NEWS
New student-athlete policy in effect this fall
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Alexandra Rogers:
- AIDS battle progressing (May 10, 2007)
- Students slam city bar ban (May 3, 2007)
- Neighbors discuss ownership options (April 27, 2007)
- Business mogul donates millions (April 26, 2007)
- Students to help 'cleanup' hunger (April 13, 2007)
Related Stories:
- Student-athlete discipline policy sets new punishment standards (April 12, 2004)
- Police charge Randle El (March 9, 2005)
- Ticket policy up for debate Friday (May 4, 2006)
- New athletic ticket policy removes unruly students (September 6, 2006)
- Wade released from jail (February 6, 2004)
by Alexandra Rogers
Thursday, September 7, 2006
Acknowledging the fact that University of Wisconsin student athletes are often the subject of a great deal of public attention, the UW Athletic Department made revisions to its student-athlete disciplinary policy over this summer.
Drafted in February 2006, the policy will be put into effect for the first time this semester.
According to the policy, as soon as a student athlete is charged or arrested for a legal violation, they are suspended from the team and a factual inquiry takes place.
Factual inquiry is a process in which Athletic Director Barry Alvarez, a representative for the chancellor and two members of the athletic board determine the appropriate measures to take, on a case-by-case basis. It was added to the student athlete disciplinary policy in an effort to better tend to a student athlete's specific situation.
The athletic board will then find out as much as possible about the student athlete's particular situation, rather than solely considering the initial facts.
Interim Dean of Students Lori Berquam, who was part of the group that drafted the revisions, said due process for the student athletes is the most important part of the new policy.
"It is always important to review our policies and then update them," Berquam said, also noting the importance of making sure policies are "administratively sound."
According to the revised policy, a student athlete can be suspended for causing serious physical injury to another person, making a "credible threat" of serious injury to another person, committing sexual assault, dealing — or having the intent to deal — illegal drugs and stalking, along with several other criminal offenses.
In the policy, there are 11 specified punishments that can be given to a student athlete, but those punishments are not correlated with any specific offense; it is up to the discretion of the factual inquiry committee as to which punishment is administered for a particular offense.
Vince Sweeney, senior associate athletic director for external relations, said key issues addressed in the new student athlete disciplinary policy are matters of flexibility and a more in-depth "fact-finding" system.
"At the time we thought [the previous student athlete disciplinary policy] was one of the best of its kind," Sweeney said.
Berquam shared Sweeney's sentiments and said a "more immediate" reaction time was also significant.
But others, like UW sophomore Kaleigh Suhs, disagreed, contending a policy for student athletes that is different than that applied to the rest of the student body is unfair to the athletes because it gives their actions excessive exposure.
"It doesn't seem fair to athletes that someone like me — a non-athlete — could do the same thing and it wouldn't be publicized at all," Suhs said.
However, the athletic department states in the policy that it feels a separate disciplinary policy is necessary because a student athlete "creates special responsibilities as a representative of the university."
In addition, the policy says actions taken by the university when dealing with student athlete offenses reflect upon the university as a whole.
Anonymous (September 7, 2006 @ 1:10pm):
Lori Berquam: due process for the student athletes is the most important part of the new policy.
Really?! How, then, can you justify punishing an athelete BEFORE any finding of guilt by either the courts or the university?
