26 - Thetichigan Daily - Crackinke Code - Tuesday, Februal6, 1999
0
0
a
The Michigaailv -, Cracking1
. . r rrv rirrvrrrbww c"vrrJ yr v... r.'_."b.. _'.
WHAT IS THE CODE?
The University, MSA examine Code of
Student Conduct implementation on campus t
Regents prepare to
listen to reviews
By Katie Plona
Daily News Editor
This week, when the eight members
>f the University Board of Regents pub-
lically discuss how well the procedures
)f the University-wide policy are work-
ig, it will bring more than six months
f Code review to an end.
Throughout the University and the
Vichigan Student Assembly's separate
eview processes, many administrators
md students have hoped to draw more
tudent interest to the Code and make
:he document better known.
Still, many students are left in the
iark - many times a result of their own
ipathy or a result of little exposure to
he Code.
So, what is the Code?
The Code is the University's internal
Jisciplinary system, based on a set of val-
.is -- including dignity, diversity, safety
md honesty - the University enforces to
:reate a scholarly environment.
The University can discipline students
:an be disciplined under the Code for a
number of violations, such as physically
>r sexually harming another person, mis-
ising alcohol and other drugs or tamper-
ing with University property.
They can receive sanctions ranging
from educational projects to expulsion,
although fewer than 15 students have
been suspended or expelled under the
Code, through 1998. The Code is
intended to be educational in nature and
less legalistic than state or federal stat-
ies, Vice President for Student Affairs
Maureen Hartford said.
The Code was drafted out of the
Statement of Student Rights and
Responsibilities, which served as a tem-
porary discipline policy from 1993-96.
"The regents asked us to come up
with a code that was more simple and
less legalistic;" Hartford said. That was
:he task of the 1995 all-student commit-
tee that drafted what would later
become the Code, she said.
Sean Esteban McCabe, who now
heads the Office of Student Conflict
Resolution that oversees the Code, was
one of eight students who drafted the
original policy.
"It was a complete redrafting,"
McCabe said. "The intent was to define
standards for our community based on
shared values.'
The student drafting committee for-
warded its policy to Hartford, who
modified it and handed it over to the
regents, who enacted the new policy in
January 1996.
Since then, the University has
processed more than 200 Code cases
consisting of 615 alleged violations.
Two of the most common types of
alleged violations fall under the cate-
gories of "stealing, vandalizing, damag-
ing, destroying or defacing University
property or the property of others" and
"physically harming another person
including acts such as killing, assault-
ing or battering."
Reviewing the Code
When the regents adopted the Code
in January 1996, they scheduled the
1998 review. The Office of Student
Conflict Resolution staff completed the
first part of the three-phase review in
May. During the first phase, the office's
staff evaluated the effectiveness of the
Code process.
For the second part of the review,
Hartford commissioned a nine-person
group of administrators, faculty members
and students to perform a University-
wide review of the Code process.
The Code Implementation Review
Committee, which was chaired by
Career Planning and Placement Director
Simone Himbeault Taylor, working
since the summer months to compile
data and put together its report, which
Hartford then received in October.
"It is going to provideta snapshot of
the University opinion that we were
able to garner," Taylor said during the
review process. To get a representative
sample of University opinions, the
committee facilitated focus groups of
administrators, faculty and students.
During the focus sessions, people could
comment anonymously on how the
Code has been implemented.
Reviewers targeted groups of random
students through telephone surveys in
the second phase. They also sent letters
to students who had been accused of
violating the Code, asking them how
well - in their opinions - the Code
process worked.
During the Code review panel's week-
ly meetings, Taylor said, its members left
their personal feelings at the door.
"We are making every effort to make
it very objective," she said. "It does not
reflect our point of view."
The third phase of the Code review
process began in November and con-
sisted of an outside analysis by consul-
tants from peer universities. Hartford
said she asked representatives from
Northwestern University, Dartmouth
University and the University of
Virginia to serve as review consultants.
The team of consultants had access to
all material from the first two parts of
the review process. It was able to inter-
view members of the University com-
munity to conclude with a comprehen-
sive report about the effectiveness of
the Code's implementation process.
To wrap up entire review, Hartford
then compiled all three reports into one
to present to the regents. The regents
will use the report as an informational
tool to decide whether to change the
Code's implementation.
Hartford said she removed herself
from the actual work of the review
groups so she could objectively make
up the final report.
"I expect that there will be recom-
mendations for some change" of the
Code process, Hartford said.
The regents must approve all changes
to the Code. MSA, the faculty's governing
body and University administrators are
the only entities that can propose amend-
ments to the board for consideration.
In addition to the University's official
review, MSA conducted its own review.
MSA member Olga Savic, a Public
Policy second-year student who served
on both the MSA review committee and
the official University group, said the
students' review, lead by assembly mem-
bers, looked at the content of the Code
- not simply how it is implemented.
Savic said it is not enough to ask how
well the Code is being implemented
when some students don't even know
what the Code is. "What we want to do is
a little bit more fundamental," she said.
Members of the MSA group attended
ABOVE:
si Students
protest in the
' Regent's Plaza
In September
LEFT: Students
participate In a
f lecture on
campus.
FILE PHOTOS
campus organization meetings to
encourage students to take a critical
look at the Code and become involved
in the review process.
"We don't want to present anything
from a one-sided perspective because
there are so many ideas out about" the
Code, Savic said, adding that MSA
wanted to hand the regents a report it
can say truly represents University stu-
dents opinions about the Code.
Assembly members mailed their
report to the regents before the board's
December meeting.
Students who want more information
about the Code or how the process
works can contact the Office of Student
Conflict Resolution at 936-6308 or on
the Web at http://umich.edu/~oscr
Public records of Code cases can be
viewed in the office upon request.
-Editor's note: This article originally
ran in the Oct. 12, 1998 edition of
The Michigan Daily
MSA Code review pleases
many regents, may be source
for potential changes
By Michael Grass
and Jaimie Winkler
Daily Staff Reporters
The University Board of Regents is scheduled to
hear several reviews on the Code of Student
Conduct at its meeting this.
Vice President for Student Affairs Maureen
Hartford delayed the presentation of the review of
the Code of Student Conduct in January, to give
the regents additional time to review information
and form their own opinions.
Members of the Michigan Student Assembly
will present their review of the Code to the regents
Thursday.
Many regents said they were pleased with the
report MSA mailed to them in December and for-
mally presented at the regents meeting Jan. 21.
Regent Kathy White (D-Ann Arbor), whom MSA
members met with in January, said she is apprecia-
tive of the effort MSA put into its Code review.
"I'm looking forward to working with them in the
future," White said, adding she "was very impressed
with the thoroughness of the comments."
Other members of the board shared White's
views.
At the January regents meeting, Regent
Laurence Deitch (D-Bloomfield Hills) said he was
pleased with MSA's review, adding that it might be
the source of potential changes to the Code.
"I think it forms the basis to make the Code bet-
ter," Deitch said. He added that he wants "the Code
to be student driven"
Some board members agreed that students are
essential for the Code process to work.
"ThesCode can't work without the students,'
White said.
The student review was conducted because MSA
members thought the scope of the University review
committees should not only include Code imple-
mentation but a full review of the Code document.
The Code implementation review was suggested by
the regents when the Code was drafted in 1996.
Maynard said MSA's suggestions and their review
process provided the most conclusive information.
"On a positive side, there are a lot of people
from all different directions looking at the Code of
Student Conduct," Maynard said. "I think there is
a lot of commonalty" in the issues different review
committees are concerned with she said.
One of the more interesting findings of the
MSA review, Maynard said, was the fact that not
many students know their rights under the Code
and are not familiar with the arbitration and sen-
tencing processes.
"When you don't understand something, it
seems like a negative thing" Maynard said.
Regent David Brandon (R-Ann Arbor) said he
doesn't remember specific rules for student con-
duct from his days as a student.
"I graduated from Michigan and I don't remem-
ber realizing there was a Code," Brandon said.
Maynard said she is in favor of increasing cam-
pus awareness by releasing brief reports of Code
cases, while protecting names and specific details.
"I would always want to protect someone's pri-
vacy," she said
Brandon, who was elected to the board in
November, said he believes the Code should not
fall under the board's authority.
"I don't believe this is something the regents
should be involved in," Brandon said, adding he
The Fleming Administration Building houses the
Office of the Vice President for Student Affairs.
"was surprised that it showed up on the regent's
radar screen.
"I do not think the regents have gotten involved in
those Codes,' Brandon said, referring to the fact that
the University's Ann Arbor, Flint and Dearborn cam-
puses have separate codes but the Ann Arbor code is
the only one being review by the regents.
. "I don't see why (the regents) should be
involved in the Ann Arbor code,' Brandon said.
Although the regents have the authority to
change the amendments that may be proposed
by MSA or University review committees,
Brandon said he would not interfere with
changes agreed upon by administration, faculty
and students.
l
::f
r
rn
MSA begins talks to amend Code
ANATOMY OF A CODE CASE
Complaint Filed
i Qn humy eevie
)
A closer look
Complaint filed: Complaints may be filed by any student, faculty member or staff member
or by a third party. Complaints must be submitted to the Resolution Coordinator in writing
within six months of the alleged violation. RC can waive the six-month limitation.
Preliminary review: RC reviews complaints, determines if behaviors can be handled under
the Code. If not, the complaint is referred to the University or Ann Arbor community.
investigation: RC contacts potential witnesses and requests reports. Information is used
to determine if the accused student can be charged under the Code.
Complaint dropped: if investigation does not produce sufficient evidence, RC notifies the
witness that the complaint has been dropped.
Charge(s): Accused student receives letter charging a potential Code violation. Letter
summarizes allegations and establish a time to meet and discuss charge(s).
RC meeting: RC explains resolution process and provides opportunity for student to read
the complaint. Student may choose to admit or deny allegations and iay file written
responses. RC, student discuss options for resolving charge(s).
Mediatios: Voluntary participation. Purpose is to help parties reach workable settlement.
Student may choose a University or non-University Mediator (neutral person).
Arbitration: Arbiter(s) reviews and listens to information presented by RC, accused student
and witnesses. Sanctions recommended if student found in violation of code. Student may
choose an arbitration with a student panel or a resolution officer.
Review by Dean of Students: Arbitration outcomes reviewed by dean. Dean may accept or
modify recommendations of arbiter(s).
Notice of Outcome: Accused student and complaining witness receive notice of outcome.
Appeal: Appeals may be filed in writing by the witness or student within 10 academic
days. Grounds for appeal are limited.
Review by Vice PAit VP may accept or modify the appeals board recommendations.
Emergency usp i:f actions pose immediate danger to University community, the VP
or a designee may immediately suspend the student pending a meeting.
By Jewel Gopwani
Daily Staff Reporter
The Michigan Student Assembly's
Student's Rights Commission has
officially started negotiations with
Vice President for Student Affairs
Maureen Hartford to amend the
Code of Student Conduct.
MSA's efforts to change the Code
began in late September, when the
assembly charged SRC with the
responsibility of constructing recom-
mendations for the Code.
SRC spent four months holding
forums and conducting almost 1,000
anonymous surveys to obtain a sense
of the campus' awareness of the
Code. In December, SRC finished
writing its report on the Code and
informally presented the review to
the University Board of Regents at its
meeting on Dec. 18, 1998.
SRC formally presented the mate-
rial to the regents on Jan. 21. It was
offered with an external report,
which includes examinations of
code-amending processes at
Northwestern University, Dartmouth
University and the University of
Virginia and an internal report which
encompasses a self-evaluation, both
collected by Hartford's office.
The review focuses on SRC's find-
ings from its surveys and the com-
mittee's recommendations regarding
amendments to the Code.
"We want to simplify the code,
increase publicity for it and make it
less painful for students to go
through this process," SRC chair
Brian Reich said.
That.afternoon, Reich said, SRC
also received feedback from regents
regarding the committee's report.
The meeting went "surprisingly
well," Reich said. "It seems that
(University) President (Lee)
Bollinger and Regent (Rebecca)
McGowen (D-Ann Arbor) were very
interested in the process."
Reich also said SRC has received
encouragement from individual
regents. Regent Olivia Maynard (D-
Goodrich) sent Reich a personal note
of support. "They actually appreciate
the work that we do," he said.
SRC members met with Hartford
the afternoon following the Jan. 21
regents meeting to discuss tangible
changes to the code.
After meeting, Reich said Hartford
was "as open as we can expect."
He said Hartford and the SRC
have distinct points of agreement and
disagreement. "We agree that OSCR
(Office of Student Conflict
Resolution) doesn't have enough
money and that the Code needs to be
FILE rPHOT
Michigan Student Assembly Vice President Sarah Chopp and President Trent
Thompson preside over a December assembly meeting.
Tf
by Dean
O11:cm -
clearer," Reich said, adding that the
areas where SRC and Hartford dis-
agree mainly include specific word-
ing arrangements in the Code.
Now, after four meetings between
the SRC and Hartford to deliberate
amendments to the Code, Reich said,
they have "started to reshape the
Code in a big way"
SRC has also met with OSCR direc-
tor Sean Esteban McCabe to discuss
changes. McCabe has been "sharing
good examples with us, of things that
support our report:' Reich said.
At Thursday's regents' meeting,
Reich said SRC members hope to
hold a question and answer session
about the MSA report with regents.
In addition to communication with
administration, Reich said, "We will
continue our student forums and con-
tinue collecting student information."
Reich said SRC hopes to continue
polling students about the code at
this semester's MSA elections.
SRC would like to have administra-
tion approve changes to the code
around March or April, Reich said.
-Diagram courtesy of the Ofice of Student Conflict Resolution