CCRB Martial Arts room.
Society for Creative Anachronism -7 p.m., East Quad.
Nectarine Ballroom - New music with D. J. Roger LeLievre, 510 E.
Cedar Point - Auditions for singers and musicians for summer shows,
University Club - Buffet, 11:30 a.m.
To submit items for the Happenings Column, send them in care of
Happenings, The Michigan Daily, 420 Maynard St., Ann Arbor, MI 48109

Besides 'double jeopardy,' students
said the coucil's drafts violated other
civil rights. For example, the drafts
established a hearing board com-
posed primarily of faculty and ad-
ministrators. "This is a clear
violation of the legal principle that an
accused individual is entitled to a jury
of his or her peers," said a February
1984 letter by student leaders, in-
cluding then-MSA President Mary
Among other reasons, students also
said they opposed the drafts because
they dealt only with students. Ad-
ministrators responded that
guidelines already exist from faculty
and staff. Students, though, said it
made forming a more repressive code
against students easier.
IN THE spring of 1984, two years af-
ter his council began working on the
code, Colburn said at a public forum
that he hadn't anticipated the student
opposition his council's work had
However, it appears that the
University's executive officers did
foresee problems in getting the
needed support from MSA to make the
rule changes.
Shapiro, in a memo to the regents in
February 1984, wrote "I will seek to
negotiate with leaders of the Michigan
Student Assembly, but at this time, it
does not appear they are interested in
adopting any Code or system that
would come close to meeting the
University community's needs. If I
am right, it may be necessary to am-
mend Regents by-law 7.02 to take
away the Michigan Student Assem-
bly's ratification authority."
But even as early as the executive
officers' charge in 1982, they wrote
"the ratification requirements (by
MSA) of Regents by-law 7.02 stand as
barriers to the University Council's
ability to change this system in any
meaningful way the council may
recommend action .. .to ammend or
repeal...by-law 7.02."
FIVE MONTHS later, in a response
to the executive officers that was not
made public, the council agreed that
the by-law be changed.
The change, however, was never
proposed, Nordby said, as ad-
ministrators decided they wanted to
continue trying to reach a University-
wide consensus, and because student
input was actually proving helpful.
Drawing from student complaints,
the University administration, in
March 1984, took the code out of the
council and proposed its own version.
The draft, however, was not very dif-
ferent from the council's last draft;
the only substantial change coming in
the composition of the hearing boards.
a five-member board of two students,

two faculty, and one administrator, as
opposed to a three-member board of
one student, one faculty, and one ad-
Rowland rejected the ad-
ministration's proposal as only "lip
service," MSA later in March 1984
voted unanimously to reject the prop-
osal. And in MSA's elections in April,
70 percent of students voting said they
were opposed to the whole concept of
the code. Opposition to the code had
become solidified, and the battle lines
drawn for a final flurry of activity
over the rest of 1984.
Publically, the next six months,
however, would be relatively dull.
There were no drafts of the code
proposed. Students, Schnaufer said,
"went grassroots," trying to increase
awareness of the issue through public
forums, workshops, and sparsely-at-
tended rallies.
MEANWHILE, Sharphorn said
administrators worked on a second
administration proposal, that would
come out in November.
But privately, Schnaufer said
Shapiro was trying to bring an end to
the conflict, asking the new MSA
President, a more moderate student,
named Scott Page, to negotiate
privately in September. Page, now a
graduate student at the University of
Wisconsin, however,. said students
were distrustful of Shapiro's inten-
Schnaufer, who had then become an
MSA representative, explained, "We
felt that once we started negotiating,
it would be a tacit approval for a code,
and the administration would be able
to exploit it, and ram through their

own code."
AS A RESULT, MSA passed a
resolution late that September,
refusing to negotiate without a
guarantee that its veto power under
by-law 7.02 would be honored.
Shapiro refused, saying that any
precondition would "unnecessarily
constrain what might be creative ap-
proaches to any particular problem."
One administrator, who asked not to
be named, said administrators were
concerned that upon getting the guar-
antee, MSA would stall, and in effect,
prevent any code from being passed.
Through the next two months, Page
and Shapiro would negotiate
privately. With talks stalled, Shapiro,
announced he was sending the code
back to the University Council, where
it had left a year before.
"WE'VE BEEN talking for six
weeks about whether we should talk.
It seemed silly," Shapiro explained.
A week later, the administration
released its second proposal, asking
the council to comment on it. The
draft, renamed the "Rules of the
University Community," and
prepared by Nordby, made major
concessions to the students' demands :
" It would include faculty and staff in
its jurisdiction, not only students ;
*Hearing boards would be comprised
completely of students;
*Only hazing and violent acts in frat-
ernities and sororities could be acted
upon. The University, in previous
drafts, could act on any crime that
took place in a fraternity or sorority;

'It barred action against student
journalists acting "within the scope of
their journalistic responsibilities;"
"A record of non-academic violation
may not appear on a student's tran-
script, allaying some of the complainl-
ts against non-academic crimes being
punished academically. Students,
though, could still be barred from
class for non-academic crimes;
'Students would have a right to attor-
ney in cases when a student can be
suspended for more than one term. In
previous drafts, the hearing officer
had the discretion to limit the attor-
ney's role.
-It asked the Civil Liberties Board to
develop special procedures for cases
involving group assembly, free
speech, dissent, or academic freedom
sIt upheld by-law 7.02, mandating that
MSA and the Senate Assembly must
approve any change in the rules.
Previous drafts advocated a by-law
Sharphorn said that while the first
See CODE, page 6

" AomstuyExr fs

I PEARSON** $10 bonus with this adI
0- *Earn up to $l10per month I
I PEARL. with our weekly bonus program
S* Open for new donors
SMon., Wed., & Fri. 9-12:30
Tues. & Thurs. 1-5:45 I
I* Entrance on WASH TENAW Sat. 8-2
L *$10uita
""""""""A """R"""""""""""N""""""""""""" "!""

203 E. Hoover
Ann Arbor, MI 48104
Permanent Centers to More Than
120 Major U S Cities & Abroad
For Information About Other Centers
in New York State Stanley H Kaplan Educational Center Ltd


S 5 0o BONUS




3 " disks $22.95
with manufacturer's rebate

Back to Top

© 2022 Regents of the University of Michigan