Forty years ago, Ann Arbor was a pretty different place.
Imagine a University where students are strictly forbidden to drive cars.
Remember the wild fraternity party that lasted into the distant hours of the morning? Now picture what that party would be like with faculty chaperones, and without alcohol.
Some opponents of the Code of Student Conduct say they believe the current Code is an infringement of personal rights - however the University's regulations of etiquette and behavior from the 1930s, '40s and '50s read more like a fundamentalist interpretation of "The Donna Reed Show" than a guide for University governance.
"The old codes are clearly what we refer to as 'in loco parentis,'"s said Resolution Coordinator Mary Lou Antieau, who oversees the current Code. "The college was assuming the parental role."
Behavior codes from earlier decades depict a place where everything from the serenading of sorority members to political speeches was regulated by the University administration. It was a time when the dean of students was matched by a dean of women, and both sexes lived with University-dictated policies guiding their interaction.
Consider the following excerpt from the 1953 edition of "University Regulations concerning Student Affairs Conduct and Discipline:"
"Men's officially organized house groups will be authorized to entertain women guests to hear broadcasts of out-of-town Michigan games between 2:30 p.m. and 5:30 p.m. on the Saturday of the game."
What many would today consider a mild form of socialization also required permission from the dean of students, and the presence of adult chaperones.
Male-female interactions were not the only social activity addressed by the administration.
The 1953 University Regulations outlined the proper methods for tapping new members of secret honorary societies like Michiguama and the Vulcans. It required notification to the Ann Arbor Police Department and the filing of a statement of activities.
The role of nudity in campus rites was also addressed.
"In both tapping and initiation all participants shall be adequately clothed from the viewpoint of decency and health," reads the rule book.
Antieau, who was an undergraduate at the University in the 1950s, said past behavior codes now seem nostalgic, but were oppressive in their application.
"While in some ways it sounds warm and fuzzy and protective, in other ways it was very hard," Antieau said.
One of the most serious restraints was put on political speech.
Since the protests of the 1960s, the University has been famous for student political activism. But there was once a time when "speeches in support of particular candidates of any political party" were not permitted.
Creative expression also came under administration oversight - the dean of students had the right to review the scripts of any public performances on campus.
And if you want to live in an off-campus apartment with a couple friends, forget about it. Residence halls, fraternities, sororities and rooming houses were the only permissible living quarters for students at the University.
Vice President for Student Affairs Maureen Hartford said legal decisions earlier this century prompted colleges nationwide to adopt "in loco parentis" standards.
Hartford, who attended the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in the 1960s, said the 1913 case of Gott vs. Berea College required college administrators of that era to guide the "moral welfare and training of the pupils."
"We had so many rules, especially for women, that current students would rebel," Hartford said. "'In loco parentis' was alive and well then."
Former President James Duderstadt said last May that the concept of 'in loco parentis' is dead.
"If you ask students if 'in loco parentis' exists, they'll say, 'Hell no,'" Duderstadt said.
Jennifer Fried, an LSA junior, said the expectations from old codes of behavior are excessively intrusive.
"I see no reason for any rules that pertain to students at the University outside of those which all citizens must obey," Fried said.
Fried, who said she had little concept of the way the current Code operates, said the gender-related clauses of past codes of behavior were sexist. She said any University involvement in personal activities is unacceptable.
"The role of the University should be more in the intellectual realm than moral," Fried said.
Hartford said the University's involvement in students' personal lives began to fade in the 1960s. She said students are now legally defined "as adult(s), with adult standing in the community."
"We were perceived as children ... you are seen as adults," Hartford said. "That is a big difference."
Antieau said the Code of Student Conduct operating at the University today bears no resemblance to the strict etiquette guidelines once sponsored by the administration.
She described the past behavioral rules as excessive and harmful, and said the content of today's Code is based on common-sense expectations held by society as a whole.
- Daily Staff Reporter Jennifer Harvey contributed to this report.