Council debates judicial changes

The agenda at yesterday's University Council meeting was packed with controversial issues, but poor student attendance disappointed many of those present. The draft of the new student judicial system, Code of Student Conduct and Code of Academic Integrity, the Commission on Strengthening the Community's final report and the Abel Committee Report were all discussed at length. Reviewing the meeting's agenda, Interim President Claire Fagin said she hopes the proposed judicial reforms would mark a turning point as the University moves away from a system she described as "highly legalistic and overly-administrative." Fagin asked for continued school and faculty involvement as the various parts of the judicial system are debated, voted on and implemented over the course of the next two semesters. The Student Judicial Charter and Code of Academic Integrity require the approval of each school before they can take effect. The Code of Student Conduct will be in place by the end of the month, Fagin added. Later in the meeting, as Student Judicial Reform Committee member Walter Mancing, a College junior, presented the draft of the Code of Student Conduct, debate centered on Section 3j. The section states that students have an obligation "to refrain from repeated conduct towards an identifiable individual or individuals that knowingly or intentionally creates a hostile environment which deprives that individual(s) of or infringes upon their rights as University citizen(s)." It is potentially controversial because it does not distinguish between speech and conduct. Mancing said the section was intended to prevent a single incident of verbal harassment from being punishable, while allowing the discipline of a pattern of offensive speech. "One use of the word is an insult," Mancing said referring to a racial epithet. "Repeated use is assault." A single incident of offensive speech will be considered the act of an ignorant person who will be given the chance to educate himself or herself, he said. But if the speech is repeated, he added, "we will do the educating for that person" through judicial sanctions. While Mancing's explanation of Section 3j and assurances that some of its language will be modified seemed to satisfy many of those present, Mathematics Professor Peter Freyd referred to the section as "a minefield." Council members also called other parts of the code into question. Some members were particularly concerned with whether the code would punish students for disrupting class, even if the disruption were part of a larger demonstration or act of civil disobedience. Physics Professor Michael Cohen, noting that he had last served on Council during the late 1960s, asked if the burning of draft cards would be punished by the University under the new code's section stating students must obey "all Federal, State and local laws." "Yes," Judicial Reform Committee Co-Chairperson Hirschfelder answered. "It's against the law." After the meeting, Judicial Reform Committee Co-Chairperson David Hackney, an associate professor of radiology, said another potential controversy stems from the fact that the code is meant to apply to students whether they violate it on or off campus. Hackney said the University would then be able to discipline a student for underage drinking or narcotic possession if they had been caught while home for the summer or on spring break. Judicial Reform Committee member Kirsten Bartok got into a debate with Faculty Senate Chairperson-Elect Barbara Lowery over the number of faculty members who should participate in the new judicial process. Earlier in the meeting, Cohen attempted to get the Council to discuss the recently-released Abel Report. Cohen said he believes the report is "fundamentally inaccurate" and should not be adopted as the official history of the incident. Council seemed unwilling to discuss the matter and the vote to add the item to next month's agenda split, 10 for and 10 against. Council Moderator William Harris said it is now up to the Council Steering Committee to decide whether to add the item, but he advised them to do so if possible because of the high level of interest shown by the vote. Also discussed at yesterday's meeting were the Commission on Strengthening the Community's final report and a report of the Library Committee. The Library Committee said the University library system is in a crisis, with its rate of acquisition -- an important indicator of the strength and quality of a library system -- ranked 28th in the nation, behind schools like Rutgers University and Arizona State University.