University of Virginia Library

The Rules

President Shannon and the Board of Visitors
call them "standards of conduct." The
students refer to them as "rules." By any
name the eleven paragraphs which describe
conduct prohibited by the University and the
seven sanctions which may be imposed upon
those who violate them have been received
with a great amount of skepticism by much of
the student body. We will grant that much of
this skepticism is merely an indication of the
mental health of the current student generation.
But the Judiciary Committee trials
which took place late in the Spring semester in
connection with the first takeover of Maury
Hall, and the gargantuan efforts by members
of the University's legal staff in conjunction
with the Office of Student Affairs to dig up
evidence in regard to the second occupation
of Maury Hall, have led a sizeable portion of
students to believe that these standards of
conduct will be used to stifle essentially
political protest.

The issue is not whether or not to have
rules of conduct in this community; clearly
we should. The old standard of conduct
unbecoming a gentleman was unconstitutionally
vague and there was a real need to protect
the University community by formulating a
more specific code of conduct. But it is one
thing to come up with a set of rules and quite
another to get those who are supposed to
abide by them to accept them. The Board of
Visitors have created a set of regulations for
students without insuring student respect for
these rules. Asking a few students to give their
opinions to a committee is not exactly what
we would call significant student input.

The special committee which formulated
the rules should have had a majority of
students serving on it and they should have
made the rules tentative until the entire
Student Council could meet to alter or add to
them and place the rules on a referendum for
final approval by those who will live under
them: the students.

The standards of conduct which went into
effect earlier this month are not particularly
bad - many colleges and universities have
foisted far more stringent codes upon their
often protesting students. The Student Council
could have come up with an identical set
of rules if allowed to do so, and their
sponsorship of the rules in itself would have
cased the almost automatic distrust students
have for much that is promulgated by the
Board of Visitors. Students returning to the
University this fall, expecting some sort of
reaction by the Board to the events of last
May, have found that the Board wasted very
little time in creating a code of conduct, but
somehow could not get around to indicate
even a shred of concern over the myriad of
students issues which provoked last May's
outburst of activism.

It is exactly this sort of aloofness, we feel,
which justifies much of the mistrust students
have for the Board. We feel the Board is
trying to solve deeper problems at this University
through a set of rules. A demonstration,
or the threat of one, often succeeded in
bringing a response from the administration in
the past. With this device curtailed, many
students see little hope of accomplishing
much this year. The moderate students who
often joined with their more radical peers will
now shy away from a real demonstration.

It was the Board of Visitors who put these
rules into effect. It is the Board to which
students must appeal for change. In arguing
for any substantial changes in these rules
students will be arguing from a position of
weakness.

There is one safety feature to these rules,
however, which students should appreciate.
The Judiciary Committee will determine the
guilt or innocence of students charged with
misconduct and determine the penalty. Tom
Boyd, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee,
has already given assurances that trials will be
held very shortly after a student has been
charged, particularly in the case where a
student has received an interim suspension. It
is no secret that in past years the Judiciary
Committee has been regarded as the least
prestigious of the three branches of student
government. In Judiciary Committee elections
there have never been any real issues up until
now. More students, we feel, will take an
interest in the Judiciary Committee now that
its responsibilities have been expanded.

But there is some danger, we feel, that
because most of the evidence for Judiciary
trials will come from the Office of Student
Affairs, the Judiciary Committee may not be
as independent as they would like to think
they are. Much more important than the
actual rules themselves is the interpretation
and judgment of the Judiciary Committee.
The notion that the University may take over
enforcement of its guidelines should the
Judiciary Committee be too lenient in this
delegated duty should be rejected by Committee
members.

The Honor Committee has, over the years,
functioned so much better than any civil or
administrative tribunal that administrators
know better than to meddle in that Committee's
decision process. With the example of
the Honor Committee so readily available, we
cannot help but wonder why the Board of
Visitors did not entrust students with the
formulation of the rules under which they
will live.

It became evident to all last spring that
whereas the civil authorities could keep order
on the Grounds and punish those who were
considered a threat to that order, anyone
from outside the University community
would find it impossible to dispense justice to
students imbued with Jeffersonian ideals of
fairness. The concept of devising a set of rules
whereby a community can govern itself is not
particularly laudable, it is only natural. To
allow one segment of that community, the
Board of Visitors, to impose their own set of
values upon a much larger and important
segment of the community is only perverse. If
the University now chooses to punish students
through the civil courts, that original
perversity will be compounded.

The essential question, then, about these
rules, is a simple question of democracy.
There are other questions, of course, as to
whether or not interim suspension is constitutional,
or whether some of the rules are too
vague, but our concern is whether or not
students will be allowed to govern themselves.
Except for the Honor Committee, students
have never been allowed any real control over
their non-academic lives while at the University.
The Student Council, after years of
trying to increase their authority and power,
still has only the right to speak for the
students at the University, not to act in their
behalf. We think it is about time for administrators
and the Board to trust students and to
show that trust through action instead of talk.