Proposed UO code stays on campus.

Byline: Greg Bolt The Register-Guard

Proposed changes to the student conduct code at the University of Oregon would extend the rules to some acts that occur off campus but mostly fall short of sanctioning students for taking part in the kind of riots that have hit the west campus area in recent years.

The changes recommended by a student-faculty committee would encompass violent acts against fellow students even if they occurred off university grounds, but they would not take in property damage or disorderly conduct unless it clearly interfered with the welfare of other students or disturbed the education environment. And the conduct code will remain a tool for teaching responsibility, not for punishment.

"Right now, they feel from conversations with other faculty, other students, that the overall majority of people aren't in favor of getting involved in the private activities of students," said Chris Loschiavo, director of student judicial affairs at the university. "Really, what the conduct code is intended to accomplish is to help provide an environment conducive to learning."

The conduct code became an issue after a string of alcohol-fueled riots that erupted in the west university neighborhood, an area sometimes called the "student ghetto" because of the dense mix of rental properties that cater primarily to students. Student groups have pointed out, however, that UO students were only a small part of those who rioted.

But community leaders have called on the university to sanction students who take part in rioting, hoping that the threat of being suspended or expelled will make people think twice before taking their parties to the street. For their part, students, faculty and administrators at the UO have been reluctant to set themselves up as a separate police force, saying it's not their role to investigate crimes, gather evidence and bring charges against students for things they do off campus.

Changes to the conduct code are being developed more out of a need to update 40-year-old rules that haven't kept up with the times than as a response to the riots. But members of the committee working on the revision said the riots prompted some serious debate during the two years the update has been in the works.

Jesse Harding, the student co-chairman of the committee, said the conduct code is used to help students learn from mistakes and to grow. He said changing it to a punishment mechanism for off-campus problems not only would bury the university in investigations it is not equipped to handle but also would be unlikely to deter misbehavior.

"The truth is that the university doesn't have much control over students when they're off campus," he said. "I don't know how much of an effect that would have on them."

It's also an issue of fairness, he said. Students face the same consequences as any other citizen when they break the law, and Harding said adding extra punishment that isn't levied on nonstudents who commit the same crimes isn't equal justice.

"It's holding a person to a higher standard just because they're students," he said.

Under the changes being proposed, the conduct code only would apply to off-campus behavior if it meets several criteria, including: that it harms the learning environment, and that it would be a violation of the code if it had occurred on campus and involved violence to or threats against a member of the university community.

The code already covers off-campus sexual assaults by one student against another, and the idea is to extend that to include any type of personal violence or threat of physical harm.

Bill Daley, a decision sciences instructor in the Lundquist College of Business and a committee member, said those incidents are appropriate ones for university involvement because they make it hard for victimized students to feel safe and pursue an education without fear of harm.

The proposed changes could result in student conduct charges as a result of a riot, but only if the behavior harmed or threatened other students.

Daley used the example of students chucking pumpkins through apartment or Greek house windows. If enough people were doing it, the police might call it a riot. But the university would intervene only if the victims were students whose educational welfare was threatened.

And even if the conduct could come under the revised code, the university would take into account its ability to gather evidence and testimony before deciding whether to exercise jurisdiction.

The review committee divided the conduct code into three broad areas. Work on the first part, concerning the purpose, jurisdiction and legal authority of the code, is complete and will go to a public hearing this week.

Loschiavo said work is almost complete on the second part, having to do with sanctions, but that it will be next year before the procedures portion of the document is complete.

The entire code then goes to the University Senate, which must approve any changes to conduct rules. The senate could reject the revisions, order changes or approve it, and that action is not expected before winter term.

UO STUDENT

CONDUCT CODE

A joint student-faculty committee has completed an update of the first portion of the student code and will take public comments on it this week.

Where: Alsea/Coquille rooms, Erb Memorial Union

When: Thursday, April 29, at noon

Written comments: Due by May 10

THE PROPOSAL

Text of the proposed changes to conduct code regarding jurisdiction:

Section 3: The University may extend the jurisdiction of the Student Conduct Code to conduct occurring off campus, that adversely and significantly affects the environment conducive to learning, and that would violate the Student Conduct Code if the conduct had occurred on campus and if the alleged misconduct involved violence or produced a reasonable fear of physical harm and the alleged victim is a member of the campus community or the alleged misconduct involves academic work or any records, documents, or misuse of government issued identification of the University.

(a) The University will take into consideration its ability to gather evidence, including witness testimony, in determining whether to exercise jurisdiction over off-campus conduct.