Administration Attempting to Extend the Boundaries of Control Over Student Conduct

The Student Conduct Code Disappearing Task Force (dtf) presented its draft of the new Code on Wednesday, May 27th (week 9 of spring quarter) as part of their revision process.

This summer the dtf will consult with student affairs professionals from other universities for feedback and with a lawyer to confirm language that is legal and feasible. Following a final draft, the dtf will present its recommendations for the new Conduct Code to Vice President of Student Affairs Art Costantino, who will then have the option to endorse the recommendations and present them to the higher-ups. Multiple members of the dtf have stated that it is highly unlikely for the dtf to institute the new Code before the fall.

As it stands, the document proposes an expansion of power for,yadministering the Conduct Code, which includes extending the college’s jurisdiction outside of Evergreen, a revised grievance system that explicitly forbids the counsel of attorneys, further concentration of power in the hands of the Vice President of Student Affairs, and prescription of harsher penalties for students, including the revocation of an awarded diploma.

Some highlights of the draft include:

section iii. jurisdiction of
the code

2: The Code applies to conduct that occurs off campus and which adversely affects the College Community and/or the pursuit of its objectives. The Vice President for Student Affairs shall determine whether the Code shall be applied to conduct occurring off campus, on a case by case basis.

3: …conduct may occur before programs/courses begin or after they end, as well as during the academic year and during periods between terms of actual enrollment (and even if their conduct is discovered after a degree is awarded).

section iv. standards for student conduct

1. Obstruction or disruption of learning, teaching, research, administration, freedom of speech and movement, the adjudicative process, public services functions or College-sponsored activities on or off campus.

3. Failure to be truthful and forthcoming to the College or a College official.

5. Failure to comply with directions of College officials or emergency response personnel acting in performance of their duties which includes failure to identify oneself to persons when requested to do so.

17. Refusal to desist from prohibited conduct.

These highlights touch on larger issues within the proposed Conduct Code. The extension of the Conduct Code’s jurisdiction beyond the academic institution puts uncomfortable pressure on both students and the college to delineate between students as private individuals and enrolled students, exemplified by the code’s stipulations that continue to adjudicate students even after legal action has been pursued. Along with the code’s penalization of a “refusal to desist,” which effectively punishes a student twice for the same issue, it also creates an internal system to process students for behavior that is already illegal.

This also raises the question of the code’s broad language. Many sections were left intentionally broad, said the student representative to the dtf, in order to handle problems that they could not account for, specifically regarding sexual “misconduct.” Students and faculty alike have expressed concern that this broad language can be used to suppress political action at the college, despite objections from members of the dtf that this will not happen.

One case of concern involves a student at the University of Minnesota (UM) who was recently punished under UM’s conduct code, which carries nearly identical language to Section iii clause 2 of the proposed document (above). The student in question was detained at a political march and released without charge. The university’s clause to protect the school’s public image resulted in the student being charged with violating the code without any connection to academic behavior. UM’s code reads: The Student Conduct Code (Code) shall apply to student conduct that occurs on University premises or at University-sponsored activities. At the discretion of the president or delegate, the Code also shall apply to off-campus student conduct when the conduct, as alleged, adversely affects a substantial University interest and either:

a) constitutes a criminal offense as defined by state or federal law, regardless of the existence or outcome of any criminal proceeding

or

b) indicates that the student may present a danger or threat to the health or safety of the student or others.

Evergreen’s draft Conduct Code extends the “Corrective Action” section to include new clauses for the “Revocation of Admission or Degree,” which the dtf suggested applies only to extreme situations. However, no language exists to connect the harsher punishments to specific violations. The draft contains little to no language that recognizes students’ rights or the administration’s responsibilities in this process.

VP for Student Affairs Art Costantino stated at the presentation meeting that the Conduct Code does not require specific definitive language because the stakes are much lower than in courts of law, so it is not necessary to construct a formal due process system (that is, innocent until proven guilty). Education is recognized, for better or for worse, as a significant gateway to economic and social access. Any process that can limit a person’s access should include due process standards, considering the major quality of life issues.

A public email from one political science professor notes that the existing language of the Conduct Code requires Evergreen students to surrender their constitutional rights – specifically their Fifth Amendment/Miranda rights, which protect the right not to provide any information that may incriminate oneself. The same professor also raised the concern that because the draft’s language penalizes failure to prevent another person from violating the code, it effectively deputizes students and creates a relationship of mistrust.

The dtf has cited the precedent of other universities around the US implementing similar policies, though in response to questions about how such measures are appropriate at Evergreen, the dtf referred only to the need to stay “up to date.”
The Conduct Code dtf was commissioned at the end of the previous school year (2007–2008), following the dead prez incident and the sds sit-in. The Conduct Code review meeting was advertised as an informal feedback session and was held in a small room tucked in the back of the Library’s first floor.

The draft Conduct Code can be found through Evergreen’s dtf page, or directly at: www.evergreen.edu/committee/studentconduct/docs/ProposedTESCCodeofStuden...

Feedback for the conduct code can be sent to Wendy Endress, endressw@evergreen.edu