On Our Mind: Examining the Student Code of Conduct

After last week’s letter to the editor from Stacey Braun concerning the Student Code of Conduct, the editorial board decided to take her up on her offer and review the Student Code of Conduct. We found some interesting information in the code.

One aspect that we feel is most important to students at Emporia State is the due process proclamation made in the code. In its first paragraph the code states that “The accused shall have the right of due process and appeal as prescribed in this document and other relevant University policies, rules or regulations.”

Upon further reading of the code, however, it becomes clear that due process is not being followed in the process.

For one thing, due process is a guarantee that an accused person will receive a fair and impartial trial. However, the process outlined in the Student Code of Conduct is far from impartial. The hearing board used in the process is made up of students, faculty and staff chosen by the university’s Student Success Coordinator. If the process was really fair and impartial, accused persons would be judged by a group of peers or student-elected board members—not by a board chosen by university administrators.

We should have the right to elect the people judging us or use a jury system that will guarantee impartiality of the board members.

Another major problem with the SCC is the fact that it does not follow the same standards that would be used in a real court of law.

For example, in a real court of law, the jury must find the accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. With the SCC process, the hearing board must simply conclude that it is more likely than not that the accused person is guilty. We believe that if there’s any doubt that the person is guilty, then the possibility of finding them guilty should be greatly reduced.

In a real court of law, the jurors must unanimously find a person guilty. However, the SCC states that the members of the hearing board must simply have a majority vote and that unanimity is not necessary.

The qualifications of both the coordinator of the SCC process and the members of the hearing board are absent from the code. We believe there should be a written list of qualifications necessary for both the coordinator and the members of the hearing board to ensure that we have qualified people involved in the process.

One final aspect of the Student Code of Conduct that we found surprising was the number of errors in the document—the most blatant of which was the date of approval by the Associated Student Government. The document states that the SCC was approved by ASG on October 4, 2008, which would be difficult to do since that date hasn’t arrived yet.

We believe that a document as important as the student code of conduct should have been edited a little more closely, especially considering the number of people who saw the document before it was approved.

It is our opinion that the SCC is lacking in several areas—specifically in the areas of impartiality and in the selection and qualifications of members of the hearing board.

The code is supposed to be reviewed every four years and it is our hope that when the time comes for the review ASG and the administration will take a good look at the code and change some things to make it fairer for students.

On the other hand, we also believe that since the SCC is the current process in place for disciplining all students, all students should review the code and be aware of the processes involved, whether they are fair or not. It is unlikely the code will be changed any time soon, so it’s important to know what’s in it for your own good.