University of Virginia Library

Ad Hoc Rights Committee Proposes
Student Conduct Advisory Group

By NEILL ALFORD III

The Ad Hoc Committee on Student
Rights and Responsibilities, in its report
to the University released yesterday,
proposed the creation of a permanent
committee to recommend specific
standards for student conduct.

The new committee, composed half of
students, would advise President Edgar F.
Shannon on proposed University-wide
rules and standards in order to create a
workable definition of student rights and
responsibilities.

Declining to make new proposals for
the enforcement of standards, the Ad
Hoc Committee recommended instead
that a special study group be named to
scrutinize possible ways of reshaping the
present enforcement system.

"The structure which has existed for
many years is probably basically sound,"
the report stated, although it asserted
that the existing system of enforcement
does need revising and simplifying.

The Committee said in its report that
it felt it lacks the broad representation
necessary to draft standards of conduct
itself or to recommend new methods of
enforcement.

In proposing a permanent committee
for student conduct standards, the
Committee stressed that such a group
would serve in only an advisory capacity.

All rules formulated by the committee
would there take the form of
recommendations to President Shannon.

The Ad Hoc Committee also proposed
that the new body make
recommendations for a University-wide
statement of student rights and examine
non-University-wide rules to insure that
the interests of all groups are protected.

Consisting of 15 members, the
proposed group, to be called the
Committee on Student Rights and
Responsibilities, would include eight
students, as well as four other members
appointed by President Shannon, two by
the University Senate, and one member
by and from the Office of Student
Affairs.

Four of the students would be
appointed by the Student Council, and
one each by the First-Year Council, the
Upper-Class Council, the Judiciary
Committee and the Executive Committee
of Counselors.

The proposed committee would,
according to the plan, "obtain suggestions
and viewpoints from all segments of the
University community."

Recognizing the innovation of creating
such a permanent, quasi-legislative
group, the Committee nevertheless
contended that the University has
historically never had detailed standards
of conduct.

Now, however, the single guideline of
"gentlemanly conduct," does not suffice
for student life, the Committee said, and
a more rigorously defined set of standards
must be accompanied by a greater
student involvement in shaping those
standards.

Greater diversity in the student body
has brought forth disagreement between
individuals as to what constitutes
"gentlemanly conduct," the report
declared.

In addition, a denial of student
partnership in making the rules might,
according to the Committee, beget
dissatisfaction with the resulting
standards.

The Committee expressed its belief
that a judicial system for enforcing
student standards must be "simple, fair
and capable of being well-understood by
all students."

But it asserted that the present system
fails to meet these requirements.

"What is now required is a careful,
long-range study with a view toward
reshaping the present machinery," the
Committee declared, saying its own
membership and temporary nature make
it inappropriate to carry out this
responsibility.