4B -- The Michigan Daily - Cracking the Code - Tuesday, February 16, 1999 EEdited and managed by JEFFREY KOSSEFF students at the HEATHER KAMINS DAVID WALLACE University of Michigan Editor in Chief Editorial Page Editors 3Di U i s y M c aE o i h fi r P gdUnless otherwise noted, unsigned editorials reflect the opinion of the 420 Maynard Street majority of the Daily's editorial board. All other articles, letters and Ann Arbor, MI 48109 cartoons do not necessarily reflect the opinion of The Michigan Daily. L ater this week, the Code of Student ing process is brought about by a panel. Conduct - the University's internal But since there is a lack of precedent, disciplinary system - which all ,students decisions that are made by this panel are are subject to, will be reviewed by the based highly on "personal" bias towards University Board of Regents. This review Regents must consider students rights an individual case and inadvertently laid will take into consideration reports from down different standards to which stu- the Michigan Student Assembly and the nal justice system in trying to make the hearings are required to sign, all hearings dents are subjected. Division of Student Affairs. Unlike the campus into a more sheltered environ- are shrouded in complete secrecy. This The Code of Student Conduct is com- Engineering Honor Code, the Code of ment. But the University is supposed to leaves the student body in speculation as piled in a booklet that every student Student Conduct is non-academic. The be a place where students are growing to the effectiveness of the Code, but more receives as they enter the University. But Code has many problems, and the most into adults and developing their own val- importantly, trying to seek a precedent on guidelines such as "obvious and serious prominent of which is the infringement ues - the University is in no legitimate appropriate punishments is virtually threat or harm" that are associated with the on students' rights. With the rule of law position to take the law's place in enforc- impossible. There is also a lack of formal Code are ambiguous, and many times vio- already in place, the Code is unnecessary ing social standards onto students. procedure in the hearing process. There lations are vague and generalized and there- and should be abolished. Under the guidelines of the Code, the are no guidelines on the length of the hear- fore subjected to individual interpretation. Currently, there are many problems University can punish a student who com- ings as illustrated in the Brooks case, But from within the Code, a student is associated with the Code. Not the least of mits an offense outside the University com- when the hearings dragged on for more automatically suspended from the which, the Code violates the doctrine of munity even if the student does not pose a than a year, during which the people University if one chooses to delay or post- "double jeopardy" as evident through the threat to the University. This is another reviewing the case had changed. pone the hearing process. Students should case of Michigan football player Jason example that illustrates the University The rights individuals should have be allowed such rights, and the University Brooks. Under the code, Six sanctions putting itself into a position above the during any trial are denied to them as a should not have the right to take any action were placed on him, but prior to this deci- American criminal justice system and fur- result of the Code resolution process before a case is fully reviewed. sion, Brooks had already resolved the ther punishing students who have already being viewed as "administrative" and With numerous problems associated fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct been punished. "educational" as opposed to legal. with the Code, including the fact that charges brought against him in the The decision making procedures that Therefore students are not provided with many sections are ambiguous and are gen- Washtenaw County court system. The are made under the Code are also in ques- the essentials of the American legal sys- eralized, the regents should consider abol- University uses the Code as an excuse to tion. The Code arbitration hearing is a tem, such as the right to legal counsel, ishing the Code and let the rule of law do raise the social standards of students closed process. Due to the confidentiality appealing to precedent and burden of its work as it has done throughout the higher than those of the American crimi- statement that all participants in Code proof. Currently, the final decision mak- country's history. rous 1 A CONTAC Dangerosapathy. SeThe University Board of Regents Students mus1t let regents know their views e The Michigan aily - Cracking t Student mediocrity will allow Code to survive GuEST V Wake up; get ready for class; go to a cof- * fee shop that offers exorbitantly priced java. 2. Go to class that is intended to prepare stu- dents for either pre-professional school or an exciting life as a low-level corporate hack. 3. Go to a meeting of a non-controversial, resume-filling student_ group that doesn't; require much time except for bowling marathons, scavenger hunts, token community service time and bake sales. 4. Check e-mail at Angell Hall. 5. Study, making sure to memorize all the facts while thinking about the material as little as possi- Jeffrey ble. 6. Go to Touchdown's. 7. Go to sleep. 8. Wake up; get ready Kosseff Sweet NO Ct ivp for class. y Sound familiar? If you're a University student, you or somebody you know likely have similar schedules. There may be some variations - you might prefer parties to bars. The average University student is mediocre. I am not implying that most University students are unintelligent - they just don't use their smarts or their privilege of attending one of the finest universities to their full advantage. I use mediocre to describe the overall attitude toward life. They don't stop to think about vital social issues, and they com- pensate for their apathy by joining groups that are never willing to take any real risks by actively challenging social structures. This incredible apathy can be seen in students' atti- tude toward the upcoming Code of Student Conduct review. Most. students I've spoken with don't even know what the Code is. Articles about the upcoming review run in the Daily frequently, but Crime Notes are probably more appealing to the student mind. The Michigan Student Assembly, the one student group that must be commended for its numerous efforts in investi- gating the Code, held Code forums last semes- ter that drew less than 30 students. The infor- mation is there, people. It's up to you to process it. Or would you rather go to a meeting of a group whose sole purpose is to prepare you for graduate school. These organizations play important roles for students' futures, but they do not aid students in voicing their views on crucial campus issues. I could spend the rest of this column describ- ing every flaw of the Code, but that's the pur- pose of the rest of this issue. It is more useful to examine why you are compelled to let this section of the Daily fall to the ground and turn straight to the crossword puzzle - a true intel- lectual challenge. The Code, at face value, is not an exciting topic. It involves big phrases like "Division of Student Affairs" and "Office of Student Conflict Resolution." Learning about it won't help you prepare for your mid-term and doesn't fit well on a resume. Prominent names dis- cussed at Code forums include Vice President for Student Affairs Maureen Hartford and University President Lee Bollinger - people who are not quite as popular among University students as Drew Henson and Charles Woodson. Fortunately, the vast majority of University students will never have Code charges brought against them. They will never be forced out of their constitutional rights by an unfair process that involves clandestine late-night debates and top-heavy bureaucratic control. But does this mean that students shouldn't care? They should, but they don't. If students felt similar anger and feelings of injustice toward the Code as they do when an exam ques- tion in Chem. 210 is unclear, the review process would be significantly different. But as it stands, the only student feedback the regents have received is the thorough MSA Student Code Review Committee. MSA should be com- mended for taking an active stance on the Code y rather than simply pass a resolution condemn- ing it. But besides the MSA report, students have remained virtually silent. It is a sad situation, but the only way most stu- dents would actively fight against the Code would be if they were persecuted and experi- enced the injustice created by this secretive process. When Hartford and a handful of other elusive bureaucrats hold your academic fate in their hands, then you might care. That might cause you to e-mail the regents and University administrators to let them know your thoughts on the oppressive process. It might cause you to read the MSA report to determine how many of your constitutional rights have been violated. But until then, have fun playing MCAT Jeopardy. - Jeffrey Kosseff can be reached over e-mail at jkosseff@umich.edu. Code reveals 'U's' amrr By Les Bockhorn Editor in Chief,The Michigan Review It is a rare occasion when the editors of The Michigan Daily and The Michigan Review agree about anything. When that happens, the issue is usually one of profound importance to students, and the Code of Student Conduct fits that description. As the University's student journal of conservative and libertarian opinion, the Review has joined the Daily in consistently opposing all non-academic codes of conduct, from the unconstitutional "hate speech" codes adopted by the University in the late 1980s, to the latest incarnation of the Code. The most astonishing aspect of the Code is the blatant hypocrisy and arrogance it reveals on the part of the University. The Code pur- ports to protect such "essential values" as free- dom, dignity, and ciyility, yet its provisions fly in the face of those terms as commonly under- stood. It ignores safeguards against double jeopardy by charging and punishing students for acts which are already illegal and under the jurisdiction of the courts. For instance, in 1994 the University charged doctoral student Melanie Welch with harassment and assault, even after her case was thrown out of criminal court because of falsified DPS reports. The Code also denies students the right to legal rep- resentation. Its confidentiality requirements prevent accused students from consulting past cases for precedents, and hinder public scrutiny which would ensure fairness. The University justifies all this by ridiculously asserting that, while, the Code does not "deprive students of the appropriate due process protections to which they are entitled," it is "one of the University's administrative procedures and Code creates an 'unsa R ight under students' noses, the University is conducting secret trials and handing down arbitrary sentences without receiving input from actual lawyers or judges. In the wake of last semester's high profile sanctions and the Office of Student Conflict Resolution's mailing of threats to 133 stu- dents who received alcohol violations from the Ann Arbor Police Department last December, many students still have little knowledge of the Code of Student Conduct. As a public and academic insti- tution, the University acts com- pletely out of line in its attempts to force students to conform to spe-c cific legal and moral standards. The University's hypocrisy could not be more evident when it pro- C motes diversity and simultaneous- ly attempts to form a morally homogenous student body. Popular '- \ student resistance to the Code has been minimal - when the £ Michigan Student Assembly host- ed a forum on the code in November, only about 30 students attended. Fortunately, the future of the Code, at least in its present form, is in jeopardy. The University Board of Regents has two new members, and a MSA Student Code Review Committee report on the Code is scheduled to be discussed at the February regents meeting. The report recommended the deletion of sec- tions of the code that allow the admission of hearsay as evidence as well as those that were overly ambiguous and/or violated student's First and Fifth Amendment rights. A legal analysis of the Code, comparisons with stu- dent codes of conduct at other universities and the results of 300 student questionnaires k At it1 administered by MSA are also included in the committee's report. While the upsurge of student apathy towards political matters over the last two decades is disheartening to say the least, it is hard to determine just how counterproductive it can be. Gauging the potential harm that may arise out of student apathy towards a matter as immediate as the board's examination of the Code is a much different matter. The level of seriousness with which each regent approach- es the discussion of the Code is likely to be directly proportional to the amount of input they receive from students. It is a rare instance that something as mundane as a phone call or e-mail to a politician ©o could make such a significant impact. It will truly be a sad state of affairs when indifference becomes I so rampant among students that q efforts to impose moral values on them are not resisted. Every stu- dent falls under the umbrella of the Code's statutes and is therefore directly affected by the outcome of the upcoming Regents meet- ing. At a time when the Code is most vulnerable, students cannot afford to keep their opinions to themselves. The few minutes it takes to contact those in the administration who have the power to amend or abolish the Code will likely prove significant. Use the e-mail addresses and phone num- bers on this page to let your voice be heard. If students take the time to express their opin- ions to the eight people who will ultimately decide the fate of the Code, they have the potential of causing great change. DANIEL HORNING (R-GRAND HAVEN) (616) 842-1351 E-MAIL: dhorning@umich.edu -- --- - - --- - --------------.--------------..------_-- .- _ . .--.- -- - . ..------- --- .- OLIVIA MAYNARD (D-GOODRICH) (810) 239-1535 E-MAIL: omaynard@umich.edu REBECCA MCGOWAN (D-ANN ARBOR) 668-8873 E-MAIL: rmcgowan@umich.edu ANDREA FISCHER NEWMAN (R-AN ARBOR) - 995-3428 E-MAIL: afisch@umich.edu S. MARTIN TAYLOR (D-GROSSE POINTE FARMS) (313) 235-7266 E-MAIL: taylorsm@umich.edu KAT.HY WHITE (D-ANN ARBOR) (313) 577-1054 E-MAIL: kewhite@umich edu University President LEE BOLLINGER 764-6270 E-MAIL: ieecboi@umich.edu SI OF Opu CLPsaA.* . ,Gt.n.e.,.e..A By Trent Thompson Michigan Student Assembly President What is the Code of Student Conduct? If you don't know the answer to this question, you are not alone. Nearly 85 percent of University stu- dents have trouble describing what's in the Code. Yet the Code plays a part in every student's life. Is a set of rules which govern students' lives, such as the Code, necessary? Existing federal and state laws seem to govern the nation quite effectively. Why is there a need for the University to make its own "laws?" Of the administration's arguments for why we need a Code, the one with the most merit is that we live in a campus community with special needs. The actions of one student may affect the learning environment and safety of many others. Student relationships such as residence hall neighbors, classmates, roommates, etc. increase the need for the campus to feel safe. The current Code was meant to help set stan- dards in order to create a safe environment. But the current Code does not list a set of agreed upon standards. Further, when it comes to students' rights, the current Code actually creates an unsafe and uncertain environment. The Code makes failure to leave University controlled premises when told to do so by police an offense regardless of whether the reason for removal is unlawful conduct. Thus, peaceful stu- dent protests can be considered Code offenses. The Code allows for automatic suspension if a student undergoing concurrent legal action chooses to delay a Code hearing. Thus, students requesting to postpone a hearing are automatically penalized. The Code process is not an open one, foster- ing feelings of distrust. Violations are not sufficiently defined in the text of the Code, leaving interpretations open and i I 1 1 /i 1 ft t r G { l a { t s. y ..