Bollinger's test will come when he takes a stand on the Code

Jeff Eldridge Sticks and Stones

If Lee Bollinger wants to reach out to students and change the way the president relates to campus, he won't just move from the Fleming Building to Angell Hall.

He will take a stand against the Code of Student Conduct.

The Code is a bill of non-rights. It is inhumane, authoritarian and directly contradicts the longstanding principles of the University. If, for any reason large or small, you are pursued under the Code, may God help your soul.

In the Code, we can see how this University views its students. And the picture we discover is ugly.

"This Code is one of the University's administrative procedures and should not be equated with procedures used in civil or criminal court," the document's text states.

Among other things, these procedures include piddling, silly little traditions like reasonable doubt, the importance of precedence, public hearings and the right to an attorney. Under the Code, witnesses may not be called unless both parties agree to allow it.

Some standard for an institution dedicated to openness, education and individual rights.

The text of the Code uses comforting terms such as "values" and "essential mission" to soften the otherwise overt route it takes in trampling the rights of students. (Read the full document at http://www.umich.edu/~oscr.) When the Code was approved in the fall of my freshman year, few people were fooled.

"This isn't even a literate document. ... These are not values in any sense of the word," said a member of the faculty's governing body, shortly before the Senate Advisory Committee on University Affairs unanimously recommended that the regents not approve the Code.

Early in 1999, the Code will surface before the Board of Regents once again. Internal and external review processes are looking into the success of the Code's implementation - an intriguing prospect, considering Code hearings take place in atmospheres of total secrecy. Results will be presented to the Board of Regents in January.

If Bollinger were to come out in favor of revamping - or ideally, completely scratching - the Code, the impact would be forceful.

Throughout his presidency, Bollinger has talked about the importance of a humane education. Education is a civilizing force. The University has a great role to play in shaping a better society. It is an institution that shaped the visions of people like Robert Frost, Clarence Darrow and President Ford.

Bollinger is spearheading plans to build a theater dedicated to University alumnus Arthur Miller. Appropriately, one of Miller's most famous plays, "The Crucible," comments on a society spun out of control by the distortion of justice.

The University president is a First Amendment scholar and a brilliant legal mind, someone widely regarded to possess the elusive quality of being a humane lawyer. In two years in office, he has fostered an enormous reservoir of good will among students, the object of far more affection than I believed possible for a University president.

Now it's time for some hard decisions. The approach Bollinger takes to the Code's future will reveal the depth of his remarks about institutional values and building a tolerant society.

I don't judge anyone in leadership positions on the basis of one decision. I have great admiration for the vision and integrity of Bollinger's predecessor, James Duderstadt, even though Duderstadt's administration oversaw the Code's implementation. One decision does not make a president.

And the Code is an ugly topic. Changing it will not bring the University national glory, boost its spot in U.S. News rankings or increase state appropriations.

It will tug this administration into controversy. The last time the Code was a major topic on this campus, students stormed the Fleming Building.

But this controversy can be weathered. Dismantling the Code is a cause worth fighting for. Bollinger has articulated a moving, inspiring vision of this University's identity and place in the world. Every aspect of this code contradicts it.

The decision to move from the isolation of the Fleming Building and into the heart of campus is a meaningful symbol. But it's precisely that - a symbol. It likely will not affect the quality of life of the students on this campus or rechart the way this institution perceives itself.

Symbols can only go so far. I don't care where the president does his job, so long as he's doing the right thing.

- Jeff Eldridge can be reached over e-mail at jeldridg@umich.edu

11-12-98