Binghamton University’s Code of Student Conduct is in the process of being reworked — two weeks into the fall semester, and arguably not to our benefit. There will be an open forum on the proposed changes at 7 p.m. Thursday in room 124 in the Old University Union.
The initiative came as a result of new federal guidelines on the handling of sexual harassment, sexual violence and sexual discrimination that were published in April by the United States Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights. (See Page 1.)
Many of the proposed amendments are low-impact, but one change in particular strikes us — and will no doubt strike many — as problematic.
The Office of Student Conduct, which crafted the recommendations, declared that “preponderance,” meaning a simple majority of evidence, would be the standard in deciding all cases of student conduct, not “clear and convincing evidence,” a stricter burden of proof, which Binghamton has used in each of the past two years, after a year-long overhaul of the Code of Student Conduct in the 2008-09 academic year.
The federal guidelines mandate that BU use preponderance in sexual cases — and there isn’t an option there, the guidelines are Title IX-based, meaning any school or institution that receives federal funding must be in compliance— but the Office of Student Conduct chose to apply the less strict burden of proof to all disciplinary cases by choice.
Milton Chester, the director of the Office of Student Conduct, determined that it would be too confusing to judge certain cases on the basis of preponderance and others on the basis of clear and convincing evidence. We’re not convinced.
Neither is Kate Flatley, Student Association vice president for academic affairs, who found out about the proposed changes only a day before we did.
She was insulted by the lack of student involvement in the amendment process, its rushed nature and the blanketed change in the Code’s burden of proof.
Meanwhile, the BU Council — a normatively 10-member body in charge of the presidential search process and the BU Foundation, among other things — will vote on the measures on Friday morning. If approved, they will take effect immediately.
This was a movement that was birthed months ago, found the desk of the students’ representatives two days ago and is scheduled to be voted on only three days from now. The long lag period between inception and student discovery, followed by a rushed period between student discovery and voting on its passage, is sketchy at best.
Moreover, the BU Council does not yet have its elected student representative, further stifling the voice of the student body in the matter.
For an issue that directly impacts the lives of students, it seems our say in the matter has been inappropriately (though not unpredictably) minimal. The staggered pace of the initiative’s movement, the absence of a student voice on the BU council, the sudden undoing of a previous committee’s work — it all looks very mischievous.
The voice of the students should have had a more active role throughout this process, and the SA, as well as the entire student body, should enjoy a much higher level of transparency throughout such initiatives.