4 - The Michigan Daily -luesday, March 27, 2001 N +F d'a'KxAl t" 420 MAYNARD STREET ANN AiPBoI, MI 48109 daily. letters aumich. edu The Code: Different perspective, same conclusion NICK WOOMER BACK TO THE WOOM EDITED AND MANAGED BY STUDENTS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN SINCE 1890 GEOFFREY GAGNON Editor in Chief MICHAEL GRASS NICHOLAS WOOMER Editorial Page Editors Unless otherwise noted, unsigned editorials reflect the opinion of the majority offthe Daily's editorial board. All other articles, letters and cartoons do not necessarily reflect the opinion of The Michigan Daily. niversity President Lee Bollinger thinks you are an N idiot - or at least too stu- pid to decide what charac- ter traits you do and do not admire in your peers. "Civility, dignity, diver- sity, education, equality, freedom, honesty and safe- ty" - these are the "values" of the University community. That's what the Code of Student Conduct - now renamed (in traditional Orwellian "newspeak") the "Statement of Stu- dent Rights and Responsibilities" - says any- way, along with its paternalistic supporters like Bollinger. In fact, these values are so important that the University had to establish a disciplinary mechanism to coerce students (and only stu- dents) into upholding these supposed "values of the University community." Question one: Where did these values come from? More specifically, who decided that these are the values of "the University community." What makes the person or body who/that makes the aforementioned decision qualified to do so? Question two: Why these values? This par- ticular selection seems arbitrary to the point of being ridiculous. Why is "safety" an explicitly- stated value of the University community and not, say, "tolerance" or "courage"? Assistant Principal ... I mean Office of Stu- dent Conflict Resolution Director Keith Elkin, whose sole duty is to ensure that students behave (that has to be a rewarding job), doesn't even know the answer to this question. "I have to plead some ignorance in that I joined the University after the values were set," Elkin said when he spoke before the Michigan Student Assembly about the Code earlier this month. Question three (this is the most important one): What constitutes a violation of the above- mentioned values and why? And what happens when two or more of these values conflict? How do we determine which value "wins" when we have to choose between, for example, "freedom" and "safety"? Despite any claims Bollinger or Vice Presi- dent of Student Affairs E. Royster Harper might make about how students are deeply involved in the recommendation process, students have absolutely no substantive authority to decide what our own values are supposed to be and how those values should be enforced (or if they should be enforced at all). The ultimate authori- ty to modify the Code rests in Bollinger's hands, not students or even a democratically appointed committee composed of students, faculty, staff and administrators. For the sake of argument, let's assume (wrongly) that we need a Code in the first place and that the arbitration process is fair. Let's temporarily accept the contractualist argument presented in the Code's Introduction, that "When students choose to accept admission to the University, they accept the rights and responsibilities of membership in the Universi- ty's academic and social community. As mem- bers of the University community, students are expected to uphold its values by maintaining a high standard of conduct." Let's further assume that even though the Code purports to promote the values of the entire University community (which I suppose is composed of students, faculty, staff and administrators) it is okay for the Code to apply solely to students. If students are supposed to be upholding the University community's values, values we -- along with faculty, staff and administrators - supposedly hold collectively, why do we have absolutely no power to help decide (not suggest) what those values are and what constitutes a breach of them? Because the values enforced by the Code have not be democratically determined, the Code is not just structurally flawed (in that it systematically denies students their basic rights) it is fundamentally self-contradictory. To illustrate my point: Most students are "educated" (there's another Orwellian euphemism) under the Code for underage drink ing in the residence halls. OSCR determines tha this is a violation of the Code - the rationale probably being, we may suppose, that underage drinking violates the University community's value of "safety," or maybe "honesty." It is difficult to see what is so unsafe or dis- honest about underage drinking, and even if some OSCR bureaucrat could give you decent answer, there's no question that the "safety" value is selectively enforced - otherwise OSCR would also be prosecuting students who, say, ride motorcycles. Particularly with under age drinking cases, students should feel offend- ed that the University is prosecuting their peers in the name of "community values" when almost no student thinks that there is anything wrong with drinking before one's 21st birthday. There also seems to be an internal contradic- tion in prosecuting first-year students enjoying some cheap beer in Markley under the premise that this activity is "unsafe" or "dishonest" when, apparently, another one of the Universi community's values is "freedom." How a Elkin and his cronies to resolve this? They can't, the Code's theoretical founda- tions can't possibly be coherent until all students get to decide for themselves what their own val- ues are and ifhow to enforce them. Nick Woomer's column runs every other Tuesday. Give him eedbackat www.michiandaily.com/rumor via e-mail at nwoomer@umich.edu. Hughes' Code case shows hypocrisy of discipline policies To THE DAILY: I applaud the Daily for its ongoing coverage of the Code of Student Conduct - this issue affects every student here at the University, and everyone should be concerned. As the Student Rights Commission co-chairs, Michael Simon and I continue to fight for student rights in the code process, and with students' help, we are confident changes can be made. The Ryan Hughes case ("If DPS isn't pressing charges, why should 'U'?", 3/20/01) offers a unique chance to explore the underside of the Code, if he is guilty of the charges levied against him or not. Whether or not you believe Ryan Hughes was justified in the alleged spray-painting of the protester's signs, all students can agree that charging him under the Code violates his basic rights to due process. According to the Code, "Students at the University have the same rights and protections under the Constitutions of the United States and the State of Michigan as other Citizens." If this is true, why is Hughes being charged when neither Department of Public Safety nor the protesters have pursued legal charges? The administration counters that their Code is "educational," but this leads to yet another inconsistency. The University claims the Code is an educa- tional process - but the Code includes both educational and disciplinary punishments: any- thing from alcohol workshops to expulsion. To IT JUST WontK1 V WE WiT1OU t f kEmo{" ?AW r. .,z7 . ~ -I f, an attentive observer, the University uses the Code for both disciplinary and educational pur- poses - whatever they see fit. What's disturbing is the hypocrisy in the Hughes case - the administration's use of the Code blatantly conflicts with the text of the document. According to the Code "Any stu- dent, faculty member, or staff member may submit a complaint alleging a violation of the Code." Although DPS officers are technically University staff members, to my knowledge they have never pursued Code charges. In virtu- ally all other cases, DPS only provides informa- tion for cases. The Code process itself is designed for a complainant and defendant- if this case gets to an arbitration, who will sit in the complainant's seat? A DPS officer? Although this might seem ridiculous, it might happen. The Daily's recent coverage of the Code has been exceptional, and the administration's silence in response to the coverage telling. When the administration cannot defend them- selves against full-page editorial criticisms,:stu- dents must conclude that injustice is afoot. A few simple changes can vastly improve the Code: limiting its scope, setting a consisted standard of proof and applying it consistently. With the students' help, we can do these things. In the meantime, let the administration know what you think- email code.complain@umich.edu to contact the Uni- versity Board of Regents and other administra- tors involved with the code. Follow the Hughes case, and remember, the Code applies to every student. ROB GOODSPEED The letter writer is co-chair of the Michigan Student Assembly Student Rights Commission and is incoming LSA representative to the assembly. Whatever happened to the ass-whippin'? DUSTIN J. SEIBERT TIE MANIFESTO couple of months ago, I was walking through the Target ^ store right outside of Saline and I witnessed a young child, maybe seven years old or so, running from his mother screaming what he wasn't going to do as loud as he could through the store. All eyes in earshot are directed on this kid as if he were putting on a free concert compli- mentary to the patrons of the store. But that's not the worst part. The mother is actually plead- ing with this kid, attempting to bargain with him for his silence. Pleading with him! "Come on now, honey ... if you behave yourself, I'll let you play with your Pokemon/Teletubby/Zoo- boomafoo when we get home!" I was absolutely awestruck: I wanted to grab the kid myself and hurl his little punk ass across the Menswear sec- tion. All that ran through my mind during this occurrence was the brutal corporal punishment that I would have received had that been me cut- ting up like that. Now I completely realize that I am young still, and many may argue that if am not yet at the point in my life when I can talk about this,. but I will be damned if things haven't changed since I was a child - I like to think that I was riding on the coattails of that "old-school" era of discipline that seems to have disappeared with the turn of the '90s. I read stories of kids When I was a young buck, my mouth often wrote checks that my narrow high-yellow ass could not cash. Everyone that knows me well can attest to my incurable smart mouth - one that often got me in a world of trouble. It was no thing for me to get a whack across the mouth or a thump in the temple ... if I were lucky. My parents covered both sides of the spectrum: My mother was the intimidator - her tone of voice and piercing stare alone often straightened me up enough to save the skin on my behind. My father, however, spoke vol- umes with his leather belt. Those of you who feel me can attest to the fact that the belt is one of the last things you want to connect with your skin at high velocity. Heaven forbid I made him angry enough to the point where he blindly got me with the buckle part. (We all make mistakes, Dad ... I still love you, man) Grabbing the belt in mid-swing? Bad idea. He would drag me into arm's reach like Scorpion from Mortal Kombat and take it from there. "Get Over Here!" Flawless victory.. I knew to go to all lengths possible not to make my mother mad enough at me to have to break me down, though like all humans, I would falter. She would call me at my father's house and warn me days ahead of time about the hell that I was gonna catch when she saw me next. I would just wait in frightful anticipation, praying that she forgot about it. Yeah right. She would whip her moccasin, complete with small cleats, off of her foot and just have at it, swinging after titled the "Board of Education" (those cynical bastards), and drag an insubordinate in front of all their peers and proceed to disperse a Gree style punishment. Imagine that! In front of classroom of friends! I promised myself that I would never subject my children to corporal punishment... I imagine that we all made that claim at one point during the healing process following a thrashing. Yet I see now that sometimes it is the only way to get the point across. I mean, what does "time out" really accomplish? What groundbreaking genius of a parent came up with the brilliant idea of putting a kid in a corner for five minutes to make him or her "realize what they have don* wrong?" You don't think that they are sitting that corner plotting on some more shit to get into when they get free? Not to incite bad mem- ories, but ponder if you will on the worst beat- down you ever got from your folks. Now, whatever it was that provoked that journey into new realms of pain, did you ever do it again? Ever? Yeah, I didn't think so. You equate the crime with the punishment and you make if a point to never catch yourself making that same mistake twice. I was never abused, nor am I promoting child abuse here; there is a thin line between discipline and abuse, and a good parent knows not to tread that line. I-am simply tired of see- ing roles reversed between parent and child: I will never get used to hearing a child curse out his mother (instant death in my family), and I 'i~. l~n"T~wego not c cn".A l -it rae o tha