The University Senate task force charged with drafting a student bill of rights met to begin work on the document yesterday in the first major step to codify student rights and responsibilities since the committee voted last month that such a document was necessary.

The task force set a Feb. 28 deadline for a first draft of the document but before they set pen to paper, the 10-member task force will spend the next few weeks researching dozens of university policies regarding dorm room searches, disciplinary procedures, fair grading and deciding which rights to include.

In addition to the discussing the bill’s content, senators will also discuss how to format the bill via e-mail until they reconvene in early December. By then they should have enough materials to discuss what they will or will not include in the first draft of the bill.

The task force must sift through university policies – including the code of student conduct, community handbook and procedures for review of alleged arbitrary and capricious grading – to determine which policies should be included, as the same disciplinary principles can be found in multiple university policies. The group must also decide how to frame the information it includes.

Committee members are considering using as a model the set of amendments former student Stuart McPhail proposed in 2003 to a student bill of rights the senate passed unanimously in 1989. The senate discovered in August of this year that the university president in 1989 never ratified the document, so the senate created the task force to decide if a new document was necessary and to begin writing it.

Committee members have criticized McPhail’s document as dense and difficult to read, but some said they liked his format.

“Using the templates that we have and that we like may be more expedient than building from the ground up,” said Nan Ratner, co-chair of the task force and a professor in the department of hearing and speech sciences.

Committee members will also study similar statements at schools across the country – including the universities of Michigan and Virginia – for inspiration.

Steve Petkas, associate director of Resident Life, said the document is an opportunity to clarify arcane policy.

“One thing I worry about with our policies within Resident Life is that they’re not user-friendly,” he said. “We’re trying to find ways to make them user-friendly.”

Part of the committees’ charge from the Senate Executive Committee is to avoid changing existing university policy, but Charles Wellford, co-chair of the committee and a professor in the department of criminology and criminal justice, said drafting the document presents a valuable opportunity to uncover university policies that may need some tinkering.

While the university cannot deny students the Constitutional rights granted to all citizens by the U.S. Bill of Rights, university disciplinary procedures are not criminal proceedings and are not bound by the laws and amendments guaranteeing such rights as due process, legal representation and the right to avoid self-incrimination.

John Martin, an emeritus faculty senator, said when students enroll, they enter into a contract that slightly compromises their rights in exchange for an educated mind.

“I think students are closest to patients in a hospital because they give up certain rights to ‘get better,'” he said.

Under current university policy, students may not have a lawyer defend them at student conduct hearings or remain silent without casting doubt on their own defense. The university can also impose policies controlling students’ possession of weapons.

Committee member and graduate student Kevin Pitts, who is a Diamondback columnist, said the university’s disciplinary boards do not have the same protection against unlawful search that the U.S. government decrees. However, the committee cannot create such new protections in the bill of rights.

Contact reporter Kate Campbell at campbelldbk@gmail.com.