Binghamton University’s Code of Student Conduct for 2011-12 will include a handful of significant changes that make explicit the disciplinary authority University officials have in several contexts.
According to Milton Chester, director of the Office of Student Conduct and assistant dean of students, these rules were created with the hopes of clarifying what defines a violation and making students more accountable for their actions.
The first change affects section III, rule eight of the code of conduct. The rule states that in general, the University does not reserve jurisdiction over events that happen off campus except for certain circumstances, which include “endangering behavior, sufficient loss of or damage to property, alcoholic beverages [being] sold or made available to underage persons.”
The change added hazing to the list of violations that warrant University involvement in events that occur off campus.
“This addition makes it absolutely clear that hazing is part of the University’s jurisdiction off campus,” Chester said. “We don’t want people to say that there were any surprises.”
The second change affects section II, rules one and two. The new language states, “Student groups and organizations recognized administratively or by student government and/or their officers may also be charged with and held responsible for violations of the Rules of Student Conduct.”
According to Chester, this means that officers of groups can be held personally responsible for violations committed by members of their organization in connection with that organization. This would not include, for instance, violations committed by a member of the group “gone rogue” who acted separately and without the knowledge of the leaders of the group, Chester said.
“Officers of a group that holds an event where alcohol is distributed to minors is an example of when this rule would be enforced,” he said. “They can’t claim that they had no knowledge of the event. The rule gives incentive to groups not to violate the codes of conduct.”
Chester said students were consulted in the process of formulating the new rules. According to Chester, he held several meetings with presidents of various Greek Life groups and the campus communities. The University also ran two open forums earlier this year before modifying the Code of Conduct in April.
“I was surprised that I received the most support for the rule from the meeting with the presidents of the Greek Life community,” Chester said. “They embraced this rule [of holding officers personally responsible].”
Chester said this rule was part of past editions of the Code of Conduct, but was removed sometime in the past few years. He added that Greek Life community support had a large impact on the decision to restore the rule.
“There were originally five or six rules proposed, but only these received the support of the students,” Chester said.
Emily Duffel, a junior majoring in accounting and vice president of membership of Alpha Kappa Psi professional fraternity, called herself a supporter of this rule change.
“I am glad that they made this rule because it supports eliminating the bad aspects of joining a fraternity or sorority,” Duffel said. “It will also make the process less intimidating for freshmen.”
But she expressed doubts about the effect the rule will have.
“I don’t think it will change what happens,” Duffel said. “I think that it will give people more incentive to hide what goes on. This could make certain situations more dangerous.”
Scott Seigal, a senior majoring in psychology and president of Tau Alpha Upsilon, also expressed concerns about the new rules.
Seigal said he is aware of the new rules, but said that “as far as I know, they haven’t told us anything really about what those changes are.”
He also said he disagreed with the rule changes and considered them unfair.
“It’s really a full fraternity … if they’re going to punish anyone, punish the whole fraternity,” Seigal said. “It’s nice to see that the school cares, but I’m not sure the way they’re going about it is the best way to go.”
The last rule change affects section IV of the Code of Conduct. It specifies that retired faculty and staff are now allowed to sit in on student conduct hearings.
“There are many retired faculty and staff that are trained and eligible to sit in on hearings,” Chester said. “We don’t want to lose all of that experience.”
He said the next step in this process is to come up with the way disciplinary action for violations will be handled under the new set of rules.