Proposed changes to the Code of Non-Academic Conduct (CNAC) and Student Judicial Board (SJB) were passed by the Student Affairs Committee (SAC) on Friday. The changes were provoked by an University Task Force on the Honor Code and the Code of Non-Academic Conduct of February 2003.
The proposed changes create a student-faculty panel to hear egregious cases. The panel would consist of two students and two faculty members, each with full voice and vote. If the board is unable to come to consensus on the case during deliberations, the dean of the college may make the final determination, according to the proposed changes.
The SJB would have the power to decide whether to subject an egregious case to the panel. Currently, the SJB makes similar decisions regarding minor judicial matters and cases. Such cases can be referred to the Residential staff and resolved through a judicial conference.
This change has been met with some contention, but is endorsed by the administration and some student members of various committees. Opponents of the change say that the panel will remove student voice from debating cases.
“Students should be the most concerned,” said Colin Bumby ’04, member of the SJB. “This essentially makes a panel that the University has more vote and say. The student SJB [members] have more understanding [than adult administrators]. To me, the students are more fair in their sanctions than the administrators.”
Proponents of the change stress that it is unlikely that the panel would be often used, and the changes essentially codify existing measures.
“I’m certainly not interested in administrators in having lots of cases,” said Interim Dean of the College Peter Patton. “I want the SJB to be a place for students. There’s no intention to make the SJB less important…I tried to make it clear…that we certainly want the SJB to have 99.9% of the cases. But we simply need this mechanisms for the most troubling cases.”
Proponents also argue there may be more opportunity for student involvement in egregious cases than ever.
“I think it’s important to note, that even in the current code, that the Dean of the College can overrule the board [SJB] if he doesn’t agree with the ruling,” said Becca Solow ’04, Chair of the SAC Student Affairs and Co-Chair of Student Life Committee (SLC).
Under the proposed changes, it would be less likely the Dean would overrule a sanction, according to Solow.
Proponents and opponents both cite the lack of definition of egregious cases as potentially problematic.
“We put a lot of effort into making sure there wasn’t a snowball effect [that would deem many cases as egregious],” Solow said. “We chose not to define the term egregious case because we felt that we wouldn’t ever be able to specify every contingency where that would apply.”
“As of right now do not have a definition for egregious, which is problematic,” said Courtney Taylor ’05, member of the SJB. “So whose to say what is egregious, and whose to say which cases receive administration opinion and input. That’s what’s problematic.”
Predictions for the effect of these changes range from nominal to extensive. Opponents fear that the term egregious may be used to cover a larger portion of cases than expected, thereby removing sole student involvement and interest in the process. If the CNAC is not executed solely by the SJB, students may not revere it as much.
“These changes do not ensure…the community standards are accomplished as well, because students are kept out of the process,” Bumby said. “When you kept out of a process you’re less likely to understand it. Overall, these changes represent a significant reversal in peer adjudication and student responsibilities…the Administration [involvement] will prevent the student body from taking this code seriously.”
“I think they’ll have a very slight impact,” Solow said. “The type of violations [that would be subjected to the panel] are very minimal.”
The change regarding egregious cases was provoked by an abnormal amount of sexual assault and situations involving external legal processes. Patton said he would have referred one case to the panel this year, had it existed.
The other major proposal assigns the Dean of the College, the SJB and the Faculty Executive Committee, power to appoint faculty advisors to the SJB.
“I think there may be some desire to see new blood and new perspective,” Solow said. “This is not a negative comment. More faculty members to serve would benefit the students by providing different opinions.”
Another proposed major change would assign hosts the responsibility for the actions of their guests. Hosts will be required to acquaint their guest with the rules and regulations of the University. A host may be met with University discipline if the guest disregards University policy.
Under the proposal, President Doug Bennet would have the authority of revision. It is requested that Bennet would consult the Dean of the College, who would in turn consult the SJB and SLC.
“Both [the SJB and the CNAC] are really important to help us determine what sort of community we have,” Solow said. “The SJB is essential in maintaining the creditability of the code, and is an essential part of Wesleyan philosophy…It’s a really strong agency of student responsibility.”
If passed by President Doug Bennet at a pending date, the changes will be implemented for 2004-05 academic year.
Leave a Reply