Repository: UIHistories Project: Board of Trustees Minutes - 1972 [PAGE 164]

EXTRACTED TEXT FROM PAGE:

154

BOARD OF TRUSTEES

INTRODUCTION O F MICHAEL J. BAKALIS

[January 20

President Hughes introduced Dr. Michael J. Bakalis, new Superintendent of Public Instruction and ex officio member of the Board of Trustees.

MEETING RECESSED

President Hughes announced that the Board would recess and that the Committee on Student Welfare and Activities would convene at this time.

REPORTS OF T H E COMMITTEE ON STUDENT WELFARE AND ACTIVITIES

When the Board reconvened, Mr. Hahn, for the Committee on Student Welfare and Activities, presented the following reports and recommendations:

REPORT OF T H E COMMITTEE ON STUDENT WELFARE AND ACTIVITIES C O N C E R N I N G " R U L E S O F C O N D U C T " APPLICABLE TO ALL STUDENTS

(1) The Committee has received suggestions and comment from various sources since the issuance of the Board of Trustees' statement concerning disruptive and coercive action (designated as "Rules of Conduct Applicable to All Students Concerning Disruptive or Coercive Action"). Students from the Chicago Circle and Urbana campuses have made presentations, and comments have been solicited from students at all campuses. In addition, a letter of inquiry from the chairman of the Urbana-Champaign Senate Committee on Student Discipline has been referred to this Committee by the Board of Trustees. Following study by Committee members and analysis from administrative officers, the Committee now makes the following comment and recommendations with regard to the "Rules of Conduct" : 1. Some student spokesmen have characterized the "Rules of Conduct" as vague and overbroad, citing their individual uncertainties regarding: whose conduct is involved, who may make charges, what kind of conduct is referred to, how various sanct:ons are defined and how judgments are made with reference to these questioned areas. The Committee feels that a number of these questions will be eliminated by a careful reading of the "Rules of Conduct" in context with other campus documents relating to student discipline. Student handbooks and codes of the individual campuses, for example, should be used to set the "Rules" in perspective and to identify the campus procedures through which they are invoked and applied. It must be remembered, as the title specifies, that the "Rules of Conduct" relate to standards of conduct involving "disruptive or coercive action" and that they relate to students. Criticisms of other codes, other institutions, and other texts were a part of the presentations heard by the Committee. This Board cannot appropriately react to such other circumstances unless asserted analogies are clearly drawn. The Committee believes the "Rules of Conduct" do give students adequate notice and guidelines of the behavior expected. It is generally agreed that university codes of conduct are not required to satisfy the same rigorous standards as criminal statutes. The "Rules of Conduct" postulate clear and explicit definitions which fairly apprise students of the prohibitions, and with more than normal specificity. Indeed, the Report of the American Bar Association Commission on Campus Government and Student Dissent recognized this problem when it stated: "A college or university ought not be expected to formulate elaborately detailed codes of conduct comparable to the consolidated criminal statutes of a state." The ultimate test in this regard is whether the university describes its standards (again quoting the Commission) "with sufficient clarity . . . [to] provide fair notice of what is expected and what is forbidden." The Committee believes that the "Rules" meet this standard. The Committee would, however, recommend that appropriate campus administrators ensure that student codes, handbooks, and other documents reflect accurately