Repository: UIHistories Project: Board of Trustees Minutes - 1970 [PAGE 254]

EXTRACTED TEXT FROM PAGE:

254

BOARD OF TRUSTEES

[ J a n u a r y 15

versity operations, substantially interferes with the rights of others or takes place on premises or at times where students are not authorized to be. There is no requirement that University authorities specifically order students to cease participation in a disruptive or coercive demonstration." The Chancellor indicates that this statement will be issued to all new students at the time of their admission and will be given wide publicity to those now enrolled. 2. Hereafter, a single hearing committee (instead of 2, 3, or 4 as now allowable) will be used for all students cited for discipline in the same incident. In this way, responsibility can be centralized and consistency in results obtained. 3. T h e Chancellor recommends that the Senate Committee on Discipline not permit changes in procedure once charges have been filed. In considering cases arising from the September 9 episode, much time was consumed in deciding how the procedures should be altered to allay criticism as to the fairness of the hearings. Furthermore, the changes made are open to serious question, as the Campus Legal Counsel's comment indicates. 4. T h e Urbana Senate Committee on Discipline has adopted an interim procedure for handling massive defiance of University regulations, pending the submission of a permanent plan by the study group referred to earlier. This procedure is described in the Chancellor's report. I fully endorse these actions and urge the Trustees to consider doing so, as well. Chancellor Peltason also poses some questions upon which recommendations should be forthcoming promptly: 1. Whether or not the adversary procedure is a desirable method for University discipline. T h e present half-way process tends to alter the Committee's judgmental role without providing the balances that enable an adversary system to work effectively. 2. Whether or not the hearings should be open or closed or remain half open as recently inaugurated. T h e "observer" practice, in my view, should be discontinued, for the reasons set forth by the Chancellor. 3. Whether or not instances of "mass" defiance of law or University regulation can be separated from the kinds of cases for which the present University disciplinary system has been devised, and such mass defiance treated as an emergency. It would seem that disruption of this type is of an emergency character, and calls for emergency enforcement of law and regulation as well as prompt application of penalties appropriate to the seriousness of of the violation. 4. Whether or not the present referral procedure is sound. As Chancellor Peltason has pointed out, three campus committees are working on these questions — the Senate Committee on Discipline, its special Subcommittee on the problem of massive defiance of University regulations, and the Ad Hoc Senate Committee on the problems of the disciplinary system in general. Their preliminary reports are a part of the material presented by the Chancellor. I believe that the Board of Trustees should encourage these committees to hasten the completion of their work and report as promptly as possible. I infer, from the action of the Board of Trustees in requesting this report, that it wishes to be kept informed about and to review recommendations for change in the disciplinary process — particularly in the areas noted above — and I am asking Chancellor Peltason to request reports from the committees for my transmittal to the March meeting of the Board of Trustees. Up to this point, my report has dealt exclusively with the Urbana-Champaign campus situation because the issues at hand have had their origin on that campus. However, I trust that it is clear to the public, to students, officers, and faculty that the Trustees' policy as to the prevention of disruption and coercion extends to all campuses, whatever the methods chosen on each campus for the achievement of that result.