Code up for June adoption

It's been nine years coming, but if approved in June, all nine IU campuses will adopt a new standard code defining student misconduct rights and procedures.\nThe current IU Student Code of Rights, Responsibilities, and Conduct states each individual school can determine its own polices to coincide with it. \nBut the Board of Trustees will have a first reading May 6 of a new code that will create a uniform policy for all schools at all nine IU campuses. The trustees will vote on the final version at their June meeting. If passed, the new code will take effect in fall 2005.\nAccompanying the code are sets of procedures, or ways a campus enforces academic guidelines. This year the procedures have been revised, but they will be completely rewritten in the spring of 2006 and will be campus specific, said Mary Popp, co-chair of the Bloomington Faculty Council and the University Faculty Council. She supports campus-specific procedures despite a uniform code to promote some flexibility regarding how individual campuses deal with infractions. \nOne part of the code that will change is a policy concerning formal hearings of student misconduct. The code now states students can be represented by an adviser at a formal hearing and have that adviser speak on their behalf. The code goes on to state that individual schools can adopt specific policy procedures for representation. \nThe College of Arts and Science and the School of Education each require students, not advisers, to speak on their own behalf. The new code will adopt this policy. \n"The adviser or support person may not participate in the proceeding, may not question the witness and may not make any statements during the proceeding," the new code states. The new code allows an adviser to be present at a hearing but not speak for the student. They are allowed only to advise.\nIU Associate Director for Public Relations for the IU Student Association of Student Rights Matt Dattilo is against the new code's policy. He believes if students are not allowed representation during formal hearings, more students will suffer penalties as a result of the hearings.\n"I believe we will see the number of students found responsible for infractions increase dramatically," Dattilo said. "I also think a number of those (students) found responsible will be victims of the system rather than their own misconduct."\nBut Popp, who wrote the new code, said the new policy is advantageous because the board can hear a first-hand account of what happened from students themselves.\n"The sentiment of the faculty board is that students need to be able to speak for themselves," Popp said. "We want to hear what the student is thinking, and they can certainly have advisers there to help them. But the adviser can't tell us what the student is thinking -- that was really the consensus of the faculty."\nChancellor Ken Gros Louis agrees with Popp and added the code is not intended to allow for a legal hearing but to talk with the student directly. \n"This is not a legal matter. If a student obviously breaks a law, then they would go in front of a court of law -- that's a legal matter," he said. "The desire is not to raise the campus judicial process. Since this is not about a violation of a law, we try to avoid making this a legal matter. The desire was trying to avoid a legal hearing."\nBut Dattilo argues some students are unable to speak effectively in front of a board or committee. The atmosphere during a hearing can be very intimidating for students to answer appropriately, he said.\n"I agree that the student has first-hand knowledge and that is valuable, but when faced with the types of questions board members ask and the imposing environment in which the questions are asked, invariably some students are not able to articulate their position on the situation," Dattilo said. "Those questions that board members ask are not nearly as innocent as they are portrayed -- the questions are very leading."\nDean of Students Richard McKaig said this change in the new code will affect only a small number of students, but the purpose of the hearing is to hear from the student, not the legal counsel.\n"The number of students who are involved in formal hearings is relatively small, and the number of those who have sought legal counsel is smaller," McKaig said. "I know the faculty felt strong that if a student had a lawyer present then professor felt he or she should have a lawyer too. Then we lose the educational purpose, and the hearing might as well be taking place in a court of law. It's important that the student's rights be protected ... As long as students can have advice, I think they're adequately protected."\nMcKaig also said the reason this particular part of the code was changed was to encompass all schools at IU-Bloomington to lessen confusion among students, especially students who might switch schools and therefore switch codes. \n"We have a lot of students who change their majors and their schools, and if each school has its own policies, it seems to be to be very confusing for the student," McKaig said. "I personally feel it's in the best interests of students to apply the code to all students so that they are clear on situation."\nIU Student Association President Alex Shortle said he wants IUSA to continue discussing issues at IU to stimulate change.\n"IUSA has a duty to raise these sorts of questions," Shortle said. "It is often those questions that catalyze change."\n-- Contact Senior Writer Lindsay Jancek at lmjancek@indiana.edu.