Student safety is balanced against potential double jeopardy for misconduct
Recently the UW System conduct code was changed by the Board of Regents altering Chapters 17 and 18.
As reported by the Badger Herald, "These conduct rules apply not only during the semester when classes are in session, but also during summer break, on weekends and now, due to recent changes, while away from campus, especially when on other UW campuses," and mainly deal with, "non-academic student conduct on university lands.
Two years after the initial draft changes were proposed, the decision passed by a margin of 15-3. The changes in policy bring a mixed sentiment from the staff of the Advance-Titan.
On the one hand, there is a specific policy for sexual assault, which means that certain cases, especially like the recent UW-Oshkosh shower peeper case could have impact from the changes.
The changes also give the university the right to ban someone not specifically affiliated with the university from campus grounds," and, "to keep those threatening students or other officials off campus. Insomuch as this enables the university to protect its students from outsiders it is a boon.
Past experience with anti-abortion protestors and other forceful speakers might however raise the issue of free-speech rights, and the university might find itself in troubled waters if it attempts to flex its new-found muscle in this way.
However, according to the Badger Herald article, "Under the new changes to Chapter 17, the university has also gained …if a student is involved in illegal activities which directly relate to their education at the university –such as a business student involved in credit card fraud –they can now be disciplined by the university because it significantly impacts the reputation of the specific school in which the student studies." But this begs the question of just how much discretion a university can exert to use these provisions. Would a political science student get disciplined if the university didn't like their possibly revolutionary activities, philosopher's as thought criminals for raising critical debate, social justice majors for organizing protests?
How far will the university go in punishing students for offenses? As acknowledged "the university is not going to look into every case of drunkenness or jaywalking, but only those actions which are serious criminal offenses, present danger to one's self and others or seriously impair the UW or its public service mission." Ultimately, who decides what is serious, and to whom?
As stated in the commentary about the conduct code revisions, "The final version states the crime must be severe and repeated," yet if the public image of the university is at stake, will they still abide by these standards?
The main problem that the conduct code poses stems from the possibility of double jeopardy over a student's conduct, and why should students face additional punishment for crimes they will already be punished for? "We introduce students to double-jeopardy. We throw open doors to lawyers, but only those students with money will have a right to an attorney," Regent Thomas Loftus said in his quote for the Badger Herald.
And to top it all off, the mixed blessing of being able to hire a lawyer for representation was added among the changes. However, there is no guarantee that a student will be able to obtain that representation if fiscally unable. Some university schools provide counsel, but there is no guarantee.
As with all radical changes that students have been impotent to oppose, the ending repeated phrase will come out to be, much like it was written before, "the average student need not worry for they will find themselves unaffected, not even noticing the passage of these contentious changes."
Go back to sleep, student population, your rights are just as compromised as before.
is a member of the 
2 comments