From: greeny@eff.org (J S Greenfield)
Subject: School codes and admins' directives (was Request or order?...)
Originator: greeny@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 18:06:01 GMT

Michael Roberts writes:

>But, I also attend a school with a discipline code that makes it
>a sanctionable offense not to do anything any agent of this
>University requests: even if that request asks me to comply with
>something which is a violation of my rights.

Can you post this section of your school's code.  In my experience,
most such provisions include some language that makes it implicit
that the administrators' requests must be reasonable, lawful, part
of their duties, etc.

An action which violates your rights under university regulations is,
presumably, none of these, and would not be covered by such a
provision.


>I've never met an
>administrator that found this approach, which makes me a second
>class citizen simply because I as a taxpayer enroll in a tax
>supported school, even the least bit objectionable.

I guess you haven't met *every* administrator in the world, though.
Please--let's not resort to sweeping generalizations.  (I've met
plenty of administrators I didn't like, but I don't think you can
generalize like this.)


>On this basis,
>I have come to feel total contempt for the University as an
>institution and for ED. ADmin types as a particular species of
>vermin.

See above.


morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:

>>No.  But with that catch all in place, if you don't want something to
>>have the force of University rules, you'll have to say that
>>explicitly.  Does the University of Kentucky have such a catch all.
>>(what I _want_ is to see that catch-all, and a few like it, removed)
>
>Yes, in fact, it does; Paragraph 1.21 of the _Code of Student Conduct_
>states [in part]:
>
>	1.21 Offenses as defined below are punishable disciplinary offenses:
>	[...]
>	h) Failure to comply with directions of University officials acting
>	   in the performance of their duties.
>	[...]
>
>When I discussed this with the Dean of Students' office, they couldn't
>remember the last time a student was disciplined under this paragraph;
>I don't think it would make much difference if it were removed.  I will
>mention this when next I speak with them.

Perhaps more importantly, "performance" of an administrators "duties"
presumably does *not* include violating a student's rights.

Here's the provision at my school, from the SU Code of Student Conduct.

   Syracuse University considers the following behavior...to violate the
   Code of Student Conduct:
   [...]
   11) Failure to comply with the lawful directives of University
       officials who are performing the duties of their office,
       especially as they are related to the maintenance of safety
       or security.

I read the phrases "lawful directives" and "performing the duties
of their office" to exclude directives which violate one's rights
under university regulations.


Truth be told, I suspect that at most universities, the problem is not
in the formal provision.  (I'd like to see any examples of such provisions
that are completely free from qualifiers, or that explicitly state that
students must comply with *any* directive.)

The problem, as I see it, is far more likely to arise from individual
administrators' lack of understanding of university regulations (and
student rights) and/or from an institutional lack of interest in actually
*enforcing* the regulations that are on the books.

This has certainly been my experience at SU.


-- 
J. S. Greenfield                                         greeny@top.cis.syr.edu
(I like to put 'greeny' here,                            greeny@eff.org 
but my d*mn system wants a 
*real* name!)                        "What's the difference between an orange?"
Newsgroups: soc.rights.alien,alt.censorship,alt.conspiracy