University of Virginia Library

Council Clarifies
Conduct Objections

By Fred Heblich
Cavalier Daily Staff Writer

In a special meeting yesterday Student
Council; clarified their objection to the
eleven rules of conduct and discussed
plans for sending a letter to every student
explaining the students rights and responsibilities
concerning the regulations.

As a result of a meeting Friday with
the Vice-President for Student Affairs, D.
Alan Williams, council decided that many
objections they had formerly raised were
invalid, or in some cases more restrictive
to student rights than the rules as worded
by the administration. Concerning rule
one, in their letter to Mr. Williams council
has objected that the term "physical
abuse" was too vague. At yesterday's
meeting Charles Majors, assistant to the
dean of admissions in the law school,
explained that since Virginia law has
never defined "battery" that council's
suggestion to replace "physical abuse" with
"assault and/battery" was more vague, Council
decided to drop the objection.

Fake Documents

Council also decided to drop its objection to
rule seven, which deals with fabrication or
alteration of University documents and conduct
affecting the University's "education interest."
The understanding reached is that the Honor
Committee will decide when they have jurisdiction
in a case to eliminate any overlapping
that may occur between them and the Judiciary
Committee. It was also understood that the
Judiciary Committee will interpret the University's
"education interest" in each case.

Regarding rule eight, council reworded their
former objection which suggested that the term
"disorderly conduct" be deleted. Mr Major
explained that most courts of law defined
disorderly conduct to mean conduct which
breaches the peace or damages the rights of
others. Council decided that rule eight include a
passage saying that disorderly conduct be determined
by a student's peers within the framework
of the Judiciary Committee.

Discussion over the second part of rule eight
concerning "lewd, indecent, or obscene conduct"
centered around the question of freedom
of expression. Council agreed to add to the rule
an explanation stating that in some circumstances
a student's expressions may be subject
to sanction.

Council did not change its original objection
to rule ten, which deals with failure to comply
with the directions of a University official.

Council changed its original objection to the
vagueness of phrase "University's pursuit of its
proper educational purpose" found in rule
eleven. They added the qualifying statement
that. "any violation of federal, state, or local
law which directly effects the University's
pursuit of its proper educational purpose" to
their objection.

Double Jeopardy

This change, council feels, might increase
the legal jurisdiction of the University with
regards to local law enforcement officials, and
avoid the possibility of a student being tried
more than once by different agencies for the
same offence.

Council member Judy Wellman suggested
that in the letters to be sent the student body
that council make it clear that the "Administration
has reacted to last May." She added that
the administration should look at the causes of
last May's disorders, and not just make more
laws.

Miss Wellman also proposed that the letter
should emphasize that the rules will be
interpreted by the Judiciary Committee, and
that constitutional rights of students are
guaranteed.

Regarding the interim suspension sanction in
the code of conduct, council decided to oppose
it on substantive grounds, and to request that
procedural changes be made. The proposed
changes will be drafted and presented to the
Board of Visitors when it meets this week.

Student Body President Kevin Mannix
stated "I am fully against interim suspension. I
have yet to be shown an example where other
legal means couldn't solve the problem. I do
not mean to say that I don't have faith in Mr.
Williams' intentions but I have no idea who his
successor will be and how his successor may
interpret and use it."