Today’s Staff Editorial
How many of us have heard a story of a student being sexually assaulted off the campus, only to be left with insubstantial evidence for the court system, allowing his or her assailant to get off scot-free? There often isn’t enough evidence to convict someone of assault, which makes prosecutors shy away from taking on these battles. That means survivors are left to deal with the assaults on their own, and may potentially have to face their attackers, who do not suffer any consequences.
But it doesn’t have to be this way. A proposal to expand the current Code of Student Conduct is being put to a full senate vote on April 17. The expansion would allow the university to evaluate and penalize student actions off the campus that could negatively affect the school, according to the Senate Student Conduct Committee’s report.
Similar to how the Code of Student Conduct addresses many incidents on the campus — without automatically reporting them to the police — crimes off the campus that may not have enough proof for the court systems should be handled in the same way.
For instance, if a student is caught drinking or smoking marijuana on the campus, the university can bring the student before an honor council, rather than immediately sending the student to the police. While that measure is seen as protecting students’ records for minor infractions that many college students commit, the current proposal to expand the Code of Student Conduct’s jurisdiction could substantially help students who fall victim to crimes committed by other students.
While police officers are able to easily investigate several types of crimes, sexual assault cases often consist of ambiguity and rely on victim and witness accounts of the incident. The investigation is invasive and embarrassing, leaving police with few ways to make definitive conclusions about the case. There needs to be another step to hold those who commit these violent crimes accountable — and consequences from the university could certainly help achieve that end. If the proposal passes the senate, students could potentially face university sanctions for misdemeanors or crimes committed off the campus.
District 1 Councilman Patrick Wojahn, one of the leading members of the Neighborhood Stabilization and Quality of Life Workgroup, said university penalties could make students fear for their futures, should the crime warrant severe academic actions — a much more powerful deterrent than the potential slap on the wrist that could come from an empty police charge or fruitless investigation.
Some objections to the legislation are founded on worries that students could be severely penalized for underage drinking off the campus or other widespread violations. But officials have addressed this concern — Andrea Goodwin, Office of Student Conduct director; Samantha Zwerling, SGA president; and police and council members have all said these misdemeanors will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, noting the expansion aims to deal with more serious cases than an underage student caught drinking at a house party.
The motivation behind the proposal came from some student senators’ perceptions that the university neglects its responsibility to some students. Mace Phillips, one of the proposal’s founders who worked with Goodwin last year, said the university is in direct violation of Title IX, which requires an investigation into any student-on-student sexual harassment or sexual violence. The legislation is an attempt to undermine the university’s current excuse that the crime is out of its jurisdiction, he said.
Jason Speck, the Senate Student Conduct Committee’s chairman, said the expansion “mirrors a reality that we’re already living under.” This editorial board believes that, in an atmosphere of students committing crimes off the campus, it is unreasonable for the university to completely ignore the issue.
Other major institutions have already discovered this problem and taken steps to remedy it. This university is one of the last schools in the University System of Maryland to attempt to extend a student conduct code into the surrounding area, and several Big Ten schools already have similar legislation in place.
The University of Michigan has one of the most comprehensive codes of conduct, and as the code is a “living document,” students feel officials are more willing to cater to their needs. Only 37 of the about 190 senators in this university’s senate represent students — anunderwhelming number.
So this university needs to find a way to include more students in the legislative process.
The proposal’s current language mandates the Student Conduct director and others have discretion over which referred cases merit disciplinary action, and that these directors base their judgments on three factors: whether a student’s conduct poses a threat to someone’s safety or well-being, if the action substantially disrupts university operations and if the action is “repeated” behavior that “negatively impacts the institution.”
These standards outline a fairly comprehensive method of analyzing potential issues. Yet some officials are concerned that the “vagueness” of the wording could lead to unfair judgment of a student.
But that supposedly vague wording could be the first step toward creating a more open, adaptive system of addressing student concerns with the Code of Student Conduct. It’s time to consider what we need to do to protect students — even if it’s from themselves.
