Code of Conduct Revisions Curb Students' Rights

UC Berkeley administrators are preparing sweeping changes to the Student Code of Conduct that would dramatically change how students can defend themselves against university disciplinary charges, according to a final draft of the revisions obtained by The Daily Californian.

The revisions-part of a regularly scheduled review of the code-would remove students' right to have a lawyer speak for them during disciplinary proceedings and tighten the reins on a student's ability to open a hearing to the public.

These changes are part of a broader shift in the revised code's philosophy that characterizes the student judicial affairs process as "educational," not adversarial.

"Because this is an educational process, students are expected to speak for themselves," according to the introduction to the final draft.

It is unclear when these changes are expected to be implemented. Three committee members said they had been told that UC Berkeley Chancellor Robert Berdahl approved the revision, but university administrators said last week they would reconvene a

campus committee to review the draft. The UC Berkeley Academic Senate must approve the final code.

These changes have ignited opposition from student government leaders who say the revisions would undermine students' ability to fairly and completely represent themselves.

The code, last revised in 1996, defines students' rights, acceptable academic and personal conduct, and the process for any punishments. The Student Judicial Affairs office oversees all cases. Most of the hundreds of cases each year are settled informally, although some go into a hearing panel composed of students, faculty and staff.

RIGHT TO LAWYER ABRIDGED

The revised code forces students to speak for themselves-both in an informal settlement and if a case proceeds to a hearing.

While students may take advice from a lawyer or representative, advisors may not speak on the student's behalf.

Student Advocate Dave Madan, who has overseen student cases for two years, said students often have trouble negotiating the bureaucracy and may not even know what punishment to ask for.

"At the very least, this puts students on unequal footing," Madan said. "Students don't know how to cross-examine a witness and they don't know how evidence should and should not be presented."

Professors on the committee said that limiting the role of lawyers helps make the process less adversarial.

"I think it's important that the playing field be lowered for all students and not be overly confrontational," said environmental science and policy management professor J. Keith Gilless. "We're not lawyers. The students aren't lawyers."

Across the UC system, practices about legal guidance vary. UCLA and UC Davis both allow full participation of attorneys and representatives. At UC San Diego, they may assist in informal resolutions but cannot speak at an actual hearing. Students must represent themselves at UC Irvine, Riverside, Santa Cruz and Santa Barbara.

At UC Berkeley, faculty have the right to representation, according to the Faculty Code of Conduct.

But students said these changes bring other questions to light. For example, students with disabilities or who speak English as a second language could have trouble representing themselves without help, said Boris Sorsher, the student regent's representative to the committee.

Michael Smith, a UC Berkeley student who faced a hearing last month for his conduct during the major anti-war protest last March, said the changes are in "bad faith."

"This is a fundamentally adversarial process," Smith said. "The university is trying to push students into an arbitration process that keeps students unaware of their rights and at a disadvantage to a full-time, paid prosecution."

OPEN HEARINGS

The revisions also give the university greater power to close disciplinary hearings to the public-both the university and student must agree to open the hearings. The hearing panel retains the right to close the proceedings for privacy or security reasons.

In the previous code, only the student's approval was needed.

"The concern was that if you're opening it to family or friends or a reporter, that's not a big deal," said UC Berkeley professor Robert Jacobsen, a committee member who has chaired a few high-profile hearings. "But making it public, like theater is public, requires infrastructure that is usually not there."

A NONADVERSARIAL VISION

The new code emphasizes an informal and nonadversarial approach to settlements.

"Of paramount importance to our community of scholars is a code that is clearly articulated and a process that is less adversarial and more educational," Student Affairs Coordinator Karen Warren wrote in an e-mail.

While most cases remain private, the few cases that have come before the press have often devolved into intensely antagonistic processes.

Just last month, three anti-war protesters walked out of their hearing. And last year, the planned hearings for the more than 30 students arrested in the pro-Palestinian protest in April 2002 dragged on for more than six months.

While Madan agrees that reducing the tension is positive, he said that "when you hear that the overarching mentality is to be educational, you start to feel that it assumes that the student is guilty."

PROCESS

Student government leaders have criticized the approval process of the code, which they said the university failed to make transparent.

"We would like to get representation back," Sorsher said. "We'd also like it to be an open process."

Madan and Sorsher contend that the draft, written up this summer, was sent off to the chancellor without going back to the Committee on Student Conduct for review. They added that unresolved changes about the right to a lawyer were finalized without further discussion.

Professors said that when the committee broke for the summer, it wasn't clear what the next step with the revisions to the code would be, and one professor said he saw their role as merely advisory.

Warren wrote in an e-mail last week that she and other administrators planned to "reconvene" the spring committee to discuss the status of the revisions and clarify decisions made by the committee.

Meanwhile, the student code overhaul is still under way-a subcommittee is hashing out the section on academic dishonesty, and another group will address rules for civil disobedience.

"This whole process just needs more thought," Madan said.

Tags: