Faculty removes embarrassment clause from Code of Conduct
Matthew Brizzi
Issue date: 3/19/04 Section: News
Dr. Joyce M. Hardin, Vice President for Student Affairs and Dean of Students, agrees that the second bullet revisions raise the bar for what can be considered severe enough to warrant Judicial Council action. But she's not sure exactly how the changes will determine what is eligible for such action.
"Embarrassment is not abuse," she said. "[The bullet revision] raises the bar in terms of what it takes to constitute an act that could be adjudicated. Embarrassment is not eligible for adjudication, but abuse is. It takes more for an act to be something the judicial system might deal with; however, what is abuse to me might not be abuse to someone else."
When asked specifically if this policy change would have prevented students from going to Judicial Council because of the content of the Profane, Hardin said she didn't know.
"That depends on what your definition of abuse is," she said. "It would have been a lot harder to send students to J-Board because their actions would've had to constitute a higher level of negative activity: abuse not just embarrassment."
Last year's Profane, which hit newsstands on April 1, cast some members of the faculty and staff in a sexual light that embarrassed them and that some people felt constituted sexual harassment. The College contended that some of the students whom it deemed responsible for the paper's content violated the second bullet because the publication embarrassed people. Those students then had to appear before Judicial Council.
The changes to the second bullet were actually a result of the addition of a fifth bullet to the Code, which explicitly states the College's stance on free expression: "The College is committed to maintaining an atmosphere in which free expression is protected and promoted." The Student Life Committee passed the fifth bullet in April 2003, when Dr. Jay Barth, associate professor of politics, was its chair. The faculty at-large didn't approve it because the committee's approval occurred after the last faculty meeting of the year.
"Embarrassment is not abuse," she said. "[The bullet revision] raises the bar in terms of what it takes to constitute an act that could be adjudicated. Embarrassment is not eligible for adjudication, but abuse is. It takes more for an act to be something the judicial system might deal with; however, what is abuse to me might not be abuse to someone else."
When asked specifically if this policy change would have prevented students from going to Judicial Council because of the content of the Profane, Hardin said she didn't know.
"That depends on what your definition of abuse is," she said. "It would have been a lot harder to send students to J-Board because their actions would've had to constitute a higher level of negative activity: abuse not just embarrassment."
Last year's Profane, which hit newsstands on April 1, cast some members of the faculty and staff in a sexual light that embarrassed them and that some people felt constituted sexual harassment. The College contended that some of the students whom it deemed responsible for the paper's content violated the second bullet because the publication embarrassed people. Those students then had to appear before Judicial Council.
The changes to the second bullet were actually a result of the addition of a fifth bullet to the Code, which explicitly states the College's stance on free expression: "The College is committed to maintaining an atmosphere in which free expression is protected and promoted." The Student Life Committee passed the fifth bullet in April 2003, when Dr. Jay Barth, associate professor of politics, was its chair. The faculty at-large didn't approve it because the committee's approval occurred after the last faculty meeting of the year.
Viewing Comments 1 - 1 of 1
seifas
posted 4/07/10 @ 1:15 PM CST
I like articles like this. Great Article! Thanks!
Post a Comment