The Conduct Revision Task Force met yesterday Monday, November 8 in a cramped conference room in Sproul Hall. Upon entering the door, I received a binder consisting of previous recommendations from the 2003 task force that made recommendations to the code, the most recent code of conduct, statistics from the Center for Student Conduct, the Nov. 20th Police Review Board Executive Summary, and a few miscellaneous emails.
This was the first meeting of the 19-person task force and was mainly introductory, although there was a fair amount of philosophical conversation followed by dividing the task force into sub-committees. We went around and gave brief introductions, the people serving on the task force include:
1. Harry Le Grande, Co-Chair, Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs
2. Bob Jacobsen, Co-Chair, Academic Senate Vice Chair and Professor
3. Chris Patti, Chief Campus Counsel
4. Christina Gonzales, Associate Dean of Students
5. Mitch Celaya, UC Police Department
6. Diane Hill, Assistant Dean for Academic Affairs, Graduate Division
7. Kevin Padian, Faculty
8. Sandra Smith, Faculty
9. Rodolfo Mendoza-Denton, Faculty
10. David Presti, Faculty, Academic Senate COMS
11. Lia Fernald, Faculty, Academic Senate COMS
12. Herbert Strauss, Faculty, Academic Senate COMS
13. Elliot Goldstein, Student, ASUC
14. Waseem Salahi, Student, ASUC
15. Erich Matthes Student, Graduate Assembly
16. Neil Satterlund, Student, Graduate Assembly, Campus Rights Project
17. Samar Shah, Chief of Staff, Student Advocate's Office
18. Udani Kadurugamuwa, Conduct Director, Student Advocate's Office
19. Ovsanna Khachikian Student, VSCAC
Opening remarks were made by Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost George Breslauer, who ordered the creation of the task force and whom the committee will ultimately report its recommendations to. Mr. Breslauer read the charge of the task force (see first posting) which is to "not review the Code in its entirety but will specifically address six areas: (1) Code timelines, (2) Communication process, (3) decision right and representation at various stages of the conduct process, (4) Capacity of Student Conduct Department, (5) consequences and sanctions, (6) congruence with best practices on other college campuses.
Then the Co-Chairs, Professor Jacobson and Vice Chancellor Le Grande gave opening remarks on how the task force would operate. The task force will try to work on a consensus basis rather then voting up or down individual policies and clauses. It was also noted that the task force has a relatively short deadline - Spring 2011.
Professor Jacobson served on the task force which recommended revisions to the code in 2003, and Professor Kevin Padian served on a similar task force in the 90's.
About 45 minutes into the hour and half meeting we entered a longer conversation about how to divide the task force into sub-committees, the idea being that we could divide the six "areas" and divide the group into two. The conversation meandered around possible divisions of the areas and the categories that they represented while hitting on grander themes about various conduct philosophies. Finally we split into Team A that would focus on (1) Code timelines, (2) Communication process, and (5) consequences and sanctions. And Team B which would focus on (3) decision right and representation at various stages of the conduct process, (4) Capacity of Student Conduct Department. It would noted that area (6) congruence with best practices on other college campuses really underlies all of the other areas and therefore both groups would look at other colleges conduct practices.
The sub-committees will meet soon and are being organized by students from the Student Advocates Office. Admittedly there will be quite a lot of overlap between the two sub-committees, and that is why the committee of the whole will serve as a check process on the progress of the subcommittees.
Finally we discussed communication efforts by the task force, transparency, and confidentiality. There was mention of setting up a bSpace account where students and faculty can give feedback to the committee and answer questions. Additionally, the Student Advocates Office will be hosting a series of Townhall forums on the Conduct Revision process. This blog is my own attempt at providing transparency and keeping everyone updated on the progress of the task force. However I am bound by confidentiality on the current thinking-processes of the task force and will be diligent in respecting my fellow committee members as I blog.
I mentioned that there was talk about various conduct philosophies, this to me is the truly fascinating aspect of serving on a committee like this. Five varying philosophies were described: (1) Restorative Justice Model (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restorative_Justice) (2) Spectrum Model, and I'm not sure what this is (3) in loco parentis model (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_loco_parentis) (4) the legalistic model that mirrors the judicial courts outside of the university, "preparing students for the outside world" (5) the Educational Model, which is what Berkeley claims to have now, this currently favored model across higher education campuses seeks to get students to admit they're wrong and make the conduct process a learning process ie consequences may be writing an essay. However, it was noted during discussion that in the case of civil disobedience the educational model can fail, given that protesting is an act of conscience and one cannot be told their conscience is "wrong" and needs to be "educated".
Critics of UCB's Conduct Process say that the rhetoric of the process being "educational" is being use to skirt rights in gathering evidence and not giving students the right to due process, and yet the consequences students are being given is punitive in nature. This is something I imagine will come up a great deal throughout this process.
The next meeting dates for the whole task force have been decided, they will be November 29th and December 6th. Stay posted!
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
UCOP: Proposed Policy Changes to Address Hate Crimes
UC Office of the President has the ultimate authority to amend the UC-Wide Code of Student Conduct. This is the second round draft of proposed policy changes to the UC-wide Code of Conduct that claim to address hate crimes.
What is important to understand is that UC-wide Code of Student Conduct is the baseline code that each UC campus must use, but the way the ADMINISTER this can vary from UC-to-UC. The Office of Student Conduct is the ones who administer the Code. The revision Task Force at UC Berkeley will be recommending changes to the way the UC Berkeley's Office of Student Conduct administers the Code.
REVISED with Track Changes: Proposed Policy Changes to Address Hate Crimes
1. Terrorizing Conduct
The following new language would be added to the Policy on Student Conduct and Discipline (section 102.00 Grounds for Discipline):
“[The following is prohibited:] Conduct, where the actor means to communicate a serious expression of intent to terrorize, or acts in reckless disregard of the risk of terrorizing, one or more University students, faculty, or staff. ‘Terrorize’ means to cause a reasonable person to fear bodily harm or death, perpetrated by the actor or his/her confederates. ‘Reckless disregard’ means consciously disregarding a substantial risk. This section applies without regard to whether the conduct is motivated by race, ethnicity, personal animosity, or other reasons. This section does not apply to conduct that constitutes the lawful defense of one’s self, of another, or of property.”
2. Sanction Enhancement for Violations Motivated by Hate
The following new language would be added to the Policy on Student Conduct and Discipline (section 104.00 Administration of Student Discipline):
“Sanctions [for any violations of the Grounds for Discipline] may be enhanced where the victim was selected because of the victim’s race, color, national or ethnic origin, citizenship, sex, religion, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, pregnancy, marital status, ancestry, service in the uniformed services, physical or mental disability, medical condition (cancer related or genetic characteristics), or perceived membership in any of these classifications.”
3. Discipline for criminal convictions
The following new language would be added to the Policy on Student Conduct and Discipline (section 102.00 Grounds for Discipline):
“[Students may be subject to discipline, i.e., discipline is possible, not mandatory, on the basis of] A conviction under any California state or federal criminal law, when the conviction constitutes reasonable cause to believe that the student poses a current threat to the health or safety of any person or to the security of any property, on University premises or at official University functions, or poses a current threat to the orderly operation of the campus.”
What is important to understand is that UC-wide Code of Student Conduct is the baseline code that each UC campus must use, but the way the ADMINISTER this can vary from UC-to-UC. The Office of Student Conduct is the ones who administer the Code. The revision Task Force at UC Berkeley will be recommending changes to the way the UC Berkeley's Office of Student Conduct administers the Code.
REVISED with Track Changes: Proposed Policy Changes to Address Hate Crimes
1. Terrorizing Conduct
The following new language would be added to the Policy on Student Conduct and Discipline (section 102.00 Grounds for Discipline):
“[The following is prohibited:] Conduct, where the actor means to communicate a serious expression of intent to terrorize, or acts in reckless disregard of the risk of terrorizing, one or more University students, faculty, or staff. ‘Terrorize’ means to cause a reasonable person to fear bodily harm or death, perpetrated by the actor or his/her confederates. ‘Reckless disregard’ means consciously disregarding a substantial risk. This section applies without regard to whether the conduct is motivated by race, ethnicity, personal animosity, or other reasons. This section does not apply to conduct that constitutes the lawful defense of one’s self, of another, or of property.”
2. Sanction Enhancement for Violations Motivated by Hate
The following new language would be added to the Policy on Student Conduct and Discipline (section 104.00 Administration of Student Discipline):
“Sanctions [for any violations of the Grounds for Discipline] may be enhanced where the victim was selected because of the victim’s race, color, national or ethnic origin, citizenship, sex, religion, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, pregnancy, marital status, ancestry, service in the uniformed services, physical or mental disability, medical condition (cancer related or genetic characteristics), or perceived membership in any of these classifications.”
3. Discipline for criminal convictions
The following new language would be added to the Policy on Student Conduct and Discipline (section 102.00 Grounds for Discipline):
“[Students may be subject to discipline, i.e., discipline is possible, not mandatory, on the basis of] A conviction under any California state or federal criminal law, when the conviction constitutes reasonable cause to believe that the student poses a current threat to the health or safety of any person or to the security of any property, on University premises or at official University functions, or poses a current threat to the orderly operation of the campus.”
Task Force Invitation and Charge
This is the email I received from Provost Breslauer with the history and charge of the Task Force.
"October 18th, 2010
Elliott Goldstein
ASUC
Dear Elliott,
I am writing to invite you to serve on a Task Force which will be responsible for reviewing aspects of Berkeley’s Code of Student Conduct. I believe your valuable and informed perspectives will contribute to the success of this important endeavor. The Task Force will be co-chaired by Vice Chancellor Harry Le Grande and Academic Senate Vice Chair and Professor Bob Jacobsen. The work of the Task Force is expected to conclude by the end of spring semester 2011.
Introduction and Background
During the 2009-10 academic year, there were several disruptive protests on campus. In cases where violations of the Code of Student Conduct were alleged, students were referred to the Center for Student Conduct. Some of these cases raised questions and concerns regarding facilitation of the student conduct process and whether policies and processes were fair in content and application.
Last spring, I accepted Vice Chancellor Harry Le Grande’s request to appoint a task force to review our current Code of Student Conduct. The Code of Student Conduct was last reviewed in 2003 and that committee, composed of students, faculty, and staff, made several substantive recommendations that have been implemented since that time.
The work of the 2003 review committee was “…guided by a belief that as an educational institution, the campus has an obligation to use the student conduct process as an educational opportunity.” This philosophy provides the framework for our current student conduct policies and processes; however, questions have been raised about the scope and limits of the educational approach. In addition, there have been questions raised related to the processes associated with the administration of the Code of Student Conduct.
Therefore, I am charging this Task Force to address the specific issues raised this past year by students, faculty, and staff involved in student conduct issues. The Task Force will be provided with background material including the current Code of Student Conduct, modifications to the Code policies and processes made since the 2003 review, and the 2003 Code of Student Conduct Final Report and Recommendations, among others.
Task Force Charge
Acknowledging the importance of balancing the rights and responsibilities of the individual student and the campus community at-large, as well as protecting the integrity of the institution and its values, the Task Force will conduct a review to ensure that the current policies and processes in the areas listed below are fair in applicability, consistent in process, and timely in resolution. The Task Force will not review the Code in its entirety but will specifically address the following areas:
1. Code timelines (e.g., are timelines fair, realistic and/or appropriate?)
2. Communication process (e.g., clarity on notice of charges and next steps)
3. Decision rights and representation at various stages of the conduct process
4. Capacity of department (e.g., staffing parameters, case load, and student needs)
5. Consequences (e.g. interim suspension) and sanctions (e.g. writing essays)
6. Congruence with best practices related to these areas of student conduct on college campuses
Task Force Composition
The Task Force membership was formed with a goal of ensuring a broad representation of campus constituencies affected by the Code while recognizing the realities of managing an aggressive timeline and integrating complicated individual schedules. The group is composed of representatives from the faculty (3 from the Academic Senate and 3 faculty at-large), students (2 from ASUC, 2 from Graduate Assembly, 2 from the Student Advocates Office, and 1 student-at-large from the Vice Chancellor, Student Affairs Advisory Council), and 1 staff each from the Office of Legal Affairs, Office of the Dean of Students, UC Police Department, and the Graduate Division.
The Task Force is expected to seek input from a wide range of faculty and student voices so that its deliberations include points of view that may not be represented by the membership of the Task Force.
Staff support for the Task Force will be coordinated by Felicia Lee, Chief of Staff, Office of the Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs, with help from her Executive Assistant, Laura McBride. Felicia can be reached at fjlee@berkeley.edu. Meeting arrangements will be handled by Laura who can be reached at lmcbride@berkeley.edu or 642-6757.
Please reply to my Chief of Staff, Phyllis Hoffman (phoffman@berkeley.edu), to confirm your ability to serve. Thank you for your willingness to contribute to this very important effort.
Sincerely,
George W. Breslauer
Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost
cc: Chancellor Birgeneau
Professor Bob Jacobsen, Physics
Chief of Staff Phyllis Hoffman, Office of the Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost
Chief of Staff Felicia Lee, Office of the Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs
Executive Assistant to the Chief of Staff Laura McBride, Office of the Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs"
"October 18th, 2010
Elliott Goldstein
ASUC
Dear Elliott,
I am writing to invite you to serve on a Task Force which will be responsible for reviewing aspects of Berkeley’s Code of Student Conduct. I believe your valuable and informed perspectives will contribute to the success of this important endeavor. The Task Force will be co-chaired by Vice Chancellor Harry Le Grande and Academic Senate Vice Chair and Professor Bob Jacobsen. The work of the Task Force is expected to conclude by the end of spring semester 2011.
Introduction and Background
During the 2009-10 academic year, there were several disruptive protests on campus. In cases where violations of the Code of Student Conduct were alleged, students were referred to the Center for Student Conduct. Some of these cases raised questions and concerns regarding facilitation of the student conduct process and whether policies and processes were fair in content and application.
Last spring, I accepted Vice Chancellor Harry Le Grande’s request to appoint a task force to review our current Code of Student Conduct. The Code of Student Conduct was last reviewed in 2003 and that committee, composed of students, faculty, and staff, made several substantive recommendations that have been implemented since that time.
The work of the 2003 review committee was “…guided by a belief that as an educational institution, the campus has an obligation to use the student conduct process as an educational opportunity.” This philosophy provides the framework for our current student conduct policies and processes; however, questions have been raised about the scope and limits of the educational approach. In addition, there have been questions raised related to the processes associated with the administration of the Code of Student Conduct.
Therefore, I am charging this Task Force to address the specific issues raised this past year by students, faculty, and staff involved in student conduct issues. The Task Force will be provided with background material including the current Code of Student Conduct, modifications to the Code policies and processes made since the 2003 review, and the 2003 Code of Student Conduct Final Report and Recommendations, among others.
Task Force Charge
Acknowledging the importance of balancing the rights and responsibilities of the individual student and the campus community at-large, as well as protecting the integrity of the institution and its values, the Task Force will conduct a review to ensure that the current policies and processes in the areas listed below are fair in applicability, consistent in process, and timely in resolution. The Task Force will not review the Code in its entirety but will specifically address the following areas:
1. Code timelines (e.g., are timelines fair, realistic and/or appropriate?)
2. Communication process (e.g., clarity on notice of charges and next steps)
3. Decision rights and representation at various stages of the conduct process
4. Capacity of department (e.g., staffing parameters, case load, and student needs)
5. Consequences (e.g. interim suspension) and sanctions (e.g. writing essays)
6. Congruence with best practices related to these areas of student conduct on college campuses
Task Force Composition
The Task Force membership was formed with a goal of ensuring a broad representation of campus constituencies affected by the Code while recognizing the realities of managing an aggressive timeline and integrating complicated individual schedules. The group is composed of representatives from the faculty (3 from the Academic Senate and 3 faculty at-large), students (2 from ASUC, 2 from Graduate Assembly, 2 from the Student Advocates Office, and 1 student-at-large from the Vice Chancellor, Student Affairs Advisory Council), and 1 staff each from the Office of Legal Affairs, Office of the Dean of Students, UC Police Department, and the Graduate Division.
The Task Force is expected to seek input from a wide range of faculty and student voices so that its deliberations include points of view that may not be represented by the membership of the Task Force.
Staff support for the Task Force will be coordinated by Felicia Lee, Chief of Staff, Office of the Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs, with help from her Executive Assistant, Laura McBride. Felicia can be reached at fjlee@berkeley.edu. Meeting arrangements will be handled by Laura who can be reached at lmcbride@berkeley.edu or 642-6757.
Please reply to my Chief of Staff, Phyllis Hoffman (phoffman@berkeley.edu), to confirm your ability to serve. Thank you for your willingness to contribute to this very important effort.
Sincerely,
George W. Breslauer
Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost
cc: Chancellor Birgeneau
Professor Bob Jacobsen, Physics
Chief of Staff Phyllis Hoffman, Office of the Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost
Chief of Staff Felicia Lee, Office of the Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs
Executive Assistant to the Chief of Staff Laura McBride, Office of the Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)