Q: Do you think there should be physical boundaries to the expanded student code of conduct? Why or why not?
I think that giving the UI absolute authority to investigate infringements in the student code of conduct, no matter the location of infringement, is acceptable because odds are that any violation is going to cause some sort of interference with a number of students in their objective to learn, and the University has the obligation to maintain an atmosphere that is optimal for teaching and learning. Also it gives students the option to go to the Dean of Students for assistance when the code is violated by other parties, instead of going to law enforcement where the process to get matters resolved will take way longer.
–Michael Green
This issue is like a tightrope, and deciding whether behavior teeters on the edge of student conduct or personal freedom. While I understand the concept behind extended boundaries, I think it’s important to define when a person’s behavior is conceived as representative of the university, and when it is not. Students are not selling their souls to become Vandals and I think it’s important to remember that we are all individuals with free will. Our choices may not always be flattering, but that’s part of growing up …. a process that takes place most drastically during our college years.
–Darby Lam Baldwin
Limiting definitions of jurisdiction to physical boundaries can leave the Dean of Students office unable to help a large portion of the victims of harmful interactions. If two students go home to Boise for a break, and something happens there, that interaction still affects those students when they return to campus. I think it’s more important to limit the jurisdiction to things that interrupt the learning environment, or cause a fear for personal safety on campus.
–Kellie Koester