A University Senate task force made a wise decision last week when it recognized the need for more clearly defined and widely publicized academic policies in regard to student rights. A student bill of rights, particularly with an accompanying online, user-friendly guide to university policy and frequently asked questions document, would go a long way toward clearing up student confusion about dorm rights, university judicial procedures and the voluntary nature of the honor pledge.
With a clear understanding of these policies and a document they could point to, students would likely see fewer violations of their rights and be able to resolve rights-related issues more smoothly. As an added bonus, a bill of rights would send a student-friendly message that might increase students’ willingness to meet the university halfway when it comes to their own responsibilities.
However, as the task force moves forward with deciding what rights the bill should include and creating a first draft, it is important that it doesn’t stop at reiterating the rights students already have.
Several elements of the student bill of rights drafted by former campus ACLU president Stuart McPhail would require changes to existing university policy to make university judicial procedures more like criminal procedures. One of these changes would have required Resident Life officials (i.e. resident assistants) to inform students of their rights and students to give consent before any searches of personal property. Another would have added the right to legal aid and other due process rights in all disciplinary proceedings.
Senate members have been shying away from these changes, saying they may be too hard to pass, and judicial affairs officials have argued that over-formalizing university procedures would detract from their potential to be a “learning experience.”
However, consequences of university judicial decisions can be as damaging as criminal convictions and, with the proposed University System of Maryland policy on rioting posing the potential for students to be expelled for merely being present at a riot, there doesn’t seem to be such a thing as too much opportunity for student self-defense.
A clear and accessible outline of student rights might negate the necessity for an overly formal Miranda-style exchange between RAs and students, but judicial hearings are understandably daunting even with full understanding of one’s rights. The senate should work with judicial affairs officials to devise a version of “due process” that would give students the maximum chance to a fair hearing while not formalizing the process to an inappropriate degree.
Clarifying existing rights is an important task and senate members were right to commit to this goal, but they would be missing another important responsibility if they neglected to at least explore adding additional rights.
