This Thursday, Vice Chancellor for Student Life Vincent Carilli will meet with members of the Student Government Association and Interfraternity Council to discuss a proposed revision to the Student Code of Conduct. The revised document, which includes changes ranging from judicial processes to rights of accused students, will be submitted to the Board of Trustees for approval during their Oct. 8-9 fall meeting. The document would then be subject to approval in the Tennessee legislature under the Government Operations Committee, but the proposed changes have already caught political criticism ahead of Thursday’s meeting.
Earlier last week, Rep. Martin Daniel of West Knoxville’s 18th district, filed a letter to Vice Chancellor Carilli outlining his specific issues with the proposed changes. Rep. Daniel made it clear that should the Board of Trustees approve the new Student Code of Conduct in October without first addressing those sections he finds issue with, he would personally work to block its passage within the legislature.
In an interview with The Daily Beacon, Rep. Daniel went over his seven-page letter to Vice Chancellor Carilli, and touched on the major issues he found within the proposed changes.
Rights of the Accused
Under the new Student Code of Conduct, the section outlining the Fundamental Rights of the Accused has been completely omitted. The Rights of the Accused, similar to the Bill of Rights, grants students certain liberties, such as being presented as innocent in a judicial hearing. While these rights would likely be implied in other parts of the proposed code, Daniel feels having these rights “expressly set forth” as a matter of policy would prevent later confusion.
Changes to Student Disciplinary Board
Under the current version of Hilltopics, the Student Disciplinary Board consists of three to seven student members responsible for making sure the student code of conduct is observed by students without infringing on their rights. Under the proposed changes, a new Student Conduct Board would perform in the same capacity, yet would consist of only one student member alongside two UT faculty or administrative members. Additionally, all judicial boards, including The Greek Judicial Board, would be collapsed into the singular Student Conduct Board. “It would result in a more one sided process against the students,” Daniel said of the proposed change. “I would think the accused (student) would want to be tried by their peers.”
Individuals attributable to organizations
Citing a lack of general guidelines, Rep. Daniel found that the proposed revisions were too vague in defining when actions of an individual might be attributed back to an organization of which they were members. Whether an individual claims membership in the chess club or a fraternity, no standard of when to punish students separately from their member organizations is proposed under the revised student code of conduct, leaving the decision “totally within the discretion of the Office of Student Life,” Daniel said.
Increase in handbook size
In reading the proposed Student Code of Conduct handbook, Daniel found it to be “not user friendly at all,” citing the handbook’s expansion to 51 pages in all, as opposed to the 18 page Hilltopics manual currently in use. With students from all walks of life likely to be affected by the proposed changes, Daniel feels as if clarity is essential if revisions are to be made. “If this document is difficult for me to read, it’s going to be extraordinarily difficult for any student to read,” Daniel said.
Burden of Proof
Currently, the Student Disciplinary Board can find a peer guilty by a 4-3 vote. Because a conviction by either the Student Disciplinary Board or Student Conduct Board has the potential to adversely affect a student’s future, Daniel feels the burden of proof necessary to convict an accused student should be provided either by a unanimous vote of the Student Conduct Board or by clear and convincing evidence.
Vice Chancellor Carilli was not immediately available for comment.
Speaking on behalf of student interests, SGA president Will Freeman said while SGA was withholding its official stance until after Thursday’s meeting with Carilli, he and his fellow student government members were currently reviewing the proposed changes.
“We have no reason to not disown this amendment,” said Freeman, who maintained that SGA would act in the best interests of the student body based upon their findings. “If there’s anything in this amendment that is not best for students, it’s our responsibility to say ‘absolutely not, you can’t do this.’”
Interfraternity Council Executive Board President Alex Clark similarly claimed to be reviewing the proposed amendments ahead of Thursday’s meeting “in order to figure out what the next best step is for fraternity life on campus.”
