BY SAMANTHA LUNA-PATTERSON
On Sep. 18, the revised Student Conduct Code — now titled the Code of Student Rights and Responsibilities — came into effect. Over the course of the summer several a committee held several meetings in order to finalize the language and technicalities of the revisions to the 2017 code. These revisions have been finalized after corrections and changes were discussed by a code committee for over a year.
The additions to student proceedings — the rights of students and procedures concerned with code violations — were extensive. The previously eleven page document became thirty pages by its implementation.
Although the revisions were first inspired by a need for updated definitions and a scheduled review, the on-campus protests in spring of 2017 also played a part in the expansion of the student procedures section of the code. Lori Johnson, the Director of Student Conduct and Conflict Resolution since last year, stated in a CPJ interview that, although the revisions were not directly caused by the protests, the “circumstance of that academic year did impact, I think positively, the work on the code by getting students involved with the revision process, and to think critically about how we can get our code to be as equitable and fair as possible.”
The revisions were overseen by a committee made up of faculty, Title IX coordinators, administrators and representation from the Attorney General’s office. There was also a panel of students involved, with a total of eight students hired by a separate committee of students and staff. Faculty members were chosen to give input by the Vice President of Student Affairs, Wendy Endress, and Student and Academic Support Services (SASS). During the meetings, changes were formally established through consensus.
Student Brandon Ellington was on the board for revisions. They said the voting process was a “loose consensus, and I say loose because I don’t think we officially made motions that had votes, but when we were discussing changes and dissenting voices we worked to get everyone comfortable with a change going forward.”
After the revisions were agreed on, the board of trustees took a vote this summer to put it in place.
Changes to Appeals Process
One of the biggest expansions made involved the section regarding procedures, or the actions that are performed by the school in regards to breaking of the code. The first major revision made to the proceedings is now if a student is accused of breaking the code, that student has a right to request a new conduct official to review their case with them. If a student suspects any bias or for any reason suspects that their case will not be fairly handled by the conduct officer their case is assigned, they have the right to submit a complaint that requests a new officer.
Another major addition to the code is called a procedural review complaint. When a student is in a conduct process they have the right to have a neutral party review their case to address any suspicion that some part of the process is not being done fairly or properly.
“What is really great about this is instead of a student having to go through a conduct process, and then appeal, which was the old procedure, they can time out the process and say, ‘Hey, I think there is a problem here,’” explained Johnson.
Since this is the first year the new procedure has been put in place, it is still unclear what the process will be to either approve or deny either of these requests.
“Most conduct meetings are for things that are more minor,” said Johnson. Minor offenses are offenses whose associated punishments result in ten days of suspension or less. Some examples given of minor events include noise violations and drinking in the dorms. These added processes have been structured for more serious cases but they also apply to these minor processes.
The new code also includes two different types of appeal in cases when a student is given a punishment they do not agree with for a violation for which they have not admitted guilt. If the student is given a suspension of ten days or less, they will have the option to have a brief adjudicative proceeding. This will be a meeting between a student and administrator where the administrator will come to a conclusion on the students punishment. The other type of appeal is similar, but for more serious sanction. In this case the process will take place in front of an appeals panel. The makeup of the appeals panel has also changed, limiting the number of students required. Instead of having three students along with a faculty member and one staff member, the number of students on the panel has been changed to one.
Definitions such as sexual violence and harassment have been updated and added. Previously, the code’s definition of consent took up only one line. It is now a two paragraph definition, including the addition of a line stating that “Intoxication is not a defense against allegations that an individual has engaged in non consensual sexual activity.”
The code also has added “relationship violence,” defining it as “the infliction of physical harm, bodily injury, assault, or the fear of imminent physical harm, bodily injury or assault committed against a person who is or has been in a social relationship of a romantic or intimate nature with the complainant. The existence of such a relationship will be presumed based on the reporting party’s statement and with consideration of the length of the relationship, the type of relationship, and the frequency of interaction between the persons involved in the relationship.”
As the code goes into place and has tangible effects for students, there is still doubt that the code solely or even reflects the desires of students. Ellington claimed faculty and staff received preferential treatment. “It’s slightly concerning that I can near guarantee faculty and staff got the changes they wanted to see within the code, while I cannot express the same confidence for students,” they said.
Although the code is currently an official document, Johnson says it still can be subject to change through communication from students, and encourages students to not wait for formal revisions before they offer input. “Our hope is that the code will be a continual living document,” says Johnson. “Anyone can contact the Office of Student Rights and Responsibilities with concerns.”
