USG protests changes to code

The Tulane University Undergraduate Student Government submitted proposed revisions to the new Student Code of Conduct Oct. 27.

USG hopes to influence changes to the emended document that dictates the abolition of the Student Conduct Board and revises language regarding jurisdiction, sanctions, standard of evidence and hazing.

Endorsed by the President’s cabinet and student affairs, the revised code is now in the process of review by 13 faculty and 12 student members of the University Senate on Student Affairs. The code, however, does not need ratification by USG.

Lauren Aronson, vice president of student life, said the administration did not involve USG in the initial process of amending the Student Code of Conduct.

“They made these revisions with USG input as an afterthought,” Aronson said. “Students’ rights are crucial. It’s nice to decide which retailer is going to be in the [Lavin-Bernick Center] next, but let’s dive a little bit deeper into student life.”

Michael Hogg, incoming interim vice president of student affairs, said the recommended revisions that USG sent him impressed him.

“The changes [USG] presented were very professional, and we will take a look at them,” Hogg said. “They had great ideas to improve the document. I was very impressed and think they presented it very well.”

While the administration will review the changes that USG proposed, there is no written legislation that requires adherence to the recommendations. USG President Donald “Ratchet” Leverson said student government should have the right to ratify amendments to the Code of Conduct.

“I think this is something that should be changed,” Leverson said. “They should have to present [the code] to us at first for sure. There needs to be a continued student input factor that is minimal right now, and I would be for a change that requires us to ratify it.”

One of the most drastic changes in the revised code involves the alteration in the judicial process for non-academic misconduct allegations. The 50 students comprising the Student Conduct Board will no longer hear cases, and all hearings will involve a faculty member.

Students will still play a role in the judicial process, said Director of Student Conduct Kristen Kawcyznski.

“Students are still going to have a voice,” Kawcyznski said. “Is it going to be a more limited voice? Yes. They will be a part of the hearing board and the appellate board. They will still be part of the process. Unfortunately, it will be more limited.”

Hogg said the decision to remove the Student Conduct Board was based on problems of the judicial system as a whole.

“The system as a whole was inconsistent in its sanctions,” Hogg said. “Different branches would decide on different sanctions in similar cases. Second, it was inefficient. There are a bunch of cases from last year that didn’t get heard until this year because the process was so slow.”

Aronson said the revised code diminishes too much student voice and places more power in the hands of the administration.

“It removes input from the student voice and often puts the decision in the hands of one administrator, who now only needs a preponderance of evidence,” Aronson said. “That means students can be tried by one person who only needs 51 percent of the evidence to decide if they’re guilty.”
In addition to replacing the “clear and convincing evidence” standard with a “preponderance of evidence,” the revised code extends hazing responsibility to members of an organization who encourage hazing behavior, even if they are not officers of the organization, and reorders the sanctions list to start with expulsion to deter violations.

Students should not be concerned with the changes in the code’s language, as the new system will be fairer and more efficient, Hogg said.

“No one’s looking to expel or suspend students for a slap in the face,” he said. “[Over the past three years] there have been broken jaws, hazing violations and rape around campus. The new code provides a more uniform system that is better for students because it is fair.”

Whether or not the revisions are fair, Aronson said the absence of a student government voice in the code’s revising process is symbolic of a lack of effective partnership between the student government and the administration.

“I think this is representative of a larger issue that I’ve been working on,” Aronson said. “Yes, we have a working relationship with the administration. No, they are not using us for really effective change.”

The University Senate on Student Affairs will meet again to review the revised Code of Conduct Nov. 2.