September 27, 1970
THE DAILY TAR HEEL
P392 Thf es
imdlncnal Eefoirinni
Aire
i )) i
n
OK
11
I
ID)
Eighteen months ago Chancellor
J. Carlyle Sitterson appointed a
committee composed of
administrators, faculty and students
to study the student judicial system
and offer reforms to improve that
system.
Two weeks ago the Judicial
Reform Committee released its
report on student courts in a
39-page document which calls for
the complete restructuring of the
judicial system.
The designated purpose of the
report was to "formulate an
equitable student code of rights and
responsibilities and to clarify and
modify the existing judicial
procedures and structures."
Copies of the report were sent to
the chancellor, the chairman of the
faculty, the president of the
Six
B
asic
.FoModatioe Of Reforms
There are six basic premises to
the Judicial Reform Committee
report.
Premise one states that the
chancellor is solely responsible for
all matters of student discipline.
However, the responsibility has
"traditionally been shared jointly
with the faculty and has been
exercised in such a way as to give
students a major role in the
formulation of basic policy
concerning student conduct and in
the adjudication of particular cases
ii'i-; under that policy."
1 1 !
ulci s of stiuk nt conduct.
both tic determination of policy
and ai:;o the mechanisms of
adjudication should continue,
therefore, to reflect the extensive
involvement of students and faculty
as well as that of the
administration''
Thf second nremise asserts a
student's activity outside the
classroom influences his
educational progress. Much
non-academic conduct is. therefore,
an area of proper concern and
regulation of the University
community."
"The guiding principle of
University regulation of student
conduct should be that of
responsible student freedom" is the
basis for the third premise.
This premise further states that
"students should be accorded the
greatest possible degree of
self-determination correlative with
the acceptance of the fullest
Code Of
Included in the Judicial Reform
Committee's report is a section
entitled "Code of Student
Conduct," which defines some of
the penalties for which a student
may be suspended or expelled.
The offenses listed range from
academic cheating to trespass to
damage to the personal property of
a University resident or to the
institution itself.
The most important offenses
listed, however, pertain to drugs,
furnishing of false information to
the University or the physical abuse
or hazing of a member of guest of
the University.
The drug statement in the policy
reads, "Illegal trafficking in the
sellins or transfer of narcotics,
marijuana or other hallucinogens,
amphetamines, barbiturates, or
similar drugs; or the possession ot
these drugs in quantities sufficient
to indicate intent other than
personal use" is a violation.
The committee intends this
passage to clarify the intention that
the University reserves the right to
prosecute any pusher of drugs on
campus but will not attempt to
prosecute the individual user.
However, drug pushers, even it
student body and the speaker of
the student legislature.
The committee asked for
suggestions of change of the report
from each of these persons by Oct.
19 so that the document could "be
offered by referendum to the
student body for approval or
rejection" as soon as possible.
However, last week, Chancellor
Sitterson sent a letter to each of the
members of the committee
suggesting the time limitations
included in the document were
unreasonable and removing all of
these time limitations from the
report.
Sitterson said the document was
too important to be restricted by
the time limitations.
Joe Stallings, one of the student
members of the committee, said
Premises
responsibility for their conduct and
the consequences of their action."
The fourth and perhaps the most
importatn premise says "The Code
of Student Conduct exists for the
protection of the University
community's particular interests.
University sanctioning power,
therefore, applies only to instances
of student misconduct which are
inimical to its appropriate
interests."
This premise contains a most
important clarification concerning
what the committee feels is a
violation of proper student
conduct.
By
Mike Parnell
A student is in violation only
when he threatens: 1) the
opportunity of all members of the
University community to attain
their educational objectives; 2) the
protection of the health, safety,
welfare and property of all persons
in the University community and 3)
the protection of University
property.
This premise will be referred to
elsewhere as a clarification for some
of the more detailed violations of
the report.
Conduct
Joe Stallings
they are to be prosecuted in civil
court, are also under the
jurisdiction for prosecution of the
University.
"The furnishing of false
information to the University with
the intent to deceive" raised the
question of exactly who is the
University and how far the
University will go to penalize the
violator.
The committee interprets this
passage as falsification of records
these limitations were included in
the report -to specifically prevent
the possibility of the administration
holding up the implementation of
the policy by delaying its
consideration of the report for six
or seven months.
However Sitterson said he has
sent a letter to the persons involved
with the report so that they might
expedite their consideration of it.
When each of these persons
(student body president,
chancellor, faculty council and
student legislature) have considered
their suggestions for change, the
Judicial Reform Committee will
reconvene to consider the inclusion
of these changes in ihe final report.
Once these final changes have
been ratified, the report will be
proposed for a referendum of the
Are
Premise five asserts "Student
misconduct may constitute offenses
against the larger community. From
this it follows: That a student is or
has been prosecuted in civil court
for a violation of law does not
preclude University jurisdiction
over the misconduct.
"Only student activity which
jeopardizes the University's pursuit
of its institutional goals will
mandate University jurisdiction,
"The diffeicmb.tion of The
University's function from thai of
general law enforcement in no way
implies the Ur' ' '' " o:t of
approval of stuin:i .. i.i .vns of
general law of ghd University's
indifference to the occurence of
student violations thereof."
This premist
brings into the
question
the previous
student-administration dispute of
"double jeopardy;"-trying a student
in student courts for an offense
which also will be tried in civil
courts.
The position taken by the
committee here is that some
offenses committeed by a student
on campus which are also to be
regulated by civil courts must be
tried by student courts.
If the offense does jeopardize
the University's previous stance in
premise four of property
protection; health, safety and
welfare protection of its residents
or the prevention of students from
attaining their educational
objectives, then the case should be
tried.
Defines
1
t
I .
.-Ay,
r.
James O. Cansler
(example: lying about having a 2.0
when registering an automobile)
when registering with the
University or providing false
information to administration
officials.
This reference does riot include
falsification of information to a
member of the faculty, said Joe
Stallings. a student member of the
committee.
"Physical abuse or hazing of any
member or guest of the University"
X
student body in which a majority
of students voting approval will be
required to implement the chanee
The student members of the
committee were George Butler,
John McDowell, Lawrence
Whitfield (the chairman), Robert
Manekin and Stallings.
Whitfield and Manekin have now
graduated. The administrators on the
committee were former Asst. Dean
of Women Heather Ness and Assoc.
Dean of Student Affairs James O.
Cansler.
The faculty members were
professors Frank R. Strong, Rollie
Tillman and Peter F. Walker.
In the report, the committee
suggested that one of the most
important factors of the report was
the fact that the committee was
Sfyg jjHailg afar 21
However, if the offense has no
direct relation ot the University and
its function, it will not be necessary
for the case to be tried in student
courts.
The final premise of the report
says, "The Honor Code has served
the University well and, wherever
possible, academic work in the
University should continue under
the honor code."
It was the feeling of the
committee that the Honor Code
had provided a guideline for
University conduct, however, the
guideline had been somewhat
ambiguous.
The
further
committee report went
in its specifications of
violations
of proper student
conduct to eliminate the
ambiguities of the code and make it
a more viable document.
Offenses
i
1
r
r 1
f
-4.
John McDowell
is another passage which has
created confusion.
Premise four of the six basic
premises of the report is
importantly considered here. Only
when the person "hazed" has had
his educational objectives violated
or had his health, safety or welfare
threatened, does this passage
pertain. .
Stallings interprets this offense
to be exclusive of hazing a visiting
speaker on campus.
V
)
composed of students, as well as
faculty and administrators.
The committee termed this "a
significant step toward realizing the
process of governance in issues of
interest to various elements of the
University.
The committee commended this
aspect of its report and Stallings
pointed to the inclusion of students
on the committee as a significant
step for the administration.
If the chancellor accepts the
report, said Stallings, "it will be a
clear show of intent to accept
students into the decision-making
processes of the University."
The report points out that
section 3 of the By-laws of the
Trustees of the University delegates
full and final authority in regard to
student conduct to the chancellor.
LJ
indicia
Broad Sanctions-
Perhaps the most important part
of the Judicial Reform Committee's
recently released report, at least as
far as the violator is concerned, is
the discussion of the sanctions for a
violation.
The committee sought to
"preserve flexibility" in the
imposition of the sanctions by
giving the court almost total
responsibility for which sanction to
impose in each individual case.
The committee offered
suggestions to the court and laid
down the basic propositions of each
sanction but did not specify what
penalty would deserve each
sanction.
Of course, the most severe of the
sanctions, or penalties, is expulsion.
Traditionally, only the
chancellor has he right to expel
any student from the University
and this right has been upheld in
the reform committee's report.
The imposition of expulsion on
a student "permanently severs the
relationship of the student with the
University." Expulsion may be
recommended by the student court
but can be imposed only by the
chancellor.
The second most severe penalty
is suspension, which "severs the
relationship of the student with the
University under conditons which
permit and anticipate the student's
eventual return to the University."
There are seven types of
suspension:
1 indefinite, which severs the
student from the University for "no
less than one senester beyond that
in which the sentence is imposed."
2)definite, which severs the
student "for no less than the
remainder of the semester or
summer term."
3 probation, which permits
"continuation of the relationship
between the student and the
University.
(However, this penalty prohibits
the student from participating in
any extracurricular activities except
fraternity or sorority membership
or selection in a campus honorary.
During the time of probation, a
student is required to carry a
but the report "urges himt to
recognize the joint process and
request that he adopts this
enactment process."
The document further states.
"The necessity for clarifying
student rights and responsibilities
and for redefining student judicial
procedures and structures arose
because of the changing
complexion of University life which
makes greater student input and
participation imperative.
"It is our conviction that this
instrument should not be a static
document impervious to change,
but, rather, one that is continually
reviewed and amended -one that
will always be fair and relevant to
students academic maturation.
"In this spirit this instrument
was conceived and written."
w 1
Reform Sets
special I.D. card which prohibits his
or her entrance into a sporting
event or entertainment event at the
University, or from voting in
University elections.)
4) censure, an official reprimand
which is recorded by the University
for four and a half months.
5) court warning, which is an
official notice to the student that
he has committed a violation
considered by the University to be
sanctionable and that "any
subsequent offense will carry
heavier penalties because of this
first infraction."
6) concurrent sanctions, which
may be imposed singly or in
combination at the discretion of
the court.
(Included in these penalties are
loss of automobile privileges; work,
not to exceed five hours a week, in
constructive service to the
University and connected with the
violation; exclusion from residence
units of the University and
prohibition from practice in
organized groups or activities.)
7) academic sanctions, which
could be in the form of a failing
grade for a course in which a
grade-related offense has occured.
The report also goes on to list
group sanctions, which tend to
follow the same general lines as
individual sanctions.
The major penalties here call for
revocation of group charters, denial
of University facilities for meetings
or gatherings, work for the entire
group in some constructive service
to the University or rush probation
in the case of fraternities and
sororities.
The report calls for the
establishment of an elaborate
system of courts: Residence courts,
to try violations in University
housing; a Residence Board to try
minor infractions; and an
Undergraduate Court with appellate
jurisdiction with respect to
Residence Courts and IFC courts
and original jurisdiction with
respect to all violations of the Code
of Student Conduct.