H 58°, L 46° | Tomorrow: 
H 62°, L 51°The University of Wisconsin System will take the next step this week in updating its student misconduct policy, which, if approved, could lead to serious changes in the way students are disciplined by officials.
The revised codes include the universities’ power to discipline students for serious criminal offenses off campus, the shift of the hearing procedure to a more “educational” experience and the lowering for the standard of guilt for sexual harassment and sexual assault offenses.
According to Pat Brady, general counsel for the UW System, the regents will send the revised codes Friday to the legislative council, a committee attached to the Legislature that reviews all administrative rules for any state agency to ensure they comply with various technicalities.
UW System spokesperson David Giroux said this next step is simply a “move through the pipeline.”
“This is a section that had not been updated in years,” Giroux said. “Over time more and more questions were coming about that indicated some of these [codes] were clearly out of date.”
The recommendations, pending a report released by the legislative council, would return to the Board of Regents, at which time a public hearing would be held for public testimonies. Following the hearing, the Legislature would review the recommendations and make necessary changes, Brady said.
“I think there will be a somewhat broader ability to deal with off-campus misconduct,” Brady added. “[The codes] should be somewhat clearer and better in terms of informing people of what is prohibited.”
UW-Madison political science professor and Committee for Academic Freedom and Rights President Donald Downs said the updated codes, if approved, could lead to infringements on students’ due process rights.
Specifically, Downs is concerned with the hearing process becoming less of a legal procedure by not allowing defendants to have counsel speak on their behalf because the situation is “by its very nature adversarial.”
“The hearing is going to determine if a student has violated a code. That can result in reprimand, probation, suspension or expulsion,” Downs said. “I think we need to think hard as to whether or not that makes it more difficult for students. It raises the concern that [officials] will be able to make it more likely for a student to be found guilty.”
Giroux said if students want a campus that is safe, they should support the university in updating the codes.
“What if a serious pattern of violent behavior happens to occur off campus? Do you want the university to have its hands tied?” Giroux added. “Now there will be a clearer set of boundaries. It’s good for students to know that at a certain point the serious things that you do off campus … could eventually put your status as a student at risk.”
Additionally, Downs said the exclusion of UW-Madison from the feedback sessions for revising the codes over the past year was unacceptable.
“Madison was left out of this whole process. They had some students, staff and counselors that were involved,” Downs added. “But there was no faculty input. I wonder why? We tend to be kind of sticklers on this stuff, and we raise questions.”
According to Downs, the Committee for Academic Freedom and Rights, a group of 30 faculty members who have been involved in free speech, due process and academic freedom issues on campus, will send a member to the public hearing to voice concerns similar to his own.
IP hash: 920ede18
Will this apply to athlete’s too? What are we going to do without our misdemeanor prone athletes?
IP hash: 4e476a02
downs is the man
IP hash: 383c8285
As a student who went through the so called “due process hearing”, the fact that the University is getting more power is very frightening. It was ridiculous I was there in the first place (I won my case by a unanimous 3-0 vote), but the system is already set up to put the student at a serious disadvantage. The system was/is so skewed that my lawyer (a UW undergrad and Harvard Law graduate) was fully prepared to challenge the school and take the case to the State Courts.
For instance, under the old policy, you were allowed to have an “advisor”, or lawyer, but he was not allowed to even speak. The whole hearing he would whisper in my ear and tell me what to say….BUT the university gets not one but two legal advisors on the board, plus two faculty members, plus a student, plus the dean, and pretty much whoever wants to show up to cross examine the student.
I’m probably a rare case, in that most people probably should be kicked out who end up there, but it still wrong for the university to put its students at a significant disadvantage when they are fighting to get their education.
IP hash: addd3ad5
As a teaching staff member at UW-Parkside, I can assure you that some serious changes need to be made. As it stands, teaching staff members do not receive protection from the students; rather, the students receive all of the benefits.
I have been physically assaulted in the classroom with a room full of witnesses, and the student has not only been allowed to stay in the class, but that student was also allowed to enroll in a future course that I taught. Other faculty were available to teach the class, so it was not as though there were not other options.
The university system is making these changes in part because we have been pressuring them to do so, and also, I believe, because they know that they could face lawsuits if they allow for this behavior to continue.
IP hash: 5eda27d1
Shared governance is increasingly a myth. Due process is out the window. Welcome to post 9-11 America. Get your ticket stamped to Guantanmo now… or at least don’t get an education.
IP hash: ee7602d4
The effect of the changes will be to give more power to university officials to do as they see fit. One thing this article doesn’t mention is that decision making by disciplinary boards will take into account campus diversity goals, among other overriding interests. I think we can all imagine how lowering the standard of guilt for sexual harassment allegations will work out. Will administration officers consider a threat to break up with someone tantamount to rape (except in the case of minorities)? Don’t laugh, the idea is taken seriously in some academic quarters. Under the new regulations there are fewer checks on administration power and severe restrictions on a defendent’s ability to defend herself.