By THE PANTHER EDITORIAL BOARD
When we enter this institution, we agree to abide by a conduct code. The problem is hardly any students have read it.
That means that an invisible contract hangs around us at all times on this campus, waiting to unfold and trip someone up for a mere lack of knowledge. Like the fact that under Part 34, Throwing, section c, spitting from stairwells, walkways, windows and balconies is a conduct violation. Or the fact that students are responsible for the actions as well as possessions of any guest they bring to campus.
So if your guest has a gun in his bag, you would be responsible for violating both the guest’s policy and the weapon’s policy.
Speaking of weapons – your water balloon launcher? Weapon.
But luckily the University has its saving grace in the conduct process. Unlike a court system, the conduct board takes into account mitigating circumstances in each case to individualize a sanction. So regardless of the fact that you must be found responsible for violating the code, the real part that counts is the circumstances surrounding the violation. It’s not guilty or not – it’s how guilty.
Sanctions come in two forms. First there’s a status sanction, which ranges from a formal warning (a don’t-do-it-again sticker), probation (a red seriously-don’t-do-it-again sticker) to suspension and expulsion.
It usually takes just one sticker for a respondent to get the point.
The second type of sanctioning is educational. Crafted by the members of the conduct board, it can range anywhere from a letter of apology to putting on a presentation to meeting with a University official.
However, the University is now considering implementing mandatory sanctioning for violent acts and sexual assaults. This is one place where adopting a real-world legal system would benefit the University. It would solve the problem that there is no documentation for students to know just how the University deals with these extreme problems. The Conduct Code outlines that these cases are sent to a special conduct board, made up of the Dean of Students and students he selects. But it does not tell us what the consequences are.
Sexual assault and violence are certainly on a different level of misconduct than popping a bottle of wine in the dorms or taking a bong up to the top of the parking structure. It’s different because there are victims. That makes us all potential victims. So we deserve to know what means are being taken to prevent violence and sexual assault.
In re-writing the Conduct Code, we hope violations are put in their proper places. Leave the allegations of “throwing” and “guests” with the educational sanctioning, but bring something heavier down upon violence and sexual assault.
That means that an invisible contract hangs around us at all times on this campus, waiting to unfold and trip someone up for a mere lack of knowledge. Like the fact that under Part 34, Throwing, section c, spitting from stairwells, walkways, windows and balconies is a conduct violation. Or the fact that students are responsible for the actions as well as possessions of any guest they bring to campus.
So if your guest has a gun in his bag, you would be responsible for violating both the guest’s policy and the weapon’s policy.
Speaking of weapons – your water balloon launcher? Weapon.
But luckily the University has its saving grace in the conduct process. Unlike a court system, the conduct board takes into account mitigating circumstances in each case to individualize a sanction. So regardless of the fact that you must be found responsible for violating the code, the real part that counts is the circumstances surrounding the violation. It’s not guilty or not – it’s how guilty.
Sanctions come in two forms. First there’s a status sanction, which ranges from a formal warning (a don’t-do-it-again sticker), probation (a red seriously-don’t-do-it-again sticker) to suspension and expulsion.
It usually takes just one sticker for a respondent to get the point.
The second type of sanctioning is educational. Crafted by the members of the conduct board, it can range anywhere from a letter of apology to putting on a presentation to meeting with a University official.
However, the University is now considering implementing mandatory sanctioning for violent acts and sexual assaults. This is one place where adopting a real-world legal system would benefit the University. It would solve the problem that there is no documentation for students to know just how the University deals with these extreme problems. The Conduct Code outlines that these cases are sent to a special conduct board, made up of the Dean of Students and students he selects. But it does not tell us what the consequences are.
Sexual assault and violence are certainly on a different level of misconduct than popping a bottle of wine in the dorms or taking a bong up to the top of the parking structure. It’s different because there are victims. That makes us all potential victims. So we deserve to know what means are being taken to prevent violence and sexual assault.
In re-writing the Conduct Code, we hope violations are put in their proper places. Leave the allegations of “throwing” and “guests” with the educational sanctioning, but bring something heavier down upon violence and sexual assault.
By THE PANTHER EDITORIAL BOARD
EDITORIAL | It’s about time we treated the Undie Run as adults. Because they cannot ensure the safety of thousands of half-naked and most likely intoxicated revelers, college administrators are discouraging students from participating in the Undie Run and the after-parties that follow. Read full Editorial >> 
