Last Friday, Assistant Dean of Students Ervin Cox (“UW policy consistent with nation”) responded to Dan Walter’s column as part of an ongoing discussion over changes to the UW System’s student conduct policies. While I disagree with Cox’s arguments about the merits of not permitting a representative to speak for students at a hearing, what really irked me was the way he framed his argument.
He offers an excellent explanation as to why the university’s process doesn’t violate any legal precedents, even going as so far as to cite specific case law. The only problem is that, to my knowledge, no one has ever accused the revisions of violating students’ legal rights. Our argument is not that we legally have the right to representation at a hearing but rather that the UW ought to go above and beyond its obligation to give us that right.
Particularly disturbing to me was when he stated, “By allowing an adviser even in minor cases where criminal charges are not pending, our process may actually grant students more rights than we are legally obligated to.” In other words, students ought to be grateful our administration is willing to potentially give us more rights above and beyond the legal minimum. Like Jennifer Aniston in “Office Space,” it seems the university is content just doing the minimum. While doing the minimum is fine by me when it comes to how many pieces of flair movie waitresses should wear, it is an irrational standard on which to base which rights this university decides to give to students.
In other areas of this university, the idea that basing our policies off some minimum standard would be preposterous. I can’t imagine anyone suggesting the quality of education offered was acceptable merely because it was above the minimum standards necessary to maintain our accreditation as a place of higher education. Should our researchers be aiming to barely exceed the requirements necessary to receive funding? This is a university that routinely doesn’t even bother to acknowledge minimum standards exist because the minimum is so far below the standards we set for ourselves.
While setting a higher standard for ourselves in the area of student rights does not always mean giving students every right we might ask for, it certainly requires not being content because the rights we are afforded as students exceed those that are legally mandated. We should be better than that, and our discussion of the issue ought to reflect that.
This line of reasoning should be above our administrators. The discussion over the code of conduct changes should be centered on making our hearing process the best it can reasonably be, and the issue of the minimum legal rights of students ought to only enter in the discussion if the process might potentially violate them. It is in fact the very same use of enumerated rights to justify the taking of away of any right above and beyond those listed that Alexander Hamilton warned about in Federalist No. 84 when he argued that the inclusion of a Bill of Rights in the Constitution would not limit government power but rather “would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power.”
Patrick McEwen ([email protected]) is a sophomore majoring in nuclear engineering.
