The Chronicle

Issue date: 9/13/07 Section: Columns
Last update: 9/13/07 at 7:14 AM EST

Elliot Wolf

Stark contradictions between administrators' statements and written policy don't bode well for the University. Nor for us, for that matter.

In 2003 the "Fundamental Standard," a policy described by current Director of Judicial Affairs Stephen Bryan as a "catch-all," was expunged from the Judicial Code.

As Bryan explained to The Chronicle last week, "Basically, if someone['s behavior] is contrary to the Fundamental Standard of honor, integrity and respect for the rights of others, you could be thrown out of the University." He added, "to me that's preposterous. You will find that nowhere in the 2007-2008 policy and procedures. We don't want anything so broad that it's at the whim of the administration."

He and I are in total agreement. Our views are apparently at odds with the current undergraduate judicial code, however, which the Office of Judicial Affairs, incidentally, authored.

Currently, "students may be held accountable for any violation of university policy that may or may not be included in [the bulletin]," whether the violation occurred "on or off-campus," or for "any conduct adjudged unsatisfactory or detrimental to the university community," or for "attempting or intending to commit any violation of laws and/or university policies" or for "failure to comply with directions, requests or orders of any university representative or body."

Adapting Judicial Affairs' new standard of "probable cause," all that is required to initiate disciplinary action is information indicating something that someone may have done, tried to do or meant to do may have been against some university policy, written or unwritten, may be in contravention of someone's request, order or directive or may be otherwise "detrimental to the University community."

It is this extremely broad language, introduced between 2003 and 2006, that extends the question of undergraduate policies and procedures far beyond the group of students actually facing adjudication (the obliteration of their rights was chronicled last week). Any student could be swept up by a system whose purview, to adopt Bryan's words, is "so broad that it's at the whim of the administration."

This movement towards broad administrative discretion has also subsumed the only other two rights students not facing adjudication might be concerned with: (1) the right to privacy and (2) the right of student involvement in determining the policies that govern us.

Continued...

Page 1 of 2 next >

Article Tools