University of Virginia Library

Council Action Moves For Revisal
Of New Conduct Rules, Sanctions

By Barry Levine and
Bryan DeLaney
Cavalier Daily Staff Writers

Confronting the new standards of
conduct established over the summer by
the Board of Visitors, the Student
Council Tuesday night launched its first
effort toward modifying the provisions.

"I think there's no doubt that these
are politically motivated rules, intended
to still some of the voices in our
community," said Mike Cohen,
representative from the Law School, who
headed the Council committee that drew
up suggestions fro changing the
provisions.

The new regulations were established
as an "amplification and clarification" of
the already existing student code of
conduct which was previously defined as
ungentlemanly conduct.

The Council appeared to be clearly
antagonized by some of the provisions, and
particularly by "interim suspension."

Interim Suspension

"Interim suspension" is one of the sanctions
to discipline a student who is found to be in
violation of the rules of conduct.

It provides for temporary exclusion from
the University of any student who "engages in
disruptive conduct or in any other prohibited
conduct which poses a substantial threat to the
health or safety of other members of the
University or to University property or to the
orderly operation of the University, pending a
hearing on such offense."

No Council Approval

The "interim suspension" clause was in
particular the object of the Council's wrath. "I
think the student body is undoubtedly against
this," said Kevin Mannix, president of the
Council. "We should have no part of it."

No Council member voiced approval of the
measure, but several representatives disagreed as
to how far they should modify the conduct
rules and the suspension clause. "The people in
this state do not like what happened in the May
strike," said one Councilman, "and they want
this interim suspension."

Removal Of Clause

Some said that the Council should ask for
nothing less than the removal of the interim
suspension clause, while others said that, at the
very least, the provision should be modified by
procedural changes providing for an immediate
hearing on the charges and for removal of the
charges from the student's record if they are
determined to be unfounded.

The final motion that was approved by
Council presented their opposition both
"substantively and procedurally," supporting
prompt hearing within 24 hours and no
suspension before the hearing, with references
to the removal of charges from the record in
case of acquittals.

As for the standards of conduct, several
clarifications were proposed for some of the
provisions that the committee said were
"insufficiently precise."

The first rule prohibits the "physical abuse
of any person" on the Grounds, and the
Committee report asked that this term be
replaced by "any assault and/or battery" to
eliminate the "vagueness".

Policy Clarifications

Most of the representatives said that they
felt that rules two through six were merely
clarifications of present University policy,
primarily concerning damage to property, and
unlawful obstruction.

Rule seven, however, came under fire from
several representatives. It prohibits the
"alteration, fabrication or misuse of University
documents, records or identification cards, or
like acts which adversely affect the University's
educational interest," with the objection to the
provision being that a violation of this provision
would be a violation of the Honor System, and
therefore the rule would be superfluous.

Honor Stipulations

The Council recommended some examples
of violations that would not be Honor
Violations be provided, and if none are
forthcoming, the rule be eliminated.

The eighth rule was termed "abominable"
by Mr. Cohen. It prohibits "disorderly conduct
or lewd, indecent, obscene conduct or
expression" at University events or on