How SMU students should be required to behave while off-campusbecame an issue of contentious debate as Student Senate workedthrough its annual Student Code of Conduct revision process duringits regular meeting Tuesday.
The Student Code of Conduct is the body of regulations that allstudents agree to abide by upon enrolling in the university. Itoutlines student rights and responsibilities, general policies onstudent behavior, the regulation of campus organizations and theuniversity guidelines for social fraternities and sororities. Everyyear the Senate reviews suggested changes to the code submitted bystudents, faculty and staff.
While this year’s suggestions covered issues ranging froma student’s responsibility for guests to the use ofelectronic resources, those that received the most heateddeliberation dealt with whether or not students should beconsidered representatives of the university and held responsiblefor their actions under the code while they are off-campus.
“If we give this power to [regulate off-campus activityto] the university, how hard is it going to be to take itback?” Law Senator Peter Schulte said.
After a semester of several negative incidents that occurredoff-campus involving student organizations, many of the suggestedchanges seemed aimed at preventing future occurrences.
Last month, an incident of alleged fraternity hazing leftbusiness major Braylon Curry in a coma for over a week. Earlierthis semester, the Sailing Club caught the attention of severalsenators after announcing plans to hold a fundraising car washfeaturing exotic dancers from a local club.
“These changes were proposed in order to get this debatestarted,” Director of Student Activities Arlene Mantheysaid.
The Senate voted to reject a proposal to extend the reach ofarticle 3.10, a measure that requires all students “tomaintain self-control and to uphold their dignity and that of theUniversity at all times,” to beyond the boundaries of thecampus. The article also specifically prohibits”entertainment on campus by strippers or other such dancerswhose activities fall outside of the educational mission of theUniversity.”
“My gut reaction to this was no. At the edge of campus,our obligation stops,” Student Body President Thomas Kincaid,who served as a member of the Senate’s Code RevisionCommittee, said. “But the committee changed my mind. SMUstudents should be held to a higher standard on and offcampus.”
While the suggested change received a positive recommendationfrom the Code Revision Committee, many senators feared that thechanges would open up legal activities participated in by privateindividuals to university jurisdiction.
“There is nothing illegal about having strippers come toyour house. If we’re going to include this change, we need tobe very specific on whether this is referring to studentsofficially representing the university,” Schulte said.
The rejection of this proposed change set the tenor for a laterdebate on whether to keep the stipulation in the current code that”students will … respect the rights of others,maintain responsible behavior conducive to the teaching andlearning environment and uphold the integrity of the Universityboth on and off campus.”
The body amended article 2.9 to replace the phrase “offcampus” to “while participating in an off-campusUniversity sponsored event.” The revised article would coverany events sponsored by university-recognized campus organizationssuch as fraternity parties. The revision would not cover theactions of individual students outside of the boundaries ofcampus.
“To me, changing this is changing a real fundamentalfoundation of our student code and what it means to be a student atSMU,” Manthey said.
In addition, the Senate unanimously rejected the proposal of anew addition to the code that would require students to removethemselves from any situation in violation of it. The article wouldalso have held responsible any student with unreported knowledge ofa violation.
“It’s time we stand up and say that [the notion of]passive participation isn’t an appropriate standard,”Kincaid said.
The body also agreed to delete article 2.10 which held”students assuming leadership roles on campus” to”special responsibilities” for enforcing the code basedon the unclear definition of what defined a student leader andquestions surrounding to what extent they should be responsible forenforcement.
While a clear pattern emerged in the body’s decisionmaking, tempers flared as Senators sought to voice their opinions.At one point, Senate Speaker Jeff Pope threatened to expel DedmanII Senator Blake Norvell from the meeting if he continued to ignorethe meeting’s rules of order.
The Senate’s recommended changes to the code will now besubmitted to Dean of Student Life Dee Siscoe, who will makecomments on the changes and resubmit it to the body. The Senatewill then have the opportunity to make changes to itsrecommendation based on those comments before sending anotherversion to Vice President of Student Affairs Jim Caswell and VicePresident of Legal Affairs S. Leon Bennett.
They will return comments and the final recommendations for codechanges will then be submitted to President R. Gerald Turner.Turner is the only one who has the power to reject or accept theSenate’s changes.
The new code of conduct is expected to take effect during the2003-2004 school year.
