At the heart of the Code lies an outdated administrative philosophy, in loco parentis - literally, in lieu of parents - that posits that University students, despite their academic and personal triumphs, need the administration to guide them through their early adult years.
Beyond philosophical problems, the Code has many implementation flaws. Under the Code, "students may be accountable to both the legal system and the University." Unlike in legal courts, students could face double jeopardy under the Code by being charged under local, state or federal laws and under the University's auspices. Furthermore, students found innocent in legal court proceedings are not spared from possible prosecution under the Code. The Code encompasses more than the University campus - any violations taking place in the city or that pose a serious threat to a member of the University community are grounds for a Code offense - stretching the University community to encompass an area beyond where it should reach.
One of the most serious problems with the Code is that the University does not have the authority or resources to implement it successfully. From clauses about "unauthorized fires" to sanctions of "No Contact" wherein students receive an on-campus restraining order, the Code is full of botched legalistic language that underscores the fact that it is not a legal document. Try as it may, the University is not a government and does not have the capacity to be judge, jury and executioner for students by implementing a set of laws.
The Code also places a harsh burden on students facing arbitration by closing all previous records - thus preventing a precedent from forming. Information on past cases could save time by providing Resolution Coordinators with insight on the result of previous similar arbitrations. Students are not allowed to have lawyers at Code arbitrations, only advisors that cannot represent them - preventing legal knowledge from adding to the proceedings.
The Code's creation came without significant student input. While a panel attempted to gather student input, it sampled too small a portion of the student population to get an accurate reading of student concerns. At the April 1998 regents' meeting, the Code will again come up for review - the University should ensure that there is significant student input into the decision and remove it.
In the Code's introduction, it states that the "essential values which undergird" the University's purpose include freedom. The Code contradicts itself - it works against students' freedom and autonomy by treating students as children. The regents should remove the Code from the University's administrative policy - giving students the ability to run their own lives as the adults that they are.