H -°, L 23° | Tomorrow: 
H 23°, L 9°
Let me start by saying I’m not someone who refuses to compromise on rights.
Rights are a good thing, but they’re also incredibly expensive and can be corrosive to community cohesion, thus potentially disabling the machinery of real social and policy development. Insofar as we can balance concern for individual rights with effective institutions which further the general welfare, we have an obligation to do it.
Having said this, I have to go on to say something simply has to change about the proposed revisions to UWS Chapter 17. It is, to say the least, a proposed change which carries with it the potential for absolute, unchecked power over individuals with almost no identifiable net benefit for our community. At best, these changes are a foolhardy mistake; at worst, they are a malicious attempt to circumscribe the rights of students.
This code deals with “Student Nonacademic Disciplinary Procedures” and sets up the procedures for due process in the adjudication and discipline of nonacademic misconduct. In other words, this code lays out the procedures the University of Wisconsin System uses to punish students for trouble students get into off campus, even, say, in their hometowns. Suppose you accumulated noise violations or a DWI while on spring break. UWS 17 delimits the system’s ability to make you pay for that both in the justice system and in school. For over a decade, the code went unrevised, but now the Board of Regents has decided it is going to “update” the rules.
First, the review committee has proposed several changes to the right to a hearing and appeal of disciplinary actions. Under the new rules, when some sanctions are sought, a hearing by only one individual hearing examiner is required. More minor hearings are final by definition in the new code. More serious trials involving a sanction of suspension or expulsion only get an appeal at the discretion of the Board of Regents!
Second, the review committee has proposed several rule changes regarding the right to representation. In the proposed changes, students under examination have only the right to be “accompanied” (not represented) by an advisor who may “only counsel the student and may not actively participate in the hearing, except at the discretion of the hearing examiner or committee.” But lawyers are specifically trained to help navigate the storm of accusations and procedural traps, and without this representation, the student is clearly at a disadvantage. Also, in one of the more laughable yet unsettling passages, the revision simply states, “The hearing examiner or committee may observe recognized legal privileges.”
Last, the committee plans to change the standard for proving sexual harassment from the current “clear and convincing” evidence standard to a 51percent standard where a conflict barely has to go beyond “he said, she said” to end up in a ruined life.
In some ways, the record of expulsion could carry more consequences than the disciplinary actions of the civil justice system. To put the responsibility for determining guilt, administering a punishment, and granting appeals entirely in the hands of a few people is antithetical to our American ideal of the rule of law, which, at a very minimum, requires those responsible for adjudication be bound by the law and not given the discretion to decide when due process will be afforded. We should be willing to make tradeoffs with our rights for a better society/campus, but this just isn’t a square deal.
There is no doubt that the people responsible for this proposed revision are good people who probably can be trusted to be empathetic and to allow as much due process as possible in most circumstances — in fact, I’ve heard from a few of them and have found them to be genuinely dedicated to service for our community. But that is hardly satisfying for anyone with an appreciation for history. Due process of law is a concept designed to address the very fact that circumstances change, good judges leave, and panic happens. Especially in the wake of the recent fraternity rape story, we ought to question rule changes which would dramatically re-introduce the groupthink element to justice. Suppose someone in particular were to be accused. Would we be comfortable subjecting that person to these minimal standards of due process?
Luckily, these rules haven’t gone through yet. The Board of Regents is still accepting public comments until 4:30 p.m. on March 13, after which it will send its final revisions to the state legislature for approval. There is no constitutional case to be made here; if these revisions are going to be stopped, it is going to have to be by public mobilization. You can submit your comments on the revisions by the above date and time to [email protected]
Dan Walters ([email protected]) is a graduate student studying political science and law.
IP hash: 664f1840
Whoa, thanks for this article. I did not know this was happening. Man, it seems like if they are going to change our rights significantly, they should have to publicize it more. Now I’m off to email the Regents.
IP hash: 70e19aec
I wish I would have read this yesterday….The University is being so ridiculous. I’m a constitutionally protected adult in the real world, and my rights should be protected here too. Did this type of denial of student rights happen when we had the old chancellor?
IP hash: ee76e8cf
To the UW System Students,
I will preface my comments by suggesting that I consider myself neither a Republican or Democrat. That said (written), it is funny to see that so many college students (remember, they supported Obama) are now being tested by big government who will slowly implement a shiny version of socialism on all of us.
As a former university professor at a UW System school, I was always disappointed when students complained, talked big, yet never acted on the passion that was displayed in their voice tone. It�s not part of my DNA to hide behind anonymous letters, but in this case I have to establish some distance or the political fallout in my new job would be equivalent to that infamous politician who suggested he �did not have sexual relations with that woman� but couldn�t explain the crusted white spot on her blue dress. In all likelihood this letter will probably offend many of the people I worked with. If it does, to freaking bad, I never liked fellow Ph.D.ers that put researching five-legged toads ahead of students anyway.
I address this letter to the students of the UW System because during my time on campus I saw an erosion of care for the students slip quicker than the stock market. When you enter the classroom over the next few weeks, ask yourself, �Is this about me anymore?� If it isn�t, DEMAND THAT IT BE! It is time that your instructors wake up and smell the coffee. Plain and simple, 99.9% of you are not attending this institution because some lame professor published an irrelevant article in an obscure journal about 5 and 128 being the perfect number. Correct me if I�m wrong, but you are here to get an education that leads to a better opportunity to make more money, right? Ok, there is the partying bit too, but I�ll cover that later.
At this point you may be thinking; �this is one pissed off professor that didn�t get tenure.� Quite the contrary, my teaching was exemplary, service to you, the students was outstanding, and my research made connections to what was going on in the real world. Please do not misconstrue what I write hardly any of my time on cmapus was bad. I learned about myself and my profession, what is really valuable in life, and what it is I need to stand for. I also found out that students play second fiddle to nobody. And so whether you are just starting college, or are preparing to walk the stage, you really do have the �goods� to challenge the status quo. Organize yourself, revolt against poor service, and call out instructors when they cannot give you a definite �yes� when you ask them, �Is this about me anymore?� Academic freedom does not mean instructors have a license to teach you poorly. Too often the faculty are defining what it is you should view as relevant. I beg to differ; only you can determine if the content being taught has relevance or not.
My father, a WW II veteran and Notre Dame graduate once told me that �you can�t argue with an idiot, they�ll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.� In all my years of interacting with adults, I see no better time than to finally apply this quote. Although it is not fair to suggest that all of those holding leadership and faculty positions on UW campuses fit the �idiot profile,� many of those steering the mother ships(deans, department chairs, upper administration, etc.) are wearing cloudy glasses. They are unwilling to accept the fact that they have been swallowed by the cracks they once promised to avoid. I can assure you that deep down inside many of them know they are incompetent, but can�t admit it because their egos won�t allow it. Their cushy 9-month contracts and healthy benefit packages won�t allow for it either. After attaining tenure, many of them put it on cruise control, voicing strong opinions only when their turfs have been invaded by an up-and-comer threatening their regime. They buck up with irrelevant and unrelated responses, and rarely is it about you anymore.
The truth of the matter is that much of the leadership at our institutions has been built on the Peter Principle notion; �yes� men and women that have dared to challenge the status quo. Any time an administrative position opens they seem to fill it with someone from within. To use a baseball analogy, UW System leadership resembles a bunch of middle relief pitchers. Sure, they�re good enough to make the team, but never talented enough to crack the starting rotation, or gutsy enough to be in the role of a 9th inning closer when all the chips are down.
In an era where the slogan �CHANGE� gets thrown around more than Pac Man Jones� dollars at a high price night club, I challenge our state’s best and brightest to make that word meaningful again. Challenging the status quo is never easy, but it is so rewarding, trust me. At some point the “leaders” or one of their middle relief cronies will respond to this letter. Their tactful responses will attempt to refute what I have written. Challenge them again then, and remember, don�t argue with an idiot, they�ll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
Currahee
IP hash: ee76e8cf
Badger Herald Folks,
If my previous anonymous comment to this article, which lambastes incompetent leadership in the UW-System, was too long, (maybe a bit off the topic too) then maybe instead, you should just print it in your paper. It seems just as relevant as Mr Walters’ comments.