In keeping with thier proposed, transparency, the University of Idaho Dean of Students Office asked members of the Residence Hall Association to give their feedback on the proposed changes to the Student Code of Conduct.
Although the code of conduct has been revised four times in July 1992, 1993, 1998 and 2005, the version currently provided on the UI website is nearly identical — save for the second sentence in section IV-9 — to the code of conduct that appeared in the 1969 handbook.
Craig Chatriand, associate dean of students, asked RHA and housing representatives to review and consider the changes that could be made to the code of conduct.
RHA Senate reviewed the changes over a week and gave Chatriand feedback on Oct. 21. Among the representatives, Ann Wardlaw — Targhee president and RHA representative — and Michael Lowe, representative of Wallace Residence Center, spoke extensively on the issue.
“Since my senate is a representative body of the communities in the residence halls, if they look it over, then they are representing (those communities) and that gives, at least a wider range of viewpoint,” McLeod said.
Throughout the senate, there were three topics in the proposed changes that struck a cord: off-campus jurisdiction, an amnesty policy and the jurisdiction process.
UI’s current off-campus jurisdiction, according to McLeod, does not accurately and effectively reprimand punishable actions committed off-campus. McLeod said although hazing is only one aspect of off-campus jurisdiction, it is a pertinent example of how these changes will further assist the student body.
Madison Maynard, RHA vice president, was initially bothered by the thought of being punished for even minor offenses off-campus. Such a widespread judicial system concerned her,
she said.
“The more I thought about it, the more I understand where they’re coming from,” Maynard said.
Hazing, as brought up by Chatriand during an RHA senate meeting, was what made Maynard realize how beneficial the off-campus jurisdiction would be for the student body.
Hazing doesn’t solely include Greek life, which was exemplified at the meeting. Sports teams and other organizations were also a part of the discussion at the senate meeting.
The current student code is limited, McLeod said, and with the changes being brought about, the university can appropriately secure more students in the future.
McLeod doesn’t see this ongoing process as a way to change the code of conduct, but rather a way to expand upon it.
Since the current code of conduct is based off the original, which was drafted in 1969, McLeod expressed interest in the idea of technology, from social media to illegally downloaded music, being present in the student code.
“So, if I’m harassing you over Facebook, the university should be able to come in and deal with that issue,” McLeod said. “Under the current code of conduct, they can’t really address that issue because in ’69 they didn’t have Internet.”
He doesn’t believe that would give the university too much power.
“Obviously, I don’t want the university to be like Big Brother … coming down on us, controlling everything we’ve ever done,” McLeod said.
Maynard was also interested in changes to the judicial process, which she said currently is overdrawn and contains pointless elements.
Maynard’s primary concerns are with the current student code are the section that states “any party to a disciplinary hearing shall have the right to appeal the decision to the faculty or its duly authorized representative.”
“Even if you appeal the judgment — my understanding from the wording is that would go right back to the same person that gave you the punishment, or it might go to a subcommittee that would talk about it,” Maynard said.
The section later states that further appeals may be taken to the president and to the regents, when the president and the regents agree to hear the appeal.
“Either way, the final judgment ends up in the hands of the person who gave the punishment in the first place,” Maynard said. “Wouldn’t you end up with the same punishment as before?”
According to Maynard, the changes to the student code that are associated with punishment and jurisdiction will take a step away from such an extensive court process to a more one-on-one conversational approach to misconducts and their appropriate solutions.
The amnesty policy — which protects students from being reprimanded during an emergency — was a topic of interest to multiple RHA members. Although it was still in the process of being reviewed, reworded and passed during RHA’s meeting, it is a tool that draws on the basis of student health in a crisis situation. A core trait of the ongoing revisions — at least in wording — to the amnesty policy relates to substance abuse and any punishment associated with that during a crisis of health.
“I think that’s the what they’re trying to get at (is) to facilitate as much as possible that people (can call) for help without getting into trouble, or that fear of getting into trouble,” Maynard said.
Jake Smith
can be reached at