The ongoing revision process of University of Wisconsin System non-academic misconduct policies (UWS 17 and 18) has elicited a prolonged and lively debate on the merits of these amendments. In addition to a campus forum co-hosted by the Offices of the Dean of Students and the Associated Students of Madison, there have been numerous editorials and individual discussions. While I am glad the university community engaged on this issue, I feel through the course of this discussion, participants have lost sight of a few of key points about the revisions.

First, the language and parameters of the current policy are severely dated. The current code reads like 1979 more than 2009. Numerous technological and communicative innovations since then require us to update the policy to keep up with the changing scope of student conduct. These updates could not have been foreseen when the policy was last amended. The revisions represent an effort to remain up-to-date with emerging concerns about student safety. Updating the language is, in all honesty, a necessity.

A key concern we have heard from students regards the ambiguity of when the university would pursue judicial action for off-campus misconduct. The language in the proposed draft states this would be permissible in cases with “substantial university interest.” The conduct would also need to meet one or more of the following criteria: the conduct constitutes a serious criminal offense, presents a threat to the health or safety of the student or others, or demonstrates a pattern of behavior that seriously impairs the university’s ability to fulfill its teaching, research or public service missions.

While many students worry this will lead to an explosion in off-campus misconduct cases, I believe a look at our current practices reveal that we are, in fact, very reserved and judicious when deciding whether to consider off-campus violations. Specifically, these infractions must be egregious in nature and reveal a serious threat to an individual or the campus community. Data from a recent year indicates 37 off-campus incidents resulted in disciplinary action along with 44 instances of detox transportation. Although others in the community would likely desire a stronger approach, the Offices of the Dean of Students believes our approach is educationally sound, appropriately applied and reasonable for both individual students and the larger university community.

Nevertheless, I understand students’ hesitation with the language. While current practice might be reserved, we cannot assure students that at some point disciplinary officers won’t take a more aggressive view concerning the extent of their authority. This is why I have offered to work with student representatives to craft Madison-specific language concerning the situations in which the university would pursue off-campus misconduct charges. This offer represents our efforts to be forthright and transparent about the effects of these revisions on students.

I would also like to provide some clarification on the rights of the students in hearings. Currently, a student has the right to be accompanied by an adviser of his or her choosing. This person can be a friend, family member, attorney or whomever the student chooses. That adviser can counsel the student fully; however, the process requires the student to speak for him or herself. In our search for the truth and as a matter of educational philosophy, we believe it is best for the student to speak directly to the hearing examiner or panel. While this language may be new to system policy, it is consistent with current procedures.

The reasoning for this policy is twofold. First, we honestly believe when students are forced to confront an accusation, the experience will contribute to their education. Beyond the educational component, we desire to avoid making the disciplinary process litigious. Our deans are student services specialists, not lawyers. The intent of our process is to understand the situation and impose appropriate sanctions. If a student feels her or his rights have been violated, students maintain the right to address this in a court of law. Federal case law clearly supports limiting the role of an adviser to that of assisting the student with his or her presentation and not directly addressing the hearing body. This is also accepted and standard practice at most institutions of higher education.

Another overlooked improvement in the code includes provisions that will make it much easier for the university to respond assertively to individuals who have no affiliation with the university and who impede the mission of the university. The new code would give the university authority to address problems stemming from unaffiliated individuals before an actual incident occurs.

These revisions have been depicted as a draconian code granting the administration carte blanche authority to punish students capriciously. A closer examination reveals the code is rooted in legally supported practices and collective experience. I firmly believe the improved disciplinary code will be a significant tool for the university to appropriately and reasonably hold individuals accountable for their actions, uphold the standards of the university community, and improve safely on campus.

If you have any questions about the specifics of the revised code or would like to discuss further their implications, please do not hesitate to contact Assistant Dean Ervin Cox or me at (608) 263-5700 or [email protected].

Kevin Helmkamp is the associate dean of students.