I would like to respond to the Opinion piece by Dan Walters on April 23 (“Cynicism justified on conduct code”) regarding the proposed changes to student conduct policies for the UW System. Mr. Walters is wrong when he argues students have the right to full representation by an attorney at a formal misconduct hearing. There simply is no such right, as a review of case law will attest.

Federal courts have consistently upheld that students, while having the right to an adviser in a formal hearing, do not have the right to have an adviser directly address the hearing body. One of the commonly cited cases is Osteen v. Henley (7th Cir. 1993). In fact, some case law holds that students only have the right to an adviser when they are also facing criminal charges for the alleged infraction. 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.

As pointed out by Dean Helmkamp, there are important reasons for limiting the adviser’s role, particularly in focusing on the process being educational and not overly adversarial and legalistic. Another thing to keep in mind is that the hearing body wants and needs to hear from the student, as they are best placed to offer information on what happened during the incident in question.

A hearing is essentially a search for the truth, where the hearing body “winnows and sifts” all of the available information so a proper decision can be made. Allowing criminal defense attorneys to actively participate in the process would only serve to move the process from an educational one to an adversarial one that has little to do with truth. Another important thing to realize is that the adjusted language in the draft revision of Code 17 does not change our current practice, as we already limit advisers to assisting the student and not directly addressing the hearing body.

I will admit to having some concerns over some aspects of the code revisions. However, as a whole, the changes are much-needed and provide appropriate procedural guidelines that are firmly in line with both commonly accepted practice in higher education and what the legal system has indicated we are obligated to provide. As Dean Helmkamp offered, we would be more than happy to discuss the code revisions, including our concerns, with anyone interested. We can be reached at (608) 263-5700.

Ervin H. “Kipp” Cox

Director, Student Advocacy and Judicial Affairs

Assistant Dean of Students

University of Wisconsin-Madison

[email protected]