Two committees examine Code

Two groups representing different constituencies on campus have taken different approaches to scrutinize the same subject - the Code of Student Conduct, a document that primarily affects students' lives.

The nine-member, University-led committee, which submitted its final report to Vice President for Student Affairs Maureen Hartford about one month ago, tackled the task of evaluating how well the Code has been implemented since it took form nearly three years ago.

The student-led group, organized by Michigan Student Assembly members, broadened its scope of review to include a full evaluation of the Code itself and not just the procedures.

Rackham Rep. Olga Savic, chair of MSA's Student Rights Commission and one of three students to sit on the University's committee, said MSA took on the heavy task of reviewing the Code in its entirety because it thought the University Code Implementation Review Committee's analysis was limited.

"There was a certain level of analysis that didn't happen because it wasn't supposed to happen," Savic said, adding that the assembly's Student Code Review Committee went a step further by asking such questions as, "What would students want in a code of conduct?"

"The charge of the University committee was very narrow," Savic said. "So we were only able to look at the Code in terms of a few questions."

LSA sophomore Brian Reich, public information director for the MSA committee, said the tasks for the two different committees will be reflected in their reports to the University Board of Regents, which are scheduled to begin at the board's meeting next month.

"They'll find stuff. They find what they're looking for," Reich said. "But, that's not good enough for our purposes."

Reich's comments, which mirrored those of Savic's, said the student-led committee sought to include more students in its review.

"If we can prove that there is a need for a complete rewrite of the Code, that's what we're going to do," Reich said. Because of the narrower scope of CIRC's review, a recommendation such as a rewrite of the Code will not be included. It is not what the CIRC evaluated.

Both the CIRC, which is composed of administrators, faculty and staff members and three student representatives, and the MSA committee, which is composed of a handful of students, have done a thorough and fair job, Savic said. The difference then, is in each review's scope and limits.

"Everyone did leave their opinions at the door, but you do that on any committee," Savic said of the CIRC. But "it would be wrong to say MSA's report (is) anything but fair, anything by objective."

CIRC Chair Simone Himbeault Taylor said during the review process that the group made every effort to maintain its objectivity.

"It does not reflect our point of view," she said.

Both committees included a lot of data finding to compile their reports.

The CIRC first started meeting during the summer. It conducted focus groups by gathering comments from administrators, students and staff members. The MSA committee gauged student feedback by having them fill out questionnaires. The group also compared the University's Code to those at other schools.

The University, as part of its complete review, included two other parts: the Office of Student Conflict Resolution's internal review of the Code and the external consultation, during which time outside educators visited the University to analyze the Code.

11-24-98