Some embarassing corrections today, especially for that Conduct Committee Changes article that I praised to the skies a few days ago. (oops).

Tuesday's article "Student Groups Face Stricter Conduct Code" erroneously stated that the code addresses only individuals, not student groups. The article also falsely implied that the committee charged with revising the code has been finalized.

That looks kinda innocuous! But the entire thrust of the article was that the University would be-- secretly and dangerously-- changing the conduct code to deal with groups, rather then individuals. A 'source' was telling the Daily Cal the specifics of how the University would be changing the code. But a single call to anyone knowledgable with the Conduct Code could've dispelled that.

The university wants to make entire student groups subject to disciplinary action in order to avoid lengthy hearings for individuals, according to a source close to the administration.

The current code addresses only individuals, not groups. Group members could, however, still face charges individually after the expected revisions are made.

In addition, it doesn't look like the University was starting this Committee under cover of night. The conduct code was due to be looked at-- not even necessarily revised!-- and the University Bureaucracy was just now getting around to it. As Mr. Falcone said,

Hey Kevin:

It's not as if they've been doing this in secret. The committee on student affairs has been consulted on talk of changes since last semester, and I've spent a little time trying to look into it over the past week and a half. Typically they revise the code once every couple years.

The likely scenario is that the University is slow and beaurcratic, and very afraid of the press in regards to this issue.

If the issue ends up being interim suspension of student groups, right now the University has the power to temporarily suspend students from activities, for up to five days before a hearing is held. While you could argue that suspending a group seems to penalize students in the group with nothing to do with the matter, the basic idea is that a group that disrupts the University's the ability of students to learn, study, or even take tests should face some kind of restrictions until a hearing on the interim suspension, which would occur after five days. Such a change can be argued, but I don't think it's necessarily bad policy.

Whenever the Daily Cal quotes an unnamed 'source,' it's a 95% certainty there'll be a large correction in the next few days. Bad Kevin for accepting this story wholeheartedly. I should've known better!

Email This Post!