News

UW may alter articles 17, 18

Changes would increase scrutiny on sexual assault, would be made to promote safety

A public hearing scheduled by the University of Wisconsin System Board of Regents will take place today to discuss final changes to the student conduct code regarding student behavior outside off university property.

University of Wisconsin System spokesperson David Giroux said chapters 17 and 18 are presently “woefully outdated and need to be brought up to today’s realities.”

If passed by the Legislature, the proposal will allow students who display a repetitive pattern of dangerous behavior to be subject to academic discipline, Giroux said.

Giroux added the conduct would only be brought to the university if it adversely affects a substantial university interest, defined by a serious criminal offense or a strong indication the student may present a danger to him- or herself or others.

Giroux emphasized a student will only be subject to such charges if the behavior is repetitive or impairs the university’s ability to teach.

Such conduct includes sexual assault, stalking and hazing, Giroux added.

“We are largely talking about violence and destruction to property to a repeated nature,” Giroux said. “If you show a pattern of stalking, maybe you don’t belong on our campus, and that will be the judgment of the university of student affairs office based on the evidence at hand.”

Though the UW System is making the proposal in the interest of campus safety, the question as to whether the university should be granted such rights has incited much debate.

“The system decided to do it because they wanted to stand jurisdiction over off-campus misconduct, and I think they wanted to create a more learning-type environment,” UW political science professor Donald Downs said. “The problem is that … if you’re talking about expulsion it is adversarial and to claim it’s not will weaken the rights students have in that situation.”

Downs said he is particularly concerned about the proposed changes to the amount of evidence needed to convict someone of sexual harassment.

If the board’s proposal is passed by Legislature, a person simply accused of sexual assault could be convicted.

Downs said convicting someone of sexual assault is a serious matter and should not be treated differently than the remainder of the offenses.

Downs also spoke against the board’s proposal to limit an adviser, required to attend an accused student’s hearing, from speaking.

“Students are required to bring an adviser,” Downs said. “If the board limits what the adviser can do, it could hurt the rights of the student.”

Downs also said he hopes the board clarifies words regarding the chancellor’s right to overturn all hearing decisions if they have “an adverse impact on equal educational opportunity.”

Down said he fears the clause is giving the chancellor the right to dismiss minority cases to maintain a diverse campus.

“Guilt is individual,” Down added. “If guilt is not individual, we corrupt the system.”

The proposal will be presented to the Board of Regents Thursday and sent to the Legislature for further review.