Thursday, March 15, 2001- The Michigan Daily - 5A THE In a S ECOND IN ASERIES rian Montieth was living at West Quad during the end of his first year at the University. As his hallmates left to go home for holiday break, something strange happened across the way at the Fleming Administration Building. Apples were launched from somewhere on his hall - some of them breaking then-Vice President for Student Affairs Maureen Hartford's office window. The administration went looking for those responsible and the Code of Student Conduct - now renamed the Statement of Student Rights and Responsibilities - found Montieth, now an Engineering senior. The vast majority of Code cases remain wrapped in mystery. But Montieth's experience with the Code breaks that silence and demonstrates the unfair and arbitrary nature of the University's discipline policies. Despite a lack of evidence in the apple bombing, that didn't matter to the administration - Montieth was ... * UILT AN OPEN LETTER TO THE UNIVERSITY BOARD OF REGENTS: HOW THE ADMINISTRATION HAS MISLED THE STUDENTS I write to you today with serious concerns regard- ing the administration's misleading statements about recent Code of Student Conduct amendments and the future of the document. While Vice President for Student Affairs E. Roys- ter Harper's recent letter to the student body might. have indicated that University President Lee Bollinger passed the vast majority of proposed changes to the Code - 85 percent is the number she cites - the number is deceptive and we believe the process is designed to be so and to minimize student input into a Code that governs only students' behavior. As decid- ed by your body in 1999, the process of amending the Code (on July 1 to be called the "Statement of Student Rights and Responsibilities") involves several inter- mediary steps between those proposing the changes and Bollinger's ultimate decision whether to accept them. Harper's advisory committee, the Student Rela- tions Advisory Committee, completed an exhaustive analysis of both the Michigan Student Assemblys and the Faculty Senate's Civil Liberties Board's rec&- ommendations in the spring of last year. In the end, that committee, with little to no student input, axed nearly every substantial amendment proposed by the students. Bollinger didn't have much to pick from and yet he still managed to weed out anything of import. leaving only minor, semantic changes. . Furthermore, the Office of the Vice President for Student Affairs and the Student Relations Advisory Committee strung along the Assembly and the Stu- dent Rights Commission into thinking that the recom- mendations of these two bodies were being seriously considered. We met with both the VPSA and the chair of the SRAC and in both cases were misled. It will take much commitment to honestly and straightfor- wardness on the part of the administration to regain the trust of the assembly on this matter in future Code amendment procedures. Given, any type of student-initiated change to the document formerly known as the Code of Student Conduct is quite welcome - but the fact remains that it still infringes, monumentally, on the civil rights of students. The Code deprives students of fundamental Constitutionally guaranteed rights like due process and a fair trial - and all we get in response from the President of our University are pedantic statements like "There is nothing unfair about using hearsay evi- dence in the arbitration process." You should be out- raged. We are outraged. While administrators will likely say, "But this isn't a legal document, it's a educational document," we beg the question of them why should our punitive system be any less fair than that of our federal and state governments? The due process portions of the U.S. Constitution are based on the presumption of "innocent until proven guilty." That's why society guarantees the accused the right to a lawyer, the right to a public trial, the right to trial by jury, the right to face witnesses and the right to be tried without hearsay. Students tried under the Code have none of these rights, and none of this presumption of innocence. We appeal to you, the Board of Regents, to ask President Bollinger and other members of the admin- istration to give students a fair shake in the next cycle of Code amendments. We've taken a few minor steps forward, but have so much more to accomplish. Stu- dents are mobilizing around this issue and it will only continue to heat up in the coming months. We ask you to treat our concerns with fairness and respect and to seriously consider our input into our own Code this time around. MICHAEL SIMON LSA sophomore The letter writer is the co-chairman of the Michigan Student Assembly's Student Rights Commission NO MATTER WHAT 0 0 IN HIS OWN WORDS T WAS THE END OF THE FALL TERM OF 1996, A DAY BEFORE I * LEFT FOR WINTER BREAK. I WAS LEAVING TILE MEN'S ROOM ON THE FOURTH FLOOR OF WEST QUAD'S MICHIGAN HOUSE, WHEN I SAW TWO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICERS AND A JIOUSEKEEPER KNOCKING ON MY FRIEND'S DOOR. I WENT BACK TO MY ROOM, NOT TELLING THEM THAT MY FRIEND HAD LEFT FOR BREAK AN HOUR OR SO EARLIER. A COUPLE OF MINUTES AFTER I VAD ARRIVED AT MY ROOM THERE WAS A KNOCK ON MY DOOR. IT WAS THE TWO DPS OFFICERS. They asked me if I was in my friend's room earlier; I said I had not been. They asked me if I knew where the two guys whose door they had been at Were. I informed them that one had left a day ago and the other an hour ago. The'officers when told me that they knew At mi that the one who had just meeting left had been launching how th apples from his room at the charge Fleming Administration only p Building and had broken a evidence window. They further said the hou that they believed I was said th, evolved and asked to search been in y room for the launching earlier ie device. At the time I had a keg behind a desk so I (Mary. politely declined. They told Antiea me'that this only confirmed time told their suspicion and that, if I uncerta were not involved, I would that sheJ let them search my room to 1 was invi confirm. I did not have the would1 device they were looking guilty if1 for, Again, I politely guilty ant declined. They left. punishm A week after I returned mo from the break I received a _e___r letter summoning me to the Fleming Building and informing me that I was charged with destroying Uni- ersity property. I met with Mary Louise Antieau, who at the time worked directly under Maureen Hartford, the Vice President for Student Affairs; she was responsible for overseeing the implementation of the Student Code of Conduct Antineau took me to a room ie ei i r Ik ie be cleaned. She also pointed to a door in the back of the right wall (from the window) that was open enough for the thin edge to be facing the window. This edge was still covered with apple. The tour was now over and she brought me back to next her office. Antieau present- I asked ed me with the DPS report y could stating that I would not ie as the allow a search of my room, ece of and quoting the housekeep- was that er stating that she heard my ekeeper voice saying "Oh, shit, we 3t I had hit a window." She also he room showed me a follow-up the day. report with a follow-up interview with the house- tLouise) keeper saying that she now at this is not sure that it was my me in no voice at all. One of the two in terms reports had her placing me Wnew that in the room earlier in the lved, she day (not at or near the time ind me of the incident). Antieau pled not gave me some Code of Stu- f that the dent Conduct information nt would pamphlets and we sched- severe. uled another meeting dur- _ _ ing which I would make my plea. By this time my friend from whose room the apples had been fired had admitted to it. He was tried in a crimi- nal court and sentenced to somewhere around 75 hours of community service and was additionally charged for the cost of the window repair and court costs - around $750. In both trials he stated (in one iunder oath) that he had How TO CONTACT THEM UNIVERSITY ADMINISTRATION PRESIDENT LEE C. BOLLINGER 1eecfl@umich. cdu 764-6270 2074 FLEMING BUILlING VICE PRESIDENT FOR STUDENT AFFAIRS E. ROYsTER HARPER harperer@umich.edu 764-51.32 6015 FLEMING BUILDING KErrH ELKIN, OFFICE OF STUDENT CONFLICT RESOLUTION DIRECTOR ktlk8n@umich.edu 936-6308 6015 FLEMING BUILDING UNIVERSITY BOARD OF REGENTS DAVID BRANDON (R-ANN ARBOR) dabran@umich.edu (734) 930-3006 DOMINO'S PIZZA, INC. 30 FRANK LLOYDWRIGI IT DR. P.O. BOX 997 ANN ARBOR, MI 48106-0997 LAURENCE DEITCH (D-BLOOMFIELD HILLS) Ideitch@umich edu (313) 392-1055 NODMAN, LONGLEY & DAIILING LLP 34TI I FLOO)R 100 RENAISSANCE CENTER DETROT, MI 48243 DAN HORNING (R-GRAND HAVEN) dhorning@uinich.edu (616) 842-1351 16964 ROBBINS RD., SUITE 100 GRAND HAVEN, MI 49417 OLIVIA MAYNARD (D-GOODRICH) (omayfldrd@umihch .edu (810) 239-1535 NORTIIBANK CENTER, SUITE 406 42 N. SAGINAW ST. FLINTC MI 48502N REBECCA MCGOWAN (D-ANN ARBOR) .m aena ri. .1.. . DAVID KATZ/Daily Engineering senior Brian Monteith was accused and found guilty of launching apples into the office of then-Vice President for Student Affairs Maureen Hartford under the Code of Student Conduct. write a paper roughly calculating the speed of the apple as it hit the window and to pay my friend half of the fine that the criminal court ordered him to pay. She at first made no mention of a possible jury-like trial, but instead said that she would make the ruling herself. I wondered if this was a trap. I could see a nrogecutor offering to rec- something he did, I pled guilty. It was sure to be easier than receiving the pun- ishment that I had been threatened with if I plead not guilty. TELL THE DAILY YOUR EXPERIENCES WITH THE OFFICE OF STUDENT i