DTF pushing new Conduct Code
Have you ever seen someone smoking outside the smokers’ tent and not immediately called the cops? You violated the proposed Conduct Code.
Have you ever gone to a party in Rock Maple and consumed alcohol there underage? You violated the proposed Conduct Code.
Have you ever been accused of (but not convicted or even necessarily charged with) a serious crime? You violated the proposed Conduct Code.
Has a friend ever confided in you that they were the victim of a crime but asked you to not tell anyone? If you kept your promise, you violated the proposed Conduct Code.
Another day, another sparsely attended forum on the new Student Code of Conduct. Though the DTF charged with making revisions to the code has made what appears to be a genuine effort to at least get feedback on the proposed revision and despite a series of meetings earlier in the year during which students attended en masse and were very vocal about their problems with the Code, the recent forums have been sparsely attended, often to the point that DTF members outnumber students. It could be that students are too overwhelmed with fighting tuition hikes and pushing for a fair budget. It could be that they are too busy pushing the College to implement a responsible investment policy. It could be that students are simply overwhelmed trying to balance classwork with a job to make ends meet.
Without claiming to know which, if any, of these reasons are to blame for the low attendance at recent meetings, it is clear that students do not know what will hit them if the new Code of Conduct is implemented.
The criticisms offered in this article might seem outlandish, but no scenario mentioned is particularly difficult to imagine happening at Evergreen. When looking at a proposed set of rules, it is important to consider a wide range of circumstances to which they could be applied. The administration asserts that the new rules will not be used to punish students for not reporting violations of the campus smoking policy, but the question remains why they are given the power to do so.
Even if nobody is punished for outrageous activities such as that, important criticisms still remain in the gray areas where a student might not know if the activity in which they are engaging is worthy of punishment under the new code. When a set of rules is written so broadly as to prohibit all sorts of activity that most students would not have any trouble with, a substantial danger of selective enforcement arises. Selective enforcement has never been a good idea, yet worded as it is now, this is exactly what the proposed Code will require.
I have identified a few specific areas of concern in the new Code. This is the fourth CxPJ article about these concerns and many of these same areas have been brought up by a diverse range of students at many of the meetings in recent memory. Though the Code of Conduct Disappearing Task Force has constructed their online FAQ section almost specifically along the lines of what our former coverage has mentioned, very little of the Code has changed. Our continuing coverage is an attempt to alert the student population to the threat this pending code poses to them and to propose several ideas to resist its approval.
Jurisdiction Expansion:
The DTF’s online FAQ states that they are suggesting an expansion of jurisdiction “in order for the College to be able to intervene if the learning opportunity and/or the health and safety of another member of the community may be at risk.” The old code allowed of sanctions under the code for violations on campus, and any violation of the code off campus which is also a violation of the law. The new code, however, divides areas outside of campus into two categories: adjacent properties and off-campus.
Violations of the code that occur in areas that are off-campus, anywhere that is not on College property or directly next to it, may only be addressed by the College when the violation “would constitute a danger to the health or personal safety of a member of the College community.” Though DTF Chair Wendy Endress told one CxPJ reporter that they were likely to drop the adjacent properties jurisdiction due to overwhelmingly negative feedback, the DTF’s May 26 meeting saw the jurisdiction expanded further to re-include threats to property in addition to health and personal safety.
This change allows the college to charge students who are residents of the Cooper Glen and Rock Maple apartment complexes and even students as far away as the Mango House with violations of the Code even when they are in their own home. This would presumably allow RAs who are off campus to write grievances to students drinking underage even when students would not normally expect to be subject to Evergreen policies.
One student cited the policy in the Code that prohibits the possession of firearms or other weapons. “Are they telling me that I can’t have a licensed firearm in my own home?” As the Code is worded, that is exactly what they are telling students. Whether or not Evergreen will be installing smoker’s tents around people’s homes or issuing grievances to students who tag their own walls is still an open question.
Assisting or failure to intervene:
The new code lists 26 types of conduct that will be prohibited. Many of the actions prohibited, like forgery, stalking, and theft, are not new and are not of concern to most students. What will infringe on the rights of every student at this College, though, is the last type of prohibited conduct. This section addresses “failure to intervene” and says any student who witnesses a violation of any section of the Code of Conduct or any college policy are required to report this violation to the authorities. Failure to do so is a violation of the Code. The new rule does not simply prohibit students from assisting in violations of the code and it does far more than merely suggest students call the cops when others are in danger. The new rule states that students must report any violation of any campus rule or policy to the authorities immediately or they will be guilty of a violation themselves. It does not differentiate violations too minor, too personal, or too self incriminating to report. It says “a violation,” which is broadly defined to include any violation and requires a minimum of “bringing the action to the attention of College officials.”
If you have ever walked by somebody smoking and not called the cops, you would be in violation of the Code. If you were tagging a wall in A-dorm and didn’t inform campus police you were doing so, you’d have two grievances on your hands.
A more troublesome situation is if a friend of yours is the victim of a crime like sexual violence and decides not to report that crime but still tells you details about the event. Under the proposed Code, you would still be required to report the event to campus police. If this rule is implemented, any student who naively assumes they are allowed to counsel the victim of a crime and keep that information confidential will be violating of the new Conduct Code.
Being accused of a crime:
In addition to punishing for students for not snitching, the new Code makes even the “accusation of an alleged violation of federal, state, or local law by law enforcement” when “it is reasonable to conclude that the presence of the [accused person] would constitute a danger to the health or personal safety of members of the College community [emphasis added]” enough to earn a potential interim suspension from campus.
If the new code were in place when the State Street 29 were arrested and cited with rioting and a few charged with felonious assault of an officer, they all could have conceivably run afoul of the new code. It is easy to see how an individual who were so inclined could make a case that “rioters” would be dangerous to have on campus.
When Endress was asked whether the alleged “rioters” could be excluded from campus using this section, she claimed that the State Street 29 would not be punishable under the new code since it is hard to see how they caused a danger to campus.
While Endress is correct that members of the State Street 29 do not pose a danger to campus, it is hard to follow her logic. If the charges were true, people might consider the “rioters” dangerous. Regardless, the sort of qualitative decision required to be made preemptively to any legal preceding by an administrator with no experience or qualification in the legal system is suspect in and of itself.
Punishments:
Thus far, the new Code makes the first, second, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth amendments in the Bill of Rights little more than historical antiquities at Evergreen. This being said, the new Conduct Code isn’t content to stop at smashing more civil liberties than the P.A.T.R. I.O.T.A.C.T. In addition to a new types of prohibited conduct, the new Code also includes some very troubling new sanctions. Chief among these punishments is a provision allowing the College to retroactively revoke the degree of any student for any violation of the code.
Though a FAQ distributed by the DTF states that this would “likely only be used if a student was found to have engaged in egregious dishonesty,” it is important to note that the FAQ will not have any binding power over people charged with administering the new Code and it states that it is only likely that it will be used in the most severe cases.
Despite massive public outcry, degree revocation can still be applied to any other violation of the code from drinking underage to failure to follow a fire alarm.
Further troubles with this provision arise when one takes into account that it can be applied ex post facto to students who will already have graduated by the time the Code takes effect.
When it was explained to Endress that students who have already graduated and have had absolutely no chance to comment on the code will become subject to retroactive sanctions which could negate all the work they did and money they spent for a degree, she stated that that she “does not find that a problem.”
“Failure to be truthful and forthcoming:”
One of the specific types of violation that could earn a degree revocation for an unlucky student is “failure to be truthful.” But by looking at the definition offered by the code of “failure to be truthful,” it becomes clear that this presents a problem. Any lie told to any college official—be they an RA or a library clerk—is enough to make one guilty of failure to be truthful and thus eligible for degree revocation.
Standards of Proof:
Since punishments like degree revocation, which one student likened to the “academic death penalty,” are being added to the Code, one would hope that the College would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a violation actually occurred before enforcing them. This is not the case.
In both the old and proposed Code, the standard of proof required is a “preponderance of evidence” or a “more likely than not” standard. This means that a conduct administrator needs to be 51% sure that a student is responsible for the action of which they are accused.
Even in the serious cases to which the DTF professes that degree revocation should be applied, not nearly enough evidence is required to retroactively revoke a degree. Any instance in which a paper is submitted where more than a few words match an article on Wikipedia could potentially be enough to revoke a student’s degree, even decades down the road.
In a conversation with the DTF on May 3, I questioned DTF members about why they are expanding their power so greatly. One member explained that they are simply following a nationwide trend of student conduct codes. Especially at Evergreen, which has never been much of a trend-follower, we must question the legitimacy of any decisions based on “nationwide trends.”
A potential solution
In Tinker v. Des Moines, a landmark case before the Supreme Court in 1969, the Court stated that “schools may not be enclaves of totalitarianism.” While it is not being seriously claimed that Evergreen will become totalitarian by implementing the new Code, it is clear that its substantial abridgment of student rights is not a step in the right direction. If the administration is serious about listening to students, as they say they have all along, one student has a rather ingenious suggestion.
“Why don’t they let students vote on the proposed Code,” asks Trent. Trent is enrolled in Social Change: Desire, Design, and Composition, and has been working on a petition to require the new Student Conduct Code, and any major policy affecting students, to be put to a student-wide vote. “TESC students have a voice and are able to know when their alternatives are being reduced,” said Trent. The petition to require a student-wide vote on policy change is already gaining momentum and over 150 students have signed on.