Handbook changes eliminate knowingly present, alter infraction policy
by Darcy McCusker | Llama Ledger Staff
Issue date: 9/5/07 Section: News
Every year, the Student Handbook undergoes some changes. This year, however, the alterations in the handbook have not gone over well with the student body.
Some of the major changes to the handbook include the deletion of the knowingly present policy, a revamping of the substances section, complete with a new categorization system, and an increased role of the associate dean of student affairs in the judicial process.
"I believe the lack of knowingly present is more fair because before you were penalized for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. With the new policy, a student has the opportunity to defend themselves," says junior Vincent Rozalski.
Associate Dean of Student Affairs Bob Graves says the changes newly implemented reflect an emphasis on respect: respect for others, for college property and for the law.
"Bob [Graves] worked long and hard on the handbook," said Student Affairs Assistant Gill Panchy.
Graves says these changes reflect the feedback he got from many sources, including students, residence directors and the Judicial Committee.
Former Residence Director Cornell Woolridge worked along with many students suggesting changes to the handbook last year. However, many of the changes he suggested were nowhere to be seen in the handbook.
The most significant of Woolridge's changes included a mission statement with community expectations so students knew exactly what would be expected of them.
"I took [Woolridge's] ideas and incorporated them into the language," Graves said, but added that there wasn't enough feedback from students to complete a mission statement for this handbook.
In the past, Community Council approved changes and a global email was sent out detailing all the changes. This year, no such email was sent.
"I'm uncomfortable with the fact that Community Council didn't approve these changes," says junior Jacob Meier.
One of the most controversial changes to the handbook rearranges the infraction process. The associate dean reviews the initial report and issues the infraction report to the student.
When a student contests an infraction, instead of directly going to the Judicial Committee or House Council, he or she first must go to Graves, who decides what to do with the infraction. The dean can send the infraction to Judicial Committee or House Council, adjudicate the case himself, or assign the case to another staff member.
"There's a new position in student life that no student seems able to define," said senior Maria Terres. "The judicial process now goes directly through this new position with no checks and balances."
According to Graves, he does not have total power over the judicial process. "I have a boss that I have to answer to," he says. The changes in his powers were a response to the fact that Judicial Committee voiced concerns that there were too many cases where students didn't take responsibility for their actions.
Graves conceded that in any individual case, the disciplinary action taken was still up to his discretion and, "it all matters what the circumstances are."
However, Graves has no role in the decision-making aspect of the appeal process. He does provide testimony and documentation to the Appeal Committee, but has bearing on the decision of the committee.
Graves encourages any and all students who feel wronged by the system to appeal their decision.
Contact the author: dmccusker@llamaledger.com
Some of the major changes to the handbook include the deletion of the knowingly present policy, a revamping of the substances section, complete with a new categorization system, and an increased role of the associate dean of student affairs in the judicial process.
"I believe the lack of knowingly present is more fair because before you were penalized for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. With the new policy, a student has the opportunity to defend themselves," says junior Vincent Rozalski.
Associate Dean of Student Affairs Bob Graves says the changes newly implemented reflect an emphasis on respect: respect for others, for college property and for the law.
"Bob [Graves] worked long and hard on the handbook," said Student Affairs Assistant Gill Panchy.
Graves says these changes reflect the feedback he got from many sources, including students, residence directors and the Judicial Committee.
Former Residence Director Cornell Woolridge worked along with many students suggesting changes to the handbook last year. However, many of the changes he suggested were nowhere to be seen in the handbook.
The most significant of Woolridge's changes included a mission statement with community expectations so students knew exactly what would be expected of them.
"I took [Woolridge's] ideas and incorporated them into the language," Graves said, but added that there wasn't enough feedback from students to complete a mission statement for this handbook.
In the past, Community Council approved changes and a global email was sent out detailing all the changes. This year, no such email was sent.
"I'm uncomfortable with the fact that Community Council didn't approve these changes," says junior Jacob Meier.
One of the most controversial changes to the handbook rearranges the infraction process. The associate dean reviews the initial report and issues the infraction report to the student.
When a student contests an infraction, instead of directly going to the Judicial Committee or House Council, he or she first must go to Graves, who decides what to do with the infraction. The dean can send the infraction to Judicial Committee or House Council, adjudicate the case himself, or assign the case to another staff member.
"There's a new position in student life that no student seems able to define," said senior Maria Terres. "The judicial process now goes directly through this new position with no checks and balances."
According to Graves, he does not have total power over the judicial process. "I have a boss that I have to answer to," he says. The changes in his powers were a response to the fact that Judicial Committee voiced concerns that there were too many cases where students didn't take responsibility for their actions.
Graves conceded that in any individual case, the disciplinary action taken was still up to his discretion and, "it all matters what the circumstances are."
However, Graves has no role in the decision-making aspect of the appeal process. He does provide testimony and documentation to the Appeal Committee, but has bearing on the decision of the committee.
Graves encourages any and all students who feel wronged by the system to appeal their decision.
Contact the author: dmccusker@llamaledger.com
Be the first to comment on this story