ABSTRACT
A SURVEY AND EVALUATION OF EXISTING
STUDENT CONDUCT CODES AND REGULATIONS
IN SELECTED FOUR-YEAR INSTITUTIONS
OF HIGHER LEARNING
By

Val Rigby Christensen

Problem

The purpose of the study was to survey existing
student codes of conduct as contained in university student
handbooks for answers to these questions: (1) What are
the stated values and purposes of student codes of conduct?
(2) What rationale do universities use to Justify their
policies regarding student non-academic life? (3) How
are the codes developed and revised? (A) What are the
apparent trends in student code development? (5) What
per cent of the institutions reviewed for this study
communicate in their student handbooks policies for the
nineteen items listed below? (6) What percentage diff-
erences exist among varying university sizes and types in
communicating policies in the handbooks for the nineteen
variables? (7) What is the content or substantive ele-

ments of the nineteen areas of concern?

Val Rigby Christensen

These are the nineteen variables that were given
careful scrutiny: (1) Academic Irregularity (2) Use
and Possession of Alcoholic Beverages (3) Drugs (A)
Hazing (5) Women's Dormitory Hours (6) Dormitory Room
Entrance and Inspection (7) Entertainment of Members of
the Opposite Sex in Residence Hall Living Quarters (8)
Theft (9) Confidentiality of Student Records (10) Com-
pulsory Class Attendance (11) Student Demonstrations
(12) Disruptive Activities (13) Invitation of Contro-
versial Speakers to Campus (14) Unacceptable Off-Campus
Behavior (15) "Student Rights" in Procedural Due Pro-
cess (l6) Procedural Due Process (17) Deviant Sexual
Behavior (18) Dress and Appearance (l9) Recognition

of Student Organizations.

Methods and Procedures

University student handbooks containing rules and
regulations governing student life were received from 100
colleges and universities chosen at random from an educa-
tion directory. Twenty schools each were chosen from the
following five categories: large and small state institu-
tions, large and small private schools, and religious
universities.

Using a checklist on which the nineteen variables
were outlined, each code was read in an attempt to iden-
tify explicit policies in each of the nineteen areas of

concern. The per cent of institutions outlining policies

Val Rigby Christensen

in each area was summarized, and detailed examples of

each rule were listed. An effort was made also to outline
the philosophical rationale used to Justify student codes
of conduct, to determine the methods used to establish and
revise the codes, to state the values and purposes of
codes, and to list any apparent trends. Comparisons were
made between the various sizes and types of institutions

identified for this study.

Conclusions

 

On the basis of the findings of this study, the
following conclusions are drawn: (1) Most student codes
Justify their existence by setting forth a need to create
and maintain a living, social and campus environment
which allows the greatest freedom to learn. (2) Despite
the stated attempt by students and administrators to elim-
inate in loco parentis, especially on the part of larger
institutions, there is still considerable control over
the student's non-academic life. Colleges and universi-
ties are relaxing controls in such areas as women's hours,
alcohol, room visitation, class attendance, and required
dress standards; but the move to eliminate complete con-
trol of these traditional pariental regulations is far.
from complete, especially in religious and small private
and state institutions. (3) Student handbooks generally
do not contain specific procedures used to revise and

develop student codes. The handbooks that do describe

Val Rigby Christensen

the process involve students, faculty, and administration
in the majority of institutions. (A) Student handbooks
will be more likely to contain regulations governing these
behaviors: (a) Use and Possession of Alcoholic Beverages
(b) Drugs (c) Procedural Due Process (d) Academic
Irregularity (e) Disruptive Activities (f) Recogni-
tion of Student Organizations (g) Student "Rights" in ‘
Procedural Due Process (h) Women's Hours (5) Student
handbooks will be least likely to contain regulations
governing these behaviors: (a) Deviant Sexual Behavior
(b) Hazing (0) Confidentiality of Student Records

(d) Room Entrance and Inspection (e) Off-Campus
Speakers (f) Dress Standards (g) Student Demonstra—
tions (6) Religious institutions, schools with less than
10,000 students, and small private colleges will enforce
stricter regulations concerning alcohol, women's hours,
room visitation, class attendance, and dress standards.
(7) Large universities of all types with more than

10,000 students provide students with a more detailed and
liberal code of conduct in their handbooks. (8) State
institutions with more than 10,000 students and private
schools with more than 5,000 students have more detailed
codes for the majority of the variables listed for this
study. (10) There are at least five trends in the devel-

opment of student codes of conduct: (a) Student "rights"

as well as responsibilities are more clearly identified

 

Val Rigby Christensen

by code developers. (b) There is a concerted effort to
move away from pariental rules. (0) Institutions are
defining and writing rules more clearly and completely.
(d) Better processes are being developed to deal with
rule violators and to guarantee fairness. (e) Students
are more often invited to participate in the code formu—
lation as members of student, faculty, and administrative
committees on student life.

Analyses of the nineteen variables are included

in the study as well as written examples of each rule

and regulation.

 

A SURVEY AND EVALUATION OF EXISTING STUDENT
CONDUCT CODES AND REGULATIONS IN
SELECTED FOUR-YEAR INSTITUTIONS

OF HIGHER LEARNING
By

Val Rigby Christensen

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Administration
and Higher Education

1970

/ ,. I
.’ l ‘4 a ‘
\r v '4
I
, r '3 ”

.....AI""" O
u n -
“~d-1n.¢~ .
I O

. .. I.

b,.- u: ‘3, 5’.

'll'v‘. i‘.".
v

.. .. .-
,,.. P: 3‘.
4.....u un- -‘

 

DEDICATED to my mother
who through the years provided the guidance,
encouragement, inspiration and example that helped to

make the achievement of this goal a reality.

11

.u-

u .
V.

In!

--y.

uy-o-r

‘

II)

--A

{7"
I"

’l;

.‘

a.

4
‘0-

‘PFAH

5".

‘ I

“-v‘.

 

o
Iirfi

°"'hcv

 

Vv

 

H‘

(I-

 

 

 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The writer expresses his sincere appreciation to
the members of his Guidance Committee, Dr. Van C. Johnson,
Dr. Walter F. Johnson, and Dr. James B. McKee for their
constructive suggestions. A special note of gratitude
is extended to Dr. Eldon R. Nonnamaker, Chairman of the
Guidance Committee, who continuously extended his interest
and support and offered many valuable criticisms and
suggestions.

Grateful acknowledgment is extended to my chil-
dren (Kent, Bruce, Valerie, and Koralie), and especially
to my wife, Ruth Ann, who endured the confining comforts
of Spartan Village and provided encouraging words that

proved valuable in the completion of this work.

iii

 

'..pban

vunb 1v-
0

s“.

h.

0"

—-
A..u

C

D

’Y!

N"

9

“0“...

I1- _
I—hl --
..
v
o
..
FE
-
-
N,
.l
,
.
"I
.
.
.
‘
“a-
-
u
uy‘
v
I‘..‘
A
‘uir‘

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter
I. THE PROBLEM . . .

Introduction .

Purpose of the Study .
Statement of the Problem
Definition of Terms .
Procedure of the Study
Limitations of the Study
Organization of the Study

II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Introduction . .

Historical Development of Student Codes
of Conduct . . .
Current Concepts in Student Code
Development and Discipline

Legal Authority for Code Development
The Role of the Disciplinary
Administrator . .

The Student's Role in Development of
Policies and Codes of Conduct .
Communication of Conduct Policies and
Rules . . .

Summary . . . . .

III. DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

Introduction .
Population and Selection of the Sample
Analyzing the Data .

IV. ANALYSIS OF THE DATA . . . . .

Introduction .

Value and Purpose of Student Codes of
Conduct . . . . .
Rationale

iv

 

Page

|-‘

”If np‘ ”
“-5? ' ‘

’H

t?

V ' l
n f: I! I'!

I. U..n.a~.>

I-UNQ--- h-—
. . . u - -.

~-.~-o—d Q.--

 

Chapter Page
Code Development and Revision . . . . 91
Trends in Student Code Development . . 95

Per Cent Stating Policies and Substan-
tive Elements . . . . . . . . 103
V. SUMMARY, FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . 250
The Problem . . . . . . . . . 250
Design of the Study . . . . . . . 252
Major Findings . . . . . . . . . 255
Conclusions . . . . . 279
Implications for Further Study . . . 288
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . 290

 

l\.

’l

(1‘

‘l

Iv
O

5

'A—

v.
V
a

In.
a

-‘3

u-‘

‘
v“

a’:

V§‘

F‘

fin.l'.

'II (I) 'U

{/1

‘I

p

v

v

V.

to

‘

'-

 

x

 

Table

10.

ll.

12.

LIST OF TABLES

Response to the Request for Student
Handbooks . . . . . . .

Policies Regarding Academic Irregularity as
Stated in Student Handbooks . . .

Policies Regarding the Use and Possession of
Alcoholic Beverages, Including Beer and
Wine, as Stated in Student Handbooks

Policies Regarding Drugs as Stated in
Student Handbooks . . . . . .

Policies Regarding Hazing as Stated in
Student Handbooks . . .

Policies Regarding Women's Hours as Stated
in Student Handbooks

Policies Regarding Room Inspection or
Entrance as Stated in Student Handbooks

Policies Regarding the Entertainment of
Members of the Opposite Sex in Residence
Hall Living Quarters as Stated in Student
Handbooks . . . . . . .

Policies Regarding Theft as Stated in
Student Handbooks . . .

Policies Regarding the Confidentiality of
Student Records as Stated in Student
Handbooks . . . . .

Policies Regarding Compulsory Class
Attendance as Stated in Student Handbooks

Policies Regarding Student Demonstrations
as Stated in Student Handbooks . .

vi

 

Page

74

10“

112

119

127

132

139

1&6

153

158

166

175

 

‘1)

(I)

.A-
i
(I)

3
b.
J

'v!

H
(I)
:1
u:

'1!

'I!
O
r:) 3 ‘-

[n
u)

'U!
D
I
l-

m
(n
f . )

'

ID

I"

 

 

 

Table Page

13. Policies Regarding Disruptive Activities
as Stated in Student Handbooks . . . . . 183

14. Policies Regarding the Invitation of Con-
troversial Speakers to Campus as Stated
in Student Handbooks . . . . . . . . 193

15. Policies Regarding Unacceptable Off-Campus
Behavior as Stated in Student Handbooks . . 202

16. Policies Regarding "Student Rights" in
Procedural Due Process as Stated in Student
Handbooks . . . . . . . . . . . . 210

17. Policies Regarding Procedural Due Process
as Stated in Student Handbooks . . . . . 217

18. Policies Regarding Deviant Sexual Behavior
as Stated in Student Handbooks . . . . . 228

19. Policies Regarding Dress and Appearance as
Stated in Student Handbooks . . . . . . 23A

20. Policies Regarding Recognition of Student
Organizations as Stated in Student Handbooks 2A2

vii

 

,. , 4"“ ,
. . a

.. ."“\ U

“‘-‘V. v- .1.

 

3-;ro-
"""“"u4

V‘

,'

‘l
I.)
'1
L)
D"
:‘
(Fa
(?

_——-_— —
—

 

‘F5. ’7‘
tuni::‘ (,5 :-
"' v
.:u.. Q “ I
1“: A. 'J I

-a A“.‘\

w. J..-‘\:__'
v-.">

‘;“‘I‘ ”Q

.... 1" . ~.,

g

,u. ‘

TEE-fl“ ‘.'.‘.’.

‘ v

1‘. A‘ \
M; ‘LQC
v
“~.~ '
I
h '-
‘-. D‘
~_. .F
‘.. ,
42--
~ ~“ I
.-_.. P.
“.
W
p
{.4
u,‘.
--"‘.~
‘
‘v‘.: ’ ‘

CHAPTER I

THE PROBLEM

Introduction

 

In September of 196“, the administration of the
University of California at Berkeley issued a series of
directives which set in motion a chain of events that
eventually led to a mass student protest in December of
the same year. The sit-in was in protest over the
University's refusal to allow student use of a small square
of cement near Sather Gate, the main entrance to the campus.
According to the University directive, students would no
longer be allowed to use the sidewalk in front of the
campus to distribute pamphlets, give speeches in support
of off—campus political and social action, raise funds, and
recruit members. Before the protest was over, the Free
Speech Movement turned the attention of all California to
its oldest and largest state university. But, perhaps more
important, the protest probably was the first significant
event in the present world-wide student unrest.

Colleges and universities had asserted for many

years that they could not sanction certain student conduct.

 

 

(I)
(I)

.. .r w-
.\ 4‘ .

..-~ "

. Q
’“.3' av “a..-
.,,.--v

p -\
L---‘: F a

....s. v V.

q
l ."‘D 4;.an
.: a... ‘Voo-h
a

. . R
u-‘u ,. -
no- “A,

.~_-.-v‘tb a,

:Iab:.,‘.: Av

-”“-l""dc

.E‘Hn‘c" A,
'U.““'“ 8-.

‘I.

-u‘

 

 

Most of these rules found their way into a regulation
booklet which covered everything from drug abuse to the
hours of a day that a clothes dryer could be turned on

in the dorm. These rules were adequate enough to regu-
late student behavior in the calm atmosphere of the past;
but since "Berkeley," most universities have been advised
to review very carefully their regulations, especially in
areas that are currently termed "political" in nature.

In a recent national survey conducted by the
American Council on Education,1 it was reported that major
institutional changes resulting from protest movements
occurred on 75 per cent of the campuses experiencing
violent protests, and on 59 per cent of the campuses
that underwent disruptive protests. Sixty-two per cent
of the campuses that experienced no major incidents during
the year initiated major changes in campus regulations.

Generally regulations pertaining to student
behavior are assembled into a comprehensive document known
as a student code. Students are introduced to this docu-
ment when they are freshmen and are expected to abide by
the regulations laid out in it. The most common agency
for reappraising or developing a code is a joint committee
of faculty, students, and administrators. Examples of

this pattern of response are readily available.

 

lThe Chronicle of Higher Education, Vol. III,
No. 22, September 15, 1969.

 

 

 

“
‘

--"C "F-":.-

...-u I:- ‘¢--

n5.-- + “A

\ 3' '1

uv‘dvaab fivb-

I A
P‘P"‘= our"
bov'-fi-vooh¢
O

a e
o a
4 \2 an.-
un ~v-.v. '\
‘.
": 5"”:5
tAo.~ u.._.,-
.-
"."‘OR 3‘
"wun
v , .
‘ ~5..‘
1 2 5£r* L

‘4.
h
..."‘o: 6.},
“'\— v. _
‘-
‘.
r ‘
"' "09 I““»
u‘v

 

 

A
/
\‘
~
v
-,:v-.,.,
a ‘t"""—
‘.. 5.
~“ v
. ‘A v
b.5‘3v-fl
.
¢ ,. A
‘ O
.,. .‘...c-
C‘. v-
\
4-
U

 

After more than two years of comprehensive work by
the Student Affairs Committee and other groups, Arizona
State University1 has brought together for the first time
materials usually found in a number of other sources.

This up-dated student code is designed to regulate all
student activities on campus; it went into effect on a
provisional basis this last summer. This procedure for

code development was used effectively at Berkeley follow—
ing the protests in 1964. The Academic Senate appointed

a Select Committee to study education at Berkeley. Although
this committee focused its attention on curricular short-
comings, it did not investigate disciplinary matters. After
a student strike in December, 1966, another student-faculty
committee2 was established to outline disciplinary pro—
cedures that would be both clear and fair. This document

on the culture of the university served as a basis for a
revision of a student code that is now implemented on all

nine campuses of the University of California.3 The code

 

1Office of Institutional Research, National
Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges,
Constructive Changes to Ease Campus Tensions, (January,

1970), p. 44.

2Report of the Study Commission on University
Governance, Berkeley, "The Culture of the University:
Governance and Education," The Dailngalifornia, January 15,
1968 0

3University of California Policies Relating to
Students and Student Organizations, Use of University
Facilities, and Nondiscrimination, (March 17, 1969).

 

 

‘AV‘
‘.'.o~ ' p -
\ \ ‘..‘~.o~
-..1u
- 2
A
'1‘1;"'“‘:D
. -v ‘V
an
' A
r”
-guhv
..4 '- :n’r°
\l‘ A _
fluid a ”Jo-t
- Q
~;"; ‘V‘ 2 I.
‘ -

:,.,::y:‘ 1&—

~u¢un~o~cs$g v —
.

‘ 5' 'I'" :v.
.u U-L... ‘-
U

 

.
A b
no“

d‘y.. ..

., P
b F.
d. Ah‘. 1".
i.‘-‘--V.
‘.
a.
C ~"“ o
““ocu:
'v
W. .
h." ‘ona
v” "‘V:»
.
.. r-.-
. ~
A
4“,.-drlr

." 2
.‘ V‘ 5
‘1‘

‘.A-_ q

I‘-
“r.-,e

 

 

.
'-
‘c
Ia
l."’ N
‘v._‘ C"‘
.-
“‘9‘?
g
n- V
L“ lg;
“. 5
‘.‘=.‘ f
v .
v1_
.. 'c-h ’
‘ I;
"»‘\ s...
H‘ d ’
s
u

 

lists extensive rights and obligations of students and the
procedures involved in disciplinary action.

The University of New Hampshire Senate1

recently
used a joint student-faculty—administration committee to
develop a lengthy "Declaration of Student Rights and Re—
sponsibilities," which outlines the University's policies
in eight areas: (1) student conduct on and off the .
campus, (2) freedom to learn, (3) procedural standards
for student discipline, (A) freedom of access to higher
education, (5) faculty—student relations, (6) student
records, (7) student affairs, (8) enforcement of the'
Declaration's provisions. Freedom is provided the
students to learn and support causes by orderly means
when these protests do not interfere with the orderly
functioning of the university. This new Declaration is
now included with other university rules to present a
complete picture of campus regulations.

In compliance with a new requirement of the New
York State Education Law, revised student conduct codes

are being developed presently on campuses of the State

University of New York.2 The law requires that all

 

1Office of Institutional Research, National
Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges,
Constructive Changes to Ease Campus Tensions, (January,

1970), p. 4“-

2Office of Institutional Research, National Asso-
ciation of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges, Con-
structive Changes to Ease Campus Tensions, (January, 1970),
p.AE.

 

 

 

_ II
.4 .. r“ r“ r. .. L. f .. . .,.q
3 no. a a a. .2 a. a .. a. . . .
AG " I: _ c v, . 4‘ fl v ‘ . J
.2 5 S . p: a .. a. .1 v .. 2. .. a .
.. . ru .3 e a . s a a. u c. c. 2. 4 a
59 To C. 2. p v r” .3 .. a: 4‘ v” n
:. 1. “a A u a. a. G. ”a .3 .2 a4 2
«a a; F». «a. H. ‘-u .1 3» a. «a ~
5. 2; ~ . n . 5. . . 2. .3 .3 . . n . .2 .. 4
I v. . o ’4; .‘ Pu . u “A 1‘ 2. ”a . I. n. . n .
:- “n a. u~. o. :- u. .-u ..u l. v». s. n. .

 

colleges "chartered by the regents or incorporated by
special act of the legislature shall adopt rules and reg-
ulations for the maintenance of public order on college
campuses and other college property used for educational
purposes and provide and program for the enforcement
thereof." In addition to providing for the control of
students, faculty, and other staff and visitors, the code
must set forth clear penalties for violation of the rules.
The University of Wisconsin,l’ 2: 3’ A, 5 which
has experienced more than its share of campus disruption,
has used a variety of committees to set forth revised
rules and regulations. One of its first committees re-
ported a two-year study in 1965 on the problem of student

misconduct at Wisconsin. Another committee (Crow

 

1University of Wisconsin, Report of the Non Curr-
icular Life of Students Committee, (August 12, 1965).

 

2Wisconsin Student Association, Recommendations to
the Faculty, Student Power Report, (Madison, Wisconsin,
October 12, 1967).

3University of Wisconsin, Report of the Ad Hoc
Committee on the Role of Students in the Government of the
University, (February 6, 1968).

 

”University of Wisconsin, Report of the Ad Hoc
Committee on Mode of Response to Obstruction, Interview
Policy, and Related Matters, Part 0ne:~ Placement Inter—
view Policy, (March 13, 1968), Part Two: Universigy
Discipline as a Mode of Response to Obstruction, (April 25,

1968).

 

 

5University of Wisconsin, Rule Book, (Madison,
Wisconsin, 1969-70).

 

 

 

' 1
‘p- #c-q
.Iulgvv‘ OI
' I
1-‘5: :r h--
vvd-U 5“ nu.»

 

a““'
b-..
' I U
n. F6
2"" ‘ “.-
ohscco-»d-‘_
‘ ‘ ‘
‘i" 1r-ug 1..
Ova-d “VJ- -
- fl
9; 'a-- '\r‘ ‘
"'~ no» "#4
‘ an H
“H an ..
Vsoc““ ‘.
.1
0 ' . -
c M» .:
.. G
“‘v-‘
‘\
fl. ’“lr
U. L.‘.
o
‘
‘;‘.. 5“
'-l\ A
~“~A.

 

 

Committee) investigated this same concern in 1967 but did
not finish its work before a Dow Chemical Company demon-
stration precipitated a third committee, "On the Mode

of Response to Obstruction, Interview Policy, and Re-
lated Matters," (Mermin Committee). All of this work
resulted in one of the most comprehensive student conduct
codes in American higher education.

Cornell University1 has used a student-faculty-
administration committee to review and establish a stu-
dent code of conduct that went into effect last fall.

The new code answers the concern expressed by Cornell's
Sindler Commission:
. . . like most universities, Cornell has not op-
erated by a deliberate, internally consistent set
of principles and policies designed to guide its
regulation of student conduct. . . . Hence,
. . . Cornell was not well prepared this past aca-

demic year to respond to the multiple conflicts
that emerged.

Two major efforts at code revision were undertaken
in the past months by Oregon State University and the
University of Washington.2 At Oregon the student and

faculty governing bodies prepared a document outlining

 

1Report of the University Commission on the
Independence of University Regulations and Local, State
and Federal Law," The Cornell Daily Sun, October A, 1967;
Cornell University, Policy Notebook for Students, (August,

1969)-

2Office of Institutional Research, National
Association of State Universities and Land—Grant Colleges,
Constructive Changes to Ease Campus Tensions, (January,

1970), p. AA.

 

.

5""
~*
.

‘
4":
a “-UV-

q

9"
I
o"

A.-
..

.
...~n-.:r"
'v.‘,.vao‘h‘ "

2‘:

"i
Ar
EV.

‘g..‘:r‘
5.1“... u'

s .
p4.
v».

policies particularly pertaining to freedom of association
and freedom of inquiry and expression, off—campus freedom,
and disciplinary measures. The Regents at Washington on
recommendation of the University Senate approved a new
code--the first revision since 1959. An important feature
of the new code is the creation of a Joint Council on
Student Conduct and Activities, composed of students and
faculty. This committee will oversee student life on
campus and review on a regular basis regulations that
govern student activities and discipline. The revised
code is particularly noted for its clarity and economy

of exposition and for its procedural guarantees.

One of the most comprehensive and clearly written
codes was recently distributed by Ohio University.1 The
set of regulations was written in response to a state
legislative mandate to the faculty, students and adminis-

tration. Other comparable reports include The Student

 

Code at Utah State University,2 which is a collection of
revised university policies involving the student commun-

ity collected into a single document, the Code of Student

 

Life, published by the University of Iowa3 after a year-long

 

1Ohio University, Student Handbook, (1969-70).

 

2Utah State University, The Student Code, (1969-70).

3University of Iowa, Code of Student Life,
(1969-70) .

 

 

 

 

 

~J--v-
0-1-.”
h-..“

L

-r~

V

 

toda-

opp‘ pnfiznl’
‘

consul

 

«C :— . u .
. ‘ . A v
a. a: n. r. . r. . . . .
n. a. 2. ... Z s .. :. .... a. i S
I. a. .1 .. a. C .. t. n
a. 7. :. .5. o. . . E .1 n. s
n. .e S .. a. .a r. a. S : c. .2.
N v in Q m P.- §<Q 5 o a“. 1‘ so . I
:- n v “a c. .1 . M... ’1. . .. a. s . ..‘
. . a: a. a. 93 i. s . . . . .
2. :. .3 2. .. ._. .__. a. ... .:. .3.
c EA. no a H. pa. n v s ‘ ~. 5 o .q . s .

 

effort to establish rules and regulations governing

standards of conduct at the University, and The Rights

 

and Responsibilities of Students and Student Groups at
l

 

Colorado State University, a handbook containing impor-

 

tant policies affecting students and their organizations

along with pertinent city and state regulations.

Purpose of the Study

 

Out of the many hours of deliberation and confer-
ence represented in the various commissions and committees
has come a variety of rules. These regulations represent
a considerable effort on the part of numerous students,
faculty and administrators. A preliminary review of the
recent literature reveals little relevant research in the
area of code revision and development. As will be pointed
out in Chapter II, there has been little effort to sys-
tematically describe the similarities, differences, trends,
means of development, means of enforcement, and substan-
tive elements of these revised student codes. It is
anticipated that this dissertation will contribute to a
better understanding of the scope, value, and purposes of

university student codes of conduct.

 

lColoradoState.University, The Rights and Respon-

 

sibilities of Students and Student Groups at Colorado
State University, (1969-70).

 

-I‘
s . ,;

’pq‘G‘V A
a A“ ‘
gu'v‘V‘ "
o

W
Lu- :: A‘59Y
;.: -v y'-v‘~a-

* V.‘ a r- a»

l- .a

“Q-AOL .. v...
v

‘ I
A a
H :1” r
V ‘4...-..

,s l
a .
6“
G

e
‘l
"U" “*6 u
—“\ A N
""‘"~-I‘ao-A-
“ I
O I
I . :“‘--s
" -nag4-6‘_
C
..
~'\
..~
u
."‘n Q
\ t“-fi-.
-..-~ “a

f\)

(4'

 

Statement of the Problem

 

In today's university, the administrator is ex-
pected to deal with an ever-increasing number of crises;
he is often unable to benefit from the experience of other
institutions. He lacks the knowledge of the practices
and policies of other schools, which could likely aid him
during a campus crisis. This leads to unwise and inade-
quate administrative responses, which contribute to mis-
understanding and loss of credibility and effectiveness
of institutional officials.

As an aid to solving this problem, the intent of
this study was to research the following questions:

1. What are the stated values or purposes of

student codes of conduct?

2. What rationale do universities use to justify
their policies regarding student non—academic
life?

3. How are the codes developed and revised?

4. What are the apparent trends in student code
development?

5. What per cent of the institutions reviewed for
this study communicate in their student hand—
books policies for the nineteen variables
identified below?

6. What percentage differences exist among varying

university sizes and types in communicating

policies in the handbooks?

 

 

‘ I
‘ 1

 

 

".:co-_A“I'
.o-u «J. A-V
11%;?“ P “
rd--

1“. voov

 

. . . s .. .
rs .. . .. a. c 2. w.
A. n. 1. 3 . a. L.
3 5 . . a. a . . a s 3 3. . c v
o; a. .1 2. 2. a. .2 a 1 2.. . . n. . . a. . a L.
3: ”R n . 4.. .1 c.. o . a . e . .. 4 .3 r . w
r“ .. r” .1 L. . I: a. . l .2 .3. c. a. It
.2 I. .: ... ... r” .. S :1 s . : a c 3 4. .f.
H. H. J. . a 3. a: .. . y u 3‘ n h .14 C. rm L.
a. r” .3 n. 2. . . 2. 2.. . . a s. a.
L. . . :. z. . u. 3: w. t. c. 1. ~. u». .. . z.
.«c p“ __ ._ us. .p. ... h. .o ‘ u». an .
J. .1. J“ I. .u n. .s. v“. .. l. p. .. m: p. s.
I. . . C. o . s . . . .1 1. -. . \‘ 3 . s . .n. v. I a s. .

 

10

7. What is the content or substantive elements

of these policies?

A main objective of the study, in addition to
its historical importance, was to present data that could
serve as a background to update and recommend changes to
current policies in the identified areas. The study was
designed to gather a variety of descriptive data on a
wide range of issues as quickly as possible. A primary
concern was to produce data that would be useful to school
administrators in adjusting to the critical issues of the
times in a wise manner. The intent of the study was not
to provide comprehensive and normative data but rather
to gain a degree of understanding of institutional
approaches to the issues in sufficient depth to form
a basis for wise action. It was hoped also that the
investigation might reveal aspects of the issues on which
more intensive research might be conducted.

It was not an objective of the study to provide
complete data on all areas of student code development
from all institutions. Instead, the study was designed
to produce enough information so that school administrators
would have some knowledge on a wide range of issues as
represented in a substantial number of codes. It was not
intended that a "perfect" code would be recommended at
the expense of the diversity which has been valued in
American colleges and universities. Instead, it was hoped

that the data could be used to improve regulations at the

 

 

. . I! .l l.[ I I .. L.
. . . A a
3. my .r“ I, . . '1. z. .. .. . .l
p. e s. a. 2. v a L . a ._ w. .
.u u. a. T. .. 9 t 3 L. S
e 3 R w” .4 S C n. :. ...
to .ra. .e :. T: 5 a a. .v a. h.
a. v” .«a :. c . 2.
1;. sub fin by W. a. .i no is
S. s 4 :— .3 4. s . 1. .-u :2
x u. ..... .._ .... .. a
. . vi. _ a. 3.. w; st“ 2. ”u“ .m‘. w H.

\‘_

F...
u..

3:

11

local setting. It was a further desire that the research
would have historical significance by bringing together
under one cover a description of codes of conduct as they

exist in the American college today.

Definition of Terms

 

Student Code of Conduct.--A set of university rules

 

and regulations usually adopted in cooperation with faculty,
students, and administrators. These rules generally cover
a student's non-academic life but can also regulate such
behavior as cheating in the classroom and relationships

with teacher and student within the classroom.

Academic Irregularity.--Academic cheating or

plagiarism.

Use and Possession of Alcoholic Beverages.--The
consumption, sale, manufacture, or furnishing of alcoholic
beverages, including beer and wine, on university property,
or in university housing at any activity sponsored by or
for any university related organization whether conducted

on or off campus.

Drugs.--The possession, manufacture, or selling

of illegal hallucinogens or other drugs.

Hazing.--Activities that tend to injure, frighten,

degrade, or which endanger the life or health of another

individual.

 

 

I fl...
. ‘V
o'- D"
t
“T ...e o.
'c
TKAM'

opf ORV

‘4‘. -0-

‘ J U.
": opnto

.-I...vy “I
n

u
-.
pv-:.;a “
'vav-vv ~_
0.
“fl
rh—
...
—‘
vnq-:“‘.
."'"c .‘o .
. - 5
4‘
-u
"o.
K.
“1.., . q
n —“" r-o
.‘ci‘. ‘4.
N
.-~
‘—
x
.
‘zfi-“fiA; '-
ivdv. ‘h ‘-
'u‘

 

 

 

‘|
~.~‘
“:‘;“E“ .-
5
v._
k
k"-
\
P \
in \. , ~
I a‘ '-
~Vv‘p.
“
2‘. .
‘~.‘:.'I\,.
"".-, v;
Ly
. ._
c.
1
~.
\
A
h.-
-u-‘ ..' -
,.
“..
:7-
5
“W. on
"‘ v C»

12

Women's Dormitory Hours.—-Curfew hours established

 

by the institution.

Dormitory Room Entrance and Inspection.—-Per-

 

mission for the university to enter and inspect a student's

private living quarters.

Room Visitation.--Entertaining members of the

 

opposite sex in residence hall living quarters.

Theft.--Illegal possession of personal or public

property.

Confidentiality of Student Records.--Protecting the

privacy of student academic and non-academic records.

Compulsory Class Attendance.--Class attendance is
recorded and required with only excused absences accepted,
or attendance is required and recorded with specified
number of cuts allowed, or attendance is required at the

discretion of the professor.

Student Demonstration.--Participation in political

 

and social issues, with guarantees of rights of free

speech, petition and assembly.

Disruptive Activities.-—Disruption or interfer—

ence with the authorized, peaceful, and orderly function-

ing of the university.

~§ \- . vs.

 

 

 

 

 

no
:qL-lhr.
-ud-vna~

up;

'01.

_ . J b. w u . e 1 . .
.. “c a k ‘ d
1. ‘a a ._ . . . 2.. u
~ . :s s a.
is“ a.“ n m... p.“ ... y C .. .1
2. .2 .Q .. . E :w “1.. m.
r” .H‘ b a “g F. u. ~_v ~‘~
o.. a. 2. a. p. a. s:
fiv \ . "I 0“ “N. A-u
.: .. ... .e. s . 4‘ v.
.ru vs . ... v” c: r.. h. .s a.
c . :. ... a . . 2. ..

 

l3

Speaker Invitation.--The opportunity to listen to

 

speakers representing a wide variety of opinions and be-

liefs on important public issues.

Off-Campus Behavior.-—University concern with

 

the actions of individuals and groups off campus when
these actions conflict with the welfare and integrity of

the institution.

"Student Rights" in Procedural Due Process.——
Procedural rights guaranteed each student accused of

violating university regulations.

Procedural Due Process.--Procedures used by the
university to adjudicate violations of university regu—
lations, including specifying charges, providing hearings,

and imposing penalties.

Deviant Sexual Behavior.--Illicit sexual relations

or perversions.

Dress and Appearance.--Designation of appropriate

dress and appearance of students at least for some occasions.

Recognition of Student Organizations.--Official

recognition by the university of student organizations.

Procedure for the Study

Nineteen items that are current and often trouble-

some to personnel administrators were identified as

 

. ‘
nnfl“a" 9

l10-‘~‘v
..'-,-I- F

’..1

f\)

\11

(T\

 

\(I

U

1”

variables for this study. General knowledge of institu—

tional policies and practices is somewhat limited in these

areas. It was surmised that a detailed description of

each variable might be helpful, both in terms of the

per cent of universities formally communicating the poli-

cies to the students and a review of the substantive ele-

ments of the policies.

These are the identified items:

1.

10.
ll.
12.
13.
in.
15.
l6.
17.

Academic Irregularity

Use and Possession of Alcoholic Beverages
Drugs

Hazing

Women's Dormitory Hours

Dormitory Room Entrance and Inspection
Entertainment of Members of the Opposite Sex
in Residence Hall Living Quarters.

Theft

Confidentiality of Student Records
Compulsory Class Attendance

Student Demonstrations

Disruptive Activities

Invitation of Controversial Speakers to Campus
Unacceptable Off-Campus Behavior

"Student Rights" in Procedural Due Process
Procedural Due Process

Deviant Sexual Behavior

- m..'
_—n
. .I
.'_._fl|:_

 

 

‘V j- V A _
I 0 .uv r; Aw . . k. . . _ . . . .
"Us an: “A o o n u o 1 a 3: J 3» l g I ‘ G. CV
a... a... up D. 3: 1‘ a/. ad. -h :34 nun ‘- r” ~ . . . s~ . a a.
. x a r“ J‘ :. a J I. 3
q x o. . S n u a . .. a v... u... ml
a... «9.. uh H. J . ».. Pu a. c. in
a. nu . o a. 2. 3,. .t
a ¢ H: s - .N 1 ah» H's nan
A v a» g g 1. r.. . A H. A. . a. :—
. u 2. Ad in a u s . a—s .. s «u v.
u I a o . i n v ~\~ .3“. t u \ s n-\

 

15

18. Dress and Appearance

l9. Recognition of Student Organizations

By using the Education Directory1 as a source,

 

100 colleges and universities were chosen randomly by
use of a random number table--twenty schools each in the
following catagories:

1. Large state colleges and universities with

more than 10,000 students.

2. Small state colleges and universities with

less than 10,000 students.

3. Large private colleges and universities with

more than 5,000 students.

u. Small private colleges and universities with

less than 5,000 students.

5. Religious colleges and universities.

A letter was mailed to each of the colleges or
universities requesting a copy of its student handbook
containing the policies and regulations used to control
student life (see Chapter III for response).

Using a checklist on which the nineteen variables
were outlined, each code was read in an attempt to iden-
tify explicit policies in each of the areas of concern.
The per cent of institutions outlining policies in each

area was summarized, and detailed examples of the basic

 

1Education Directory, l968-69--Part 3, Higher
Education, (U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington,

D.C., 1968).

 

«IV‘GV‘.' Q Cf

'.;..'..A-~

‘ N

,, “uvon~’ N

‘ o as»
“2;“ 3 Ex

nyvi d yu-

O O
:pv-2ngv- V‘I

git-towns! V.
..

» :A n l

.. ..

1" \ c ”.
‘movdu you.

a-
n... g .
u-
§
cu
!
pt

"3'1:' ‘1
v

‘u—I

)—

y-.-

 

 

 

16

contents of a specific regulation were noted. An effort
was made also to outline the philosophical rationale used
to Justify student codes of conduct, to determine methods
used to establish and revise the codes, and to list any
apparent trends. Comparisons were made between the
various sizes and types of institution identified for

the study.

Limitations of the Study

 

It is recognized that an accurate percentage of
universities that have formalized policies in specific
areas of student conduct cannot be determined by review-
ing student handbooks, since a number of schools do not
systematically communicate their rules to students in
this manner. Therefore, any conclusions drawn from
summarizing the per cent of institutions outlining pol-
icies in this way would naturally be confined to the 100
college and university handbooks reviewed. Another limita-
tion is that a smaller number of schools in each category
was used than would ordinarily be the case, simply because
of the effort required to review 100 documents in detail
and draw from them a representative example of code devel-
opment. It should be noted again, however, that a main
thrust of the study was to draw from the codes representa-
tive examples of each variable, an objective that could

be met with the 100 codes.

‘L-rvwgn

.
u“-.. v vb
B

. 1| I I
..... q.

I. r fl
1'

onlanv‘

‘n

v'._"‘ca

O
‘uv

and

Ar
‘1...

f.

f"

(0

‘Jo

‘V

"r

"_.

‘.

 

17

Organization of the Study

 

This study was organized into five chapters.
Chapter I is an introduction to the study and includes
a statement of the problem, the purpose of the study, a
definition of terms, the procedures used to collect the
data, and a statement of the limitations. Chapter II is
used to describe the historical development of student
codes of conduct and a review of related literature in
the field. The details of the design for the study are
included in Chapter III. An analysis of the findings is
summarized in Chapter IV, including a description of the
values and purposes of codes, the rationale on which they
are based, methods used to revise or develop codes,
apparent trends in code development, the per cent of
institutions communicating rules by means of a student
handbook, and the substantive elements of the codes.
Chapter V is used to summarize the findings and draw

conclusions.

 

a.

-
VII.‘

“‘r~ t- .
a
Q‘s-‘.; Iv v
~
F ."_ .- n
”y- _
‘.“"' ‘¢n‘ t...
.
‘>.‘ “” a:
I‘ I Ar r
,,.. .‘_‘..‘--.
w
fig fi...§: J'-
'U

P
udv--_-‘._

-
x-ha 5“r:3,_“
' Vv..~-

\n...

.-
= :

.u

— A' aAy
§~‘~Qv.. . ..

.

b “F

..,_

 

 

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Introduction

 

Chapter II is concerned with the literature re-
lating to the historical changes in concepts of disci-
pline and student codes of conduct. It will emphasize
the changing nature of rules and regulations in addition
to outlining some recent studies concerning student codes.
Some consideration will be given also to the legal Justif—
ication for codes, the student's role in code development,
the role of the disciplinary administrator, and the
methods used by colleges and universities to communicate
the rules and regulations to the students.

Historical Development of Student
Codes of Conduct

From their earliest beginnings, colleges and
universities have been involved in the moral supervision
of their students, and many of the rules and regulations
used to control student life in earlier years would not

be tolerated today. Brubacher and Rudy,l in their excellent

 

1John S. Brubacher and Willis Rudy, Higher Education
in Transition (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1958), p. 51.

18

uv

v.

ul-

A.

u-

 

.
m
u

y

I”

II'
t

n
n

‘
n

g
‘ -

 

fi'

‘43., “‘3‘"

at "~A'
H29 '7‘, I

00"“- v

u . fl

..

H's“ a.

L..vo V“"

u

,. .D-A“? J

.v‘ VU-I“

 

5" l

 

 

“--
. .-‘.U.
‘
a- .
Q \ r
‘ ‘~ .1
:HQ
“- 9-...
V...
.
‘A . .
I!" V‘
."-‘-.l
"p..
2 “as.
‘1'
P! a
‘2.»- H
.“a‘_
. \
FAQ-
u" g.)..
U.‘
5-9.1“
J. HV“-
gy“\_,
\
s' |
r
q
“‘5 ..
~
Q‘v-
u a F.
..v
a
'U-
'.
c..f
.
"sl
1‘: ‘A .‘
U
“a”: *.
'-
_.
._‘
";;::.h
”-3 2v-
‘.-
4..
_v
‘ws..::b‘
“-K a
v) I.
v
‘ P
., -.'
‘A
§ ,5". ’I.
‘u. ’5
J.
a.
. C
.1 s
.,\ ’
._;v,;‘. . _,
Q U
‘“\..l~
Q“‘

19

book, Higher Education in Transition, said that American
college "government" in the early beginnings of American
higher education meant rigorous control of student con-
duct both in and out of the classroom. They indicate
that, "The atmosphere resembled that of a low-grade boys'
boarding school straight out of the pages of Dickens. It
was adapted more to restless and unruly boys than to re-
sponsible young college men, and, indeed, most of the
students of this time resembled the former far more than

1

they did the latter." Lee lists in his book the Mass-

achusetts laws of 1956 which spelled out the legal limits
within which Harvard could administer her corporal pun-
ishment:

It is hereby ordered that the President and Fellows
are empowered, according to their best discretion,
to punish all misdemeanors of the youth in their
society either by fine, or whipping in the Hall
openly, as the nature of the offences shall require,
not exceeding ten shillings or ten stripes for one
offense; and this law to continue in force until
this Court or the Overseers of the College provide
some other order to punish such offences.

The laws at Harvard College in l6u2 outlined reg-
ulations that concerned, "promptness, attendance at
classes and prayers, dressing, idling, fishing, gaming,

"2

dancing, gambling, and swearing. The president and

 

lW. Storrs Lee, God Bless Our Queer old Dean (New
York: G. P. Putman's Son, 1959), p. 35.

2John D. Millett, The Academic Community (New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1962), p. 5.

 

 

... o . v: . . . . .. . . I I

S . . 3 T“ “a c. a. r“ r. .1 E ... .t .... :.. ...

a ... a a. 3 .C e 2. e S 2. 3 I ... .3 .3 .7. R E 2.

L. n. a: a. r“ “lkuv a. “.44 a. ... _. a. .~ ..I. ‘

a. ... .1 "J a. ...: ... . 3 r“ c. “.... .3

v... S .r“ .3 4. "J .1 . . w“ a. . . .3 3 n. .4 e

a. r.” .3 ..a .a. ... r” n. nu .1 «y .r.. 2. r“ r“ ... a . . a

.. . nu 3“ n. .3 a.“ 7: . . "... av “A ... .1 J . w». a: .1

“A a». ea .1 2» .3.

..v a: .1 .na :3 S. ...

S. a. ..u r. ... n. ... s.

... . u . v . .... p. . v a. . .

9-

 

20

faculty, as disciplinarians, took upon themselves the

responsibility to enforce the rules with the same vigor

that characterized their teaching assignments. Brubacher

and Rudy express no surprise that the students came to

regard faculty members as their natural enemies, and ex-

pressed their frustration in periodic riots:

the

Anyone who studies the history of American under-
graduate life from the first colonial colleges

to the Civil War will find ample evidence to Justify
Hall's generalizations. This was a period when
constant warfare raged between faculty and students,
when college government at best was nothing but a
paternal despotism, when the most outrageous pranks
and disturbances were provoked by undisciplined and
incredibly bold young men. It was pre-eminently a
period of rowdies, riots, and rebellions.l

The authors continue their discussion and indicate
student response to the disciplinary system:

The most dramatic response of the pre-Civil War
college student to the disciplinary system which
ruled him was violent and open rebellion. Nearly
every college experiences student rebellions or
riots, some more serious than others. In certain
cases, they eventuated in broken windows or cracked
furniture; in others, they resulted in death. All
involved some kind of collective action, either of a
class or of a whole student body. These outbursts
could be found in all sections of the country, at
state universities and denominational colleges, at
"godless" Harvard and Virginia and at pious Yale and
Princeton. Everywhere the atmosphere was like that
of a revolutionary brawl, or a violent modern
strike.2

Lee points out that a favorite method of punishment

at Yale was "boxing" or "cuffing" the delinquent student.

 

1John S. Brubacher and Willis Rudy, Higher Education

 

in Transition (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1958), p. 51.

21bid., p. 53.

 

 

.I‘r‘
‘U’ ”‘0.
..
IN.
'Pw-pv-0'
i-.. t.
1". , 2'.
Av- s,
..-- V” 9.33

L
a“
A
k
. ‘4‘-ua¢m-on v
A
u....' -

.l‘..a6: Pp
~ " -
JJ‘UOV.‘
"r"
I.‘rfi.'
a

\

......"vo
.
o

. ar-
no

I I I

s . ... in L1 . . s . .. ... .Jr ....‘
7.1.... 3.: E: a 7.9 3 . c. .19 )u
e... C rte. n. :. Ca. 3 C T. 3n. “...: 3.;
.3 n. n. 7.. n. o. a. f. .. . E C ...n 5 a. e. a. ..r
“a... “.31.: .13 a; ...»e 2;» A; 7. a. h. I. re ....
a . C. a: ..-. r. ..a 1.. 3 .: ... z. .1 h. .1 .1. 3 u... .2 ..

. ~ a fin. on. \..« ~Ky.n.. h. &a 0. «s. an‘ O. {s A.» a:

T; a: in

21

The students were gathered together to witness the pun-
ishment, which on one occasion turned into an embarrassing
situation when the president, "swung a right and missed."
Punishment was used to bring the boys to more constructive
behavior, keep them at the books, mold character, and con-
trol carousing. The main purpose of the disciplinarian
was to make an example of the student to such an extent
that he would shrink from temptation. A main punishment
was to reduce him in rank, and, if at all possible, keep
him on the college rolls where he could suffer for his sins
and be seen to suffer.

An example of the type of rules that were listed
as temptation for the students to break is mentioned by

Goldbold:

Students were forbidden to drink, buy, or keep
spirituous liquors; they were not to frequent taverns,
barroms, or tippling houses. Gambling was prohibited.
Lying, cursing, swearing, profane and obscene language,
and theft were forbidden. Fighting, striking, and
quarreling were not permitted. Students were not to
accept a challenge or in any way aid, abet, or pro-
mote a duel. Cardplaying, billiards, dice, back-
gammon, and other games considered immoral were pro-
hibited. Dancing and attendance at theaters, horse
races, or other places of "fashionable amusement" were
taboo. Late suppers and convivial reunions were
frowned upon. Fornication, visiting places of ill
fame, and association with persons of known bad char-
acter were forbidden. Students were not to combine
for riot or disturbance, nor were they to carry or keep
in their rooms firearms, gunpowder, dirks, swords,
'canes, or other deadly weapons. At Mercer University
smoking but not chewing was prohibited. The young men
were not to be guilty of "any grossly immoral conduct
whatever.

 

lAlbea Goldbold, The Church College of the Old South,

 

 

 

a ... a. .: ... a. 3 .. .. 2. v. .. , If I
a. S S “a . . a. .3 I. ... a. p. ...n E e. . C
.H .. Z. t. o. . . n. n. I. «D .s.. W a. or. .«a S n. t;
r. n. r“ a. ... r. n. 2. a: so ... r. .\u c. a.
no . o. . a. he a o a. 2. ... l .r“ .ru P... I». -nu ..-. ab
6. a. . w. . 2. .2 .pH r.. as .3 c u .1. n . a. a v I e. n o C»
.Pu No . 2. - a o. . a v on‘ ‘4‘ a. Ca .r u u g u ‘ a: I ‘
o. a: u... 2— 4. G. o . .. ..I. s. 4.. t . o a. a.» he I.
... H. r: 3. ha 2. H. u: ..- ...; A: A a
A. o .- a . .r. o . ... .-q 3. o c .p.. n. :- 0 . ... 1 .r.. s .
o . o c one .4. ..In . . n.‘ .u a D. g h - ... ..l n a on a u.. . u t‘ .

22

Detailed disciplinary rules and regulations were
listed in the college catalogs. Students were required to
read these rules, and in some instances in the presence
of their faculty and the student body they were required
to affirm their obedience to them. In quarterly reports
to parents and guardians deportment was usually listed
ahead of scholarship and other items.

Rudolphl points out that Harvard was so successful
at disciplining students that the finest rakes in England
were sent to America to the "reformatory on the banks of
the Charles." He states that flogging was displaced as
a standard means of discipline in 1718. Boxing the stu-
dent sharply on the ear took its place and continued until
it was omitted from college law in 1767. Rudolph believes
that this abandonment of physical punishment clearly re-
corded the humanitarian spirit that was loose in the
Western world, and led the way to the Americanization
of the New World's universities.

As the nineteenth century wore on, a strong move
developed to move the college into the country where, as
Rudolph states it, "life was sounder, more moral, more
character—building." This required the building of dorm-
itories to house the young men. At the beginning this

move was thought to be worthwhile as young men lived like

 

lFrederick Rudolph, The American College and
University (New York: Alfred A. Knoph Company, 1962),

p. 27.

 

 

n

‘0~;""a” "7

dvkvtltbo "
'

’IPP..zh.
.4 ...:
I... V

r?
0

, . o
5 . R

u: ‘1';

“......a

-_'.P:‘a 5.3—“
li‘b. \- Ub...:- ~

S \
5 "fi‘h n:
Ov- Ubaou y-

Q"":C,v‘"n ...,

"‘dvua fl
"‘FA y.”a ": -
q "‘4\

." ‘U .‘v

ll)
0. O

a”

Fwd

 

23

a large family, sleeping, eating, studying, and worshiping
together under one roof. Later, though, the dormitory was
thought to be a breeding place for crime, where plots were
hatched and where what may have begun in innocence often
ended in tragedy and misfortune. The dorm became a place
where tempers tightened until they snapped. Rudolph and
Lee both cite cases of tragedy in their respective books.
There was the boy who died in a duel at Dickinson, the
students who were shot at Miami in Ohio, the professor
who was killed at the University of Virginia, the presi—
dent of Oakland College in Mississippi who was stabbed to
death by a student, the president and professor who were
stoned at the University of Georgia, the student who was
stabbed at Illinois College, the students who were stabbed
and killed at the University of Missouri and the University
of North Carolina. Credit for these misfortunes was often
attributed to dormitory life.

The period between 1800 and the Civil War was
replete with student rebellions, including severe ones
at such colleges as Virginia, Princeton, Harvard, Yale,
Dartmouth, and Brown. Andrew D. White,1 recalling his
own student days at Hobart and Yale in the 1850's, wrote:
"I had, during my college life, known sundry college

tutors seriously injured while thus doing police duty: I

 

1Brubacher and Rudy, Higher Education in Transi-
tion, p. 54.

 

u.‘ U .‘
a '-
v fl
psf ’1

r“ I'd: '9:
v ‘

h
oo-U 0" “‘

.‘
ina‘en r~°
. ‘vvdV. v.

J:rl‘;\”n “
anoiv.d’ L
O

l
0-q 0
f ' A? Q Iv»-

.—

aud‘vuodu n..
, o

"“ A .

q.- \ ”flu?”

004‘» ...»...L

' Q
"" n--‘.'
v... ‘lv‘

A” - . ‘
c “an;
-1!" ...--—

.VA.

I."

It.
I

 

 

2“

have seen a professor driven out of a room, through the
panel of a door, with books, boots, and bootjacks hurled

at his head; and even the respected president of a college,
a doctor of divinity, while patrolling buildings with the
Janitors, subjected to outrageous indignity." Dr. White
expressed later that these acts of violence arose because
students were not treated as responsible citizens and be-
cause members of college faculties were forced to perform
the duties of policemen.

Brubacher and Rudy emphasize that the most ser-
ious rebellions took place in the South and in the North
where large groups of Southern youths had congregated.
College rules were rigorous and threatened punishments
that students in the South knew were reserved for slaves.
With great effort, strict disciplinarians attempted to
protect the college students from all the innocent plea-
sures, an effort that was largely doomed to failure. The
authors offer this explanation for student discontent:l

The phenomenon of student rebelliousness reflected,

at least in part, the whole social fabric of America
at this time. In this exuberant young nation, there
was an inner conflict between an overrepressive, Ca1-
vinistic morality and a frontier pattern of heavy
drinking and brutal fighting. Violence was general
throughout nineteenth-century American society.

These conditions found their counterpart on the

campus in student revolutions . . . Tact and thought-
ful guidance by the administrative authorities, to-

gether with more student self—government, would have
avoided the worst of the trouble.

 

lIbid. , p. 55.

Are
5. D

u ‘ n
u’: ‘1‘“\

-"-‘-dll~ U
.

..-: .5 ...;
,‘L... vU ....

.oo35-t4:
;.J-44¢v I

\

‘ an
"'3: 2m ,,
uovnvvd in.
--v--- a ...,
'. .5. ..
u*.545.~ u.»-

.

‘ .
2' "‘.‘3 55¢»
"' 4... v4”...
I . .
o... _
I. . c “‘7‘ L.
_-.... a".--

 

4.:‘W' --..\_'_
‘h—CQU "l‘vu.
‘I
to,’V:" .-
- .-
..og‘ ' l
“.3 ...-
.
O
.....
n
n; "‘\ A. s
"uv V‘
p
Hr"
ui.‘
‘ x
--
Q J-
1 .
V' s
"A
“‘ “ 2“«-‘
V... ~
.‘
-l
‘-
u
._‘-' ‘A l;
V-"
IV ‘_
"A ‘ o
4.‘ " .3
fl ‘ -
-‘ v. “L
.
e:
A
u T o- ‘
‘V.. A 1

 

25

After the Civil War there were no more student
rebellions. Brubacher and Rudy suggest that peace finally
came to the campus when curriculum changes created a new
attitude. There was also a relaxation of rigorous sys—
tems of college discipline and students began to be
treated as young adults. The addition of women to many
campuses added also a moderating and pacifying influence
on the conduct of male students. The rise of intercolle—
giate athletic sports and the fraternity system tended to
absorb much of the uncontrollable youthful energies, and
finally, many institutions had ceased to require police
duties of tutors, and began to hire men to police their
grounds and buildings.

Following the Civil War a new freedom was created
in the social life of the campus as the faculties gradually
began to develop greater interest in the more impersonal
world of research and scholarship and less in the regula-
tion and supervision of student life. By 1870 Rochester,
Michigan, Columbia, Cornell and Harvard were all leaders
in establishing policies which gave students a wide lat-
itude of freedom as the means toward developing character
and becoming self-controlled individuals. In President
Charles Eliot's words, "It is a distinct advantage of the
genuine university method that it does not pretend to
maintain any parental or monastic discipline over its

students, but frankly tells them that they must govern

c
' R

tr;"\fl
Jon's-0b '30

‘ .
->~"

\
..u-I-‘o

£1-

g'IAy-A
‘_ ‘

.vnoaoov

' ‘
bp-vo r
a

snow: o...

A
u".

1'
l

(T

a

V

i

)

v

as

v

o ‘r-

(D
m
'l

.
v

D" f-

l)

(D
I):

 

26

themselves. The moral purpose of a university's policy

should be to train young men to self-control and self—

reliance through liberty."l

This same belief that students cannot learn by
being pressured into obedience to a code of conduct that
they have not personally embraced is more completely ex-
plained by H. C. Hand:

Since students can learn to do only by doing, it
is obvious that they can learn to behave honorably
"on their own" only through wisely guided repeated
efforts to do this very thing while in colleges.

This means that college students must as to as great
a degree as possible be "put on their own" in as many
as possible of the situations necessitating the
making of choices in which honorable conduct or its
opposite is involved. If these situations are wisely
and sympathetically guided, students will learn to
make habitual the choices which will issue in honor-
able conduct. If they are unwisely guided or not
guided at all, students are very likely to learn
dishonorable conduct.

The point, then, is that, although admittedly
hazardous, free choice there must be if students are
ever to learn to behave honorably "on their own."
Squirm and wriggle as they may, administrators and
instructors who refuse this freedom to students are
not providing them with a curriculum in self-directed
and self-motivated honorable behaving, which is pre-
cisely what the college purports to be attempting in
the name of character education.

These attitudes are somewhat different from those
expressed by the early American educators. They reflect

a changing philosophy that has continued to develop in

 

lEugen Kuehnemann, Charles W. Eliot (New York,
1909), p. 51.

2H. C. Hand, Campus Activities (New York: McGraw-
Hill Book Co., 1938), pp. 76-77.

 

 

 

' I I a ‘.|
S-g:'r 4-

(D

t)

.muq'crnv w
....uvbav"

..

‘-—4.

1..
4..)
A: O:

f

«f lh'r1 '(V (.I)
«D 'j

5 -‘- f1)

)

t

Y

r\)
I tfl-"I"
If) ’

0

.'

LA.“

I?”
H"

on
-
‘\

f’)

 

 

27

higher education since the turn of the century. This
tendency will be developed further in the next section of
this chapter.

Current Concepts in Student Code
Development and Discipline

 

 

More now than ever before in the history of
American higher education, educators view discipline and
codes of conduct as integral parts of the educational pro-
cess. They stress that discipline is a necessary part of
character development and conclude that a university's
discipline policies and procedures are essentially teach-
ing functions. As Thomas Brady has stated,1 "The only
justification for the exercise of student discipline is
that this is a part of the educational process and cannot
be considered aside from the aims and goals of the insti-
tution." He lists the following basic characteristics
of student discipline:

1. Student discipline is always exercised with the
primary aim of promoting the welfare of the
person who is the subject of it. The main aim
is not the reform of the person or the redemp-
tion of the person but of his welfare--specif-
ically his education, his tutelage, his progress
in maturity, in rationality, in capacity for in-
tellectual and moral achievement.

2. It is a characteristic of discipline that it
must always be exercised in person by those who

have the welfare of those subject to discipline
as their primary aim.

 

1Thomas A. Brady and Leverne F. Snoxel, Student
Discipline in Higher Education, Student Personnel Series
No. 5 (Washington D. C. : American College Personnel

Association, 1965), p. lA-15.

 

 

. I .. III 4 . I . . III I . I I
.ru .“ G. “A r“ 9.. a; urn ...; a. no. P..ru.ru re s. v“ s. C. C. .. J. a. a. v. ..a .. a... .... ... Z. n ‘ .\
.. ..n .3 S»... 5 Z _. X C. 3 C C o. I .. a r” C .... a: a. ... ex a. a: S 0.. I E f. E ...h l
a. a. n. a. a» h. .p.. a.
a. u .. .C A . a. vi a . o
O O V“ or.- AV 5.. vo§ 1‘ n... ~\& 0 O 0
.23 ..L ... 2. .3 w” ... i. 3 h. .- a «C .3.
. . ... a . o. —.. 2. .... mu 2.
—~. w“ ... T: a. . a.
I. . . 4 A.. o A u ..A. L. 3 . ... 9 .
.. u». .. .. a. >.. ..A o. ..

 

28

3. The exercise of discipline requires that those
who administer it never, or in almost no case,
despair of the eventual possibility that the
subject may conform to what is expected of him.
Only very rarely-—almost never--do we discard a
student and say that we will never be able to
make anything of him.

A. The penalties used in disciplinary procedures
must be chosen primarily with the aim that the
penalty itself will assist in the rehabilitation
of the student. The faculty assumes that breaches
of discipline, if serious enough, are substantial
obstacles to the education of the student. Hence,
the penalties are designed to assist in the re-
moval of this obstacle.

It seems obvious that this concept of student dis-
cipline and conduct departs rather clearly from rules and
punishments of the early American colleges. The rules
of those early years were difficult, if not impossible,
to enforce and became outmoded in the first quarter of the
twentieth century. Snoxell states that the traditional
negative codes of the early colleges have been replaced
with more positive formulations that describe in general
terms the kinds of conduct expected of students. He
offers this example from the University of Minnesota:

1. It is each student's responsibility to be alert
to avoid the types of misconduct mentioned here
and any other misconduct harmful to the Univer-
sity, its staff and students.

2. Courtesy to your instructors and University staff
members, to other students, and to the public is
expected of each of us and a failure to show this
type of responsibility is unacceptable.

3. Each student is expected to be honest in his
work. Dishonesty in assignment, examinations,

 

1Ibid., p. 29.

Ci“

+Y|

g.

Q

U

p»-

U.

a:

due

 

29

or other academic work is considered an ex-
tremely serious offense by the faculty and
students.

A. University policy specifies that the property of
the University as well as that of individuals
should be respected. Theft of any kind, whether
of money or other property, is unacceptable.

The destruction or mutilation of books, maga-
zines, or other library material in University
libraries is another type of conduct which is
not condoned. Equally so is unauthorized use
of, damage to, or destruction of University
buildings, equipment, and property.

5. Drinking on campus or in the residences is
another type of behavior not approved by the
University. Drunkenness or any type of be-
havior which is disturbing or disorderly re-
flects on the University and therefore is con-
trary to the best interests of the University
and other students.

6. Misuse of University identification to obtain
privileges to which you or to which others are
not entitled under existing regulations is a
University offense.

7. Indecent and immoral conduct discredits both the
offending individuals and the University and is
contrary to the best interests of the University
community.

8. The University also has certain standards es-
tablished concerning entertainment, hours, and
room visitation. You should acquaint yourself
with the rules of your residence unit upon your

arrival.

A number of studies have been conducted recently
to assess the scope and effectiveness of student conduct
codes. One of the most complete research reports was sub-
mitted in monograph form by the National Association of

Student Personnel Administrators.l

 

1T. B. Dutton, J. R. Appleton, and F. W. Smith,
"Institutional Policies on Controversial Topics," The
Journal of the Association of Deans and Administrators of
Student Affairs, Monograph No. 1I(January, 1968).

 

r

fig.

0 Q'- 0 ‘
“..j 1, c

.L‘... an -oov -

9 9“ —r“

a.‘-.

'I'
an
H
"o
8

A

n
‘ a;
0d....4-_.‘

:I‘grfi
.

vv-nd

I
I.

.
D-O
v

“a
VJ

 

30

This 1967 study surveyed approximately A57
NASPA institutions on eighteen areas of student behavior.
It attempted to determine the extent to which colleges
and universities have formulated institutional policies
on the eighteen topics, the purposes and rationale for
these policies, the methods by which the policies were
formulated, the nature of their implementation, and the
extent to which the eighteen issues were considered sig-
nificant. These were the eighteen selected topics: con-
troversial speakers, deviant sexual behavior, drugs, dress
and appearance, entertainment of members of the opposite
sex in residence hall bedrooms, excessive use of alcohol,
faculty-student drinking, financial irresponsibility,
off—campus misconduct, premarital pregnancy, provision
of contraceptives, recognition of student organizations,
required on-campus living, student demonstrations, stu-
dent publications, student records, use of students as
research subjects, and women's hours.

A large number of conclusions could be drawn
from the findings of this study. Among them are these:
(1) relatively small numbers of institutions have poli-
cies in relation to deviant sexual behavior and premar-
ital pregnancy as well as student demonstrations, stu-
dent publications and drug usage. (2) Such variables
as dress, financial irresponsibility, off-campus miscon-
duct, recognition of student organizations, women's hours,

entertainment in residence hall bedrooms, and excessive

 

 

l
.v be a. .C .. _. ._ I I II I IJ||II II. I I
..h a. n W a. 2. 4. . . c. C S U... ;. .... ... ._ v. . c. .. .. . . . _
.2 O a. .a .. T. a. 3 S T. a. n. ..e a. n. E c. L.
e .. “A 4. S a. a r. a e 3 c. .1 .. S h. a . c e a. .. a 4. .p .. A . t.
v. t. “u 3 n. v” n. r” ... n. e v ... S r. .1 S ..a e. ..a s. .
Hu 3. l. .2 a. F? .u r“ a. h. ... g. h..../
c. ”a v“ .... 4 . t. ... c. a. a. a. . . a. 4 . e . 3... Q» .fi‘ 7» A .. . 3
\1 ... .2 3 a. n. v. n. a. .. n. n. n. I. ... n. ..a I. n. a. ......
.‘v “A C. J. .uu ... Z G. p" ... ... Q. a. .v 3‘ .: ya .u .. n.. 2‘ p.. C. ...
I . .- ... o. u. ”I ... ... .1 .. ..l ..A ...I ..l ... ...n .D a. .... I; .1 \ h. o ‘

 

. .1»... 3.....3 i

31

use of alcohol are more often controlled with policies.
(3) It would appear that there is a relationship be—
tween whether an institution had a policy on a certain
issue, on the one hand, and how important the institu-
tion viewed that issue, on the other. (A) On most of
the issues, the content and purposes of the policies
were related to the maintenance of control, order, stan-
dards and institutional image. (5) On most issues, the
personnel dean or his staff played a prominent role in
the processing of violations. (6) Generally, when vio-
lations of the policies occurred, the penalties imposed
were less severe than suspension. (7) The issues that
were ranked in the upper one-third in order of importance
were excessive use of alcohol, off-campus misconduct,
women's hours, student dress and appearance, and finan-
cial irresponsibility. (8) Issues with low rankings
were student demonstrations, controversial speakers,
student records, faculty-student drinking, provision of
contraceptives and use of students as research subjects.
Betty Levison1 of the State University of New
York surveyed eighty institutions to determine the trends
in student personnel practices from 1938 to 1968. She

used these topics as variables: women's hours, alcohol

 

lBetty M. Levison, "Summary of Findings of Trends
in Student Personnel Practices, 1938-1968," (unpublished
report, State University of New York at Albany, February 21,

1969)-

 

yu
'1
V
F“; ‘v
.....53- *‘
’ a
‘2'.”

L
'3 “:r
... V‘Doo'
I
s a ...
A A“ -
I
i .v‘ "
~
a. ~ 9
\, “Pb .- fi
u-v.. ‘1.“
3 “—h ’
v. “I..-"
-.. ‘r
In-“ fic"
. . '~.‘v
C we" :
5‘. '~ “‘-
Q. ‘ '
\_r.: r;
hie‘-‘ L -
I...
~-
-

8". ‘
u“;c “’1‘1"
~ “ V“
o
(‘0
Jo n'pg‘"-
v u“

J ..C

‘

.

IN

 

32

on campus, dormitory visitation privileges, dress and
appearance, class attendance, drugs, deviant sexual be-
haviors, and others. There were a number of interesting
trends identified by the study. In the 1938-A8 period,
ninety-three per cent of the institutions had women's
hours stipulated for everyone. The big change occurred
during 1958-68 when hours for everyone dropped to thirty-
two per cent, and thirty per cent had hours for under-
classmen only. Consistently, from 1938-68, the majority
of campuses were dry with no liquor allowed. Policies
concerning dress showed a decline of interest of sixty
per cent in 1938-A8 requiring standards for all occasions
to forty-eight per cent requiring them for some occa-
sions and thirty-nine per cent not requiring them at all
in 1958-68. An interesting comparison is the seventy-one
per cent not having drug policies in 1938-A8 to over
sixty-nine per cent having them now. Concerning deviant
sexual behavior, the practice most dramatically abandoned
was that of the student automatically being separated
from the institution. From 1938-48 to 1958-68 this prac-
tice dropped from fifteen per cent to one per cent.

The policies and practices governing the standards
of conduct at church-related colleges were reviewed by

Henry Nelson.l He attempted to determine if student

 

1Henry W. Nelson, "A Descriptive Analysis of the
Policies and Practices Governing the Standards of Conduct
at a Group of Selected Church-Related Colleges" (unpub-
lished Ph. D. dissertation, Indiana University, 1960).

 

 

.: c. a .
Q» . . \J \\ v.
E

 

 

 

 

 

s

‘e....\' a-
u. v-au .1-

...-P,

up:

Iodh

.. . L... w“ s . .
... n. ... n. a3 Q. ~ a. h
.o E a. Z. Z n 3. a .. .. i a.
... a c S C ..i . .. t
2 C . . . 9 T. a ... S 2. .C 2.. ...i S a.
7: 2. C a. . .. 2: ... a. : .p. . .3 a . .1
3 n. 3 .2 .. 3 S :. ... a. ... t l T 4
... .3 .»u n. s. p. .. w~ u~ 2‘ h. .
a: .nu . . av to C. . . . s . . . a: A4 a. .v o L;
n. ... q: o. A.“ . 3. 3‘ ‘w ... . . . ... e

. . . .r. s. s. 2. I. so ;. .5 ..s ~C

 

 

33

regulations were effective in influencing students toward
the immediate goals of church colleges. The schools were
grouped into "primarily religious" and "permissive"
colleges. He found that in the "primarily religious"
schools there is too great a dependence upon the legal-
istic approach to controlling behavior, and not enough
recognition of the developmental aspect of a student's
character. On the other hand, in the "permissive"
schools the administrative officials, in their desire

to be permissive and to allow maximum freedom of inquiry
on the part of the students, often fail to help the students
recognize and explore the realm of spiritual values.

The two major areas of student discipline prob—
lems are smoking and drinking. Other areas of student
behavior such as dancing, gambling, and attendance at
movies, vary in regulatory emphasis depending on the
type and religious background of the college. Finally,

a problem which exists in many church-related colleges
is that the codes of behavior which students are asked
to live by often are based on a different set of values
than those held by the students themselves. In other
words, such church-related colleges often require more
in terms of standards of conduct than is required of the
students by their own parents and home churches.

l
Malm conducted a survey of the written policies

 

lIvan C. Malm, "Written Policies and Rules Governing
Junior College Student Conduct and Discipline," (unpublished
Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southern California, 1963).

 

R
fir; W“ a:
> V
F ‘ . o
a“

~ 9
:2..4n ‘r

fit.
-5-
bav' '.

.
.. A
as." Q

v-
...—1:: Au

‘ A
.fl"f~a PH

5...

D
ungav
.' U

I
’21,. ”..., a
wit--... .4... v

. n A ..

\ \“b':

"sflvsub‘4
.

’ Ant-3 A

“A‘ Ac‘

o..“'4‘v\.v

0’

““‘n‘n

u..v-. Ow

\

‘rus

Vu" ...v

'fi‘conw-
.

1‘
. ‘I‘-

I I Q
“A?

“on "

at

\QV'-
v

‘.

Pg:
'-.: 1" Qt,
.‘ v..:
\—
nit
...“v 2“ .
Q

‘-

 

 

3H

and rules governing Junior college student conduct and
discipline. He found that existing rules regarding
campus parking, dress and grooming, drinking, hazing,
campus clubs, posters and advertising, and student
lounge behavior were commonly found at the colleges.
Most colleges supplement the publication and distribu-
tion of conduct rules with other communication media for
maximum effectiveness and understanding. Expulsion and
suspension for misconduct are rarely used disciplinary
practices, since less severe measures are considered
equally effective in most cases. Few colleges require
notification of parents in misconduct cases, but almost
all agree it should be done.

Additional conclusions drawn from the study were
that most colleges are in need of additional, and more
carefully phrased, policies and rules than they now have,
and conduct codes are more likely to be appropriate, Just,
and acceptable when student, faculty, and administrative
representatives have had a share in their development.
Enforcement is aided when all faculty and staff assume
their share of responsibility, and student court enforce-
ment of conduct rules remains of questionable value and
effectiveness. Students are more likely to willingly
accept and comply with conduct rules when they understand
the reasons for the rules and when, where feasible, the

rules are stated in positive rather than negative terms.

 

 

fi ,
5.2"

Igwl “I
..I.

nuns—4

 

a v . v .. , . . . un— ~V\ a . fi. s v c. — < ‘1
nxw .r“ ... y rt $ .I a: A: .5 m w. ‘ N\~
a n. 3 z . . . ‘5 a. .. ‘ x
a. C S . a .
I 1. s H¢ . A ‘ F a ‘ ¢ q. H‘ x. Q Q.
3 a. .... a. S a r . a 4 J . a .. . a .2 3 r.
‘ ... S ..p“ ..n a. a. A o S a. ... . C 2 h a. 2. h . a.
2. a u . . ... ..u C. v.. . .. 2‘ to a. , . .m H
:1 ... 3 A. r. e . .1 ... 2. w». a .. 1.
rm r.“ D. W. a... «I. l. a. A.» G. u». Q. n? .. A .
2 S. ... .. ... ... .... .. ... ... ... ... .... 2. .. .. vs.

35

The National Association of Student Personnel
Administratorsl conducted a recent study to identify
the procedures used to adjudicate student misconduct.
The research found that there is strong support for pro-
cedures designed to protect the rights of the accused
and to assure his fair treatment in the resolution of
a case. Most institutions incorporate these features
in their procedures: (1) attempt to inform the student
of the charges against him, his rights, and the Judicial
process that will be followed; (2) permit some type
of hearing; (3) allow the student to be represented
by some type of counsel, to call witnesses, to ask ques-
tions; (A) base decisions only on the evidence pre-
sented at the hearing; (5) give the student written
notification of the decision and an explanation of the
reasons for any action; and (6) grant the right of
appeal.

The only items related to investigatory and
hearing procedures on which substantial differences
appeared among institutions were granting of the option
of administrative or committee review, permitting legal
counsel, allowing the student not to appear, informing

parents of the action when the student is over twenty-one,

 

1T. B. Dutton, F. w. Smith, and T. Zarle, "Institu-
tional Approaches to the Adjudication of Student Misconduct,"
The Journal of the Association of Deans and Administrators
5? Student Affairs, Monograph No. 2 (January, 1969).

 

bvoov
3.5
d -4,
anvd

y
a re‘

A Q
-..“

Ufi-l'r‘
’H
...v

..l...h
a

,q’nn”"'0" ‘

.-. v ...a
...-.-

 

V. - as . ..
2. iv .3 S a. s . n. A.
”a a . ... . r. a ..
a... at a. ... a. S
a. r“ a. A: ... ...
.ru 5 a a. n. a. p”
L: ..J 4. 3. ..v. ... ....

a v d . . ~ . H . ...
.: ... .. w“ u.. ... ..a
.4. t... :u I. o . . ..o . I ...

36

circumventing established procedures when circumstances
merit it, permitting case investigators to serve as voting
members of the conduct committee, and processing academic
and nonacademic violations in the same way.

Additional findings indicate that institutions
are not as committed to the protection of student records
as they are the investigatory and hearing procedures.
About two-thirds of the institutions do not act against a
student disciplined by the civil courts unless the
interests of the academic community are clearly involved.
Only a few institutions rely solely on community law en-
forcement agencies to adjudicate infractions of the law.
Administrative initiative is the factor most frequently
mentioned as instrumental in development of conduct pro-
cedures. The two most important elements in making con—
duct decisions were the facts of the case and the welfare
of the student involved. Protection of the institution,
the student's previous record, and the impact of the con—
duct action on the student body were also cited, but much
less frequently.

A major effort to provide broad guidelines for
the development of student codes is the "Joint Statement

on the Rights and Freedoms of Students."1 This statement,

 

1Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students,
under the auspices of the American Association of Univer-
sity Professors (Washington, D. C. : American College
Personnel Association, 1961).

 

 

 

.. .
“Maw“
bv‘luVAnv

\,

I .I 4
.3 a. T. .4 .. C C .. m. C ... .C N. n. .4
w“ .M 3 C a. ) a. a 3 a. a.
a C .m ... S S e. T. .... ... r. a. a. .2
S C t n. T. o. C .. a. a. T. T. 1.
a: 4‘ 2. ) l . o. A. .... a. 4‘ 4‘ no a. at
c. ...u a. «. ~m 2. n. r. s. .c ... 4‘ .«a ..‘
. .. .3 m: .... a. a... . n. a. .1 4. a“ ..a ..a 3:
w 1 . sfl Au . ..A . . . v
w. . . ... .. :. ... .... ... A“... . 4. .F.‘ a: .n... NC “5 ‘5‘.

‘37

drafted and approved by representatives of ten national
educational associations such as the American Association
of University Professors, the National Association of
Student Personnel Administrators, The National Student
Association, the American Council on Education, et_al. ,
has had an unusual impact on current university student
rules and regulations. The statement attempts to estab-
lish some concensus in very general terms for student
freedoms and rights in such areas as access to higher
education, student records, student rights in the class-
room, student publication, off-campus behavior, student
affairs, and procedures for disciplinary proceedings.

It is well to close this discussion of the
current concepts in student code development with a ref-
erence to the "Joint Statement" for it provides the ed-
ucational as well as the legal basis for code development
and enforcement. In addition, the "Statement" serves as
a model of the "best existing practices" for universities
to identify and establish their own concepts of acceptable

student behavior.

Legal Authority for Code Development
The legal authority for universities to develop
student conduct codes is generally authorized by state

1
legislatures. Bakken points out that this authority may

 

lClarence J. Bakken, The Legal Basis for College
Student Personnel Work, Student Personnel Series No. 2
(Washington, D. C. : American College Personnel Association,
1961), p. uu.

‘ VL.
. :.

 

pr-
A“
V
L

‘9 5"-
9-08
fi-*~ +vv

.

o-vd-v

as
o‘

I ..II II | u
. . . L. r.. .... . a «u Q. ~
». . . . Q» a: ‘ k-
1. ‘Nu en fly q F. vlv N\M \ \ o .
S .. X 5 u. C a. n. . u. M: .1 C .A :. ....
a. i z. o. S C .... ...... mu. .... h . C a . C E ... ~ a
CV . . . . a .
u.“ a a r“ o. C ... .1 a . a . . “ .... - s .
... a. a. .o ..- .... ... :— 7; a. . . 2...:
-.. nu .nu ru ... ... r“ a. .1 . . O. .\ ... .~ ; «1...
...a ... .. .. .. 3: ... .. .n.. ..a ... ... u. a. «C

 

38

be delegated by legislative bodies to universities in
at least four different ways: direct power to faculty,
direct power to the board with authority to delegate it
to the faculty, authority to the board with no mention of
faculty, and general authority to manage the school given
to the board with disciplinary authority implied. He in-
dicates that in every type of legislation, the faculty,
the administration, or both, may exercise discipline over
the students under by-laws passed by governing boards.
In a few cases, legislatures have passed special legisla-
tion such as that forbidding hazing.

Bakken states also that court decisions apparently
give colleges and universities a great deal of latitude
in code development and enforcement. Administrative
officers apparently may notify parents about student be-
havior. Students are expected to obey the rules and reg-
ulations of the school, and may be suspended or expelled
if they do not. A hearing of some type is required in
all cases of expulsion or suspension. The hearing need
not follow court procedures, but it is recommended that it
follow procedures outlined in the case of Dixon v. Alabama
State Board of Education:1

1. The accused shall be given a notice giving the
specific charges made against him.

 

lDixon v. Alabama State Board of Education,
294 F. 2d. 150 (5th cu. 1961) cert. denied, 368 U.S. 930,
82 Sup. Ct. 358 (1961).

 

 

_|
I I l
.n.. .5 a .5 Th . .. ... .... v. .. ... 3:
... .. 4,. ...
. i ... S ... C ..J a.
o ,0 o o I w». u 4 1‘ a: a a 5.:
7a 11L, :2 r». 1 . .1 Lu ".3 I. a.
... ... h 4 5. h.- .u g
.2 ..a .... w. .3 a
t. . A . 1. . 2. a. .. A w
..a .... «u _~ ... .3 .. ..

‘0

A

.“fi

‘v

F,-
-.—

4..
:x

39

2. A hearing should be held where both sides of
the case are heard.

3. The hearing should elicit information for both
sides and if possible the accused should be
able to face his accusers.

A. If the accused does not face his accusers, he
should be furnished a list of the names of
witnesses and a statement of the facts they
testified to.

5. The student should be allowed to present oral
or written testimony in his behalf.

6. The student should be advised of the results of
the hearing.

Snoxell makes clear in his discussion of student
discipline that the relationship between students and
educational institutions is a contractual one, and because
of this relationship the university does have authority to
make and enforce any rule necessary to maintain order and
carry out its objectives. He lists three court cases to
justify his opinion. An Illinois court held that a
college governing board had the power "to adopt and en-
force such rules as may be deemed expedient for the govern-
ment of the institution" and added that the board would
have possessed such power "without an expressed grant, be-
cause it is incident to the very object of the incorpora-
tion, and indispensable to the successful management of

the college."2 An Ohio court stated that "under the custom

 

1Brady and Snoxel, Student Discipline in Higher
Education, p. 31.

2Pratt v. Wheaton College, no I11. 186, 187
(1866).

 

on.-.¢ ...v

- fi '

'_
t‘ ‘3‘»

"“‘-n¢u g.

s).a 0"“

nu...

.-
‘v--\.

1...”; V“;
N"" a..-

3n

'r" FIA‘
-O“ 0“”

i--. ‘.
‘ i" v.

a.
l I)

V»
'FP‘

‘hg‘

 

“K ‘
¢."u ‘y-_
‘N ~—
""
.‘ .
x .,
~_‘N:‘h‘
‘VA‘J
5“
"7 !~
1.5,
:~,.
"J

 

MD

of the land, (colleges are) justified in disciplining
students . . . and the student who enters such an insti-
tution agrees to conform to that rule of law and to be
tried for his misdemeanors by the rule that has been
applied by such institutions for so long a time that it

"1 A court in Michigan held

has become the rule of law.
that the university could establish regulations governing
student behavior. The decision of that court includes
the following statement: "Inherently the managing offices
have the power to maintain such discipline as will effec-
tuate the purposes of the institution . . . That in the
absence of an abuse of discretion, the school authorities
and not the courts shall prescribe proper disciplinary
measures."2 Under the concept of a relationship by con-
tract, these three decisions indicate that broad authority
is granted to colleges and universities to enact necessary
rules and regulations for the maintenance of student dis-
cipline.

This broad authority to establish rules and main-
tain discipline is set forth clearly in a case stemming
from the refusal of a public college to re-register a

student who had been expelled because of an objectionable

 

lKOblitz‘v. Western Reserve University, 21 Ohio,
CCR (INN) l90l.

2Lanton v. McKenney, 226 Mich. 2u5, 197 N. w.
510 (192M)?

 

 

 

I Q ‘
Ha “
oovod '

aun-

p w
-..v o
”SAD:
OI- U Vt.

5

‘
f" C
U- U .

-
why- Q ~

,. -
IAD‘O.“\

“°v

 

 

41

letter she had sent to a newspaper. The Maryland court
held:

The maintenance of discipline, the upkeep of the
necessary tone on standard of behavior in a body

of students in a college is . . . a task that de-
mands special experience, and is often one of much
delicacy . . . and the officers must . . . be un-

trammeled in handling the problems which arise, as
their judgement and discretion may dictate, looking

to the ends to be accomplished . . . Any other rule
would be subversive of all discipline in the schools,
and of the educational interests of the state. To
hold that dissatisfied students in college and schools
of this state can review the discretion of the facul-
ties, in cases where the facts justify the exercise

of discretion, would be most unwise.l

Bakken2

summarized the authority of the state-
supported college or university in code development. He
states that the public college is an instrument of the
state set up to furnish education to the state's citizens.
The internal administration of the institutions is given
to a governing board, administrators and faculty whose
responsibility it is to operate the university in an
efficient manner. These boards, administrators, and
faculties have wide discretionary power in accomplishing
their mission. Whatever they feel is best for the insti-
tution and students can be enacted into regulations, so

long as the rules do not violate civil law. In Bakken's

words: "It appears that the boards, administrative

 

lWoods v. Simpson, 1&6 Md. 547, 126 Atl. 882 (192U)

2Bakken, The Legal Basis for College Student
Personnel Work, p. 56f

 

 

’ fl
~~“‘i:e.s,
gm.

it, that -

2.. 22 .;
wing v.—
...,l

.
......5“1_ 5 .
:‘dn-‘J- .- vv-

:- :“"“A
.

“'V¢ v

(7‘

 

 

.
"A‘

nth-4":
-*‘.V.

.

.J'A:

' .
mars:

.

\—
~ ‘
{fill-h.“
“ “ ““2

..v‘
.
"an
...._ ~A
K,’
V4
.
.‘Q‘
‘
‘”ve“::.\..
..~‘
‘
~
.C‘A ‘
-3". ...~
3“ c

\n

‘
Pao"

- fil“_
“"4-n

‘.

v.
,.
9‘15“
..
v x
u
M

42

officers, and faculty will be protected by the courts

in what they do as long as they act without malice or

prejudice and within the framework of their respective
authorities. They have wide discretion in matters

affecting their institutions and students."

The Role of the Disciplinary Administrator

Anyone picking up a college catalog today will
be introduced to the academic offerings by a long and
confusing list of deans and administrators. There are
the deans of the faculty, deans of divisions and depart-
ments, deans of guidance, deans of freshmen studies,
deans of students, deans of men and deans of women, deans
of graduate studies, deans of instruction, and, as Lee

points out in his informative book, God Bless Our Queer

 

Old Dean,l in one dean-minded college even a dean of
deans.

Lee goes on to say that the jockeying for a con-
vincing and discriptive title only confuses the under-
graduate. The disciplinary administrator is the man
they go to when they are in trouble, when they need a
listener, advocate, or when they need to clear the air.
Regardless of the title in the college catalog, he is the
official from whom the derelict with a bad conscience ex-

pects a summons, and with whom the "goof" knows he will

 

1Lee, God Bless Our Queer Old Dean, p. 35.

 

.‘A

O»

E.

'v

 

‘-
S
D
_)
(f
)

(h

n-
o
D

(II

“‘F .'

it)

‘)A
(II

..." a}
u

v.‘

..fl

h. Q
"~.
v

 

 

 

M3

eventually have to reckon. Sometimes he is labeled
"Director of Student Activities," or "Student Welfare,"
"Director of Student Personnel," or "Dean of Students."
To students, says Lee, the title does not matter. They
have an instinct for sniffing their way to the proper
office, whether the title on the door be Dean of Students,
Dean of Men, Dean of Women, or some other title. To
students, the official to whom students customarily go
for their reckonings is known simply as "the dean."

Cowleyl points out that the office of the dean
of students has developed slowly over the past seventy
years. It had its beginning at the end of the 1800's
when deans of men and deans of women were appointed at
Harvard, Swarthmore, Oberlin, and Chicago. After the
deans of women first began meeting annually in 1903 and
the deans of men formed a national organization in 1917,
the movement picked up momentum. According to Cowley,
by 1927 three types of student personnel people had be-
come established in colleges and universities: service
officers such as chaplains and deans of men and women,
guidance people, and psychologists primarily concerned
with testing.

In early years the dean's job carried with it the

responsibility of enforcing rules and regulations devised

 

1W. H. Cowley, "Reflections of a Troublesome but
Hopeful Rip Van Winkle, "The Journal of College Student
Personnel, Vol. 6, No. 2 (December, 1963), pp. 66-73.

 

 

:‘~

A
--..mo :-
.

Fn‘.—""

.
.
~f"
“"5" 3.2:.
=..l\ral V
t ‘ ‘
nerahfi ,
vvotnA‘v-

' ' o.
A-
q~~.‘~\ ‘
“"V~ '
. .
:"‘ "“2.
f-... ...-

.
~- Aa- ....
W '-\ A.—
..4--- _
.
“ an
fl’~~’ _
v..--.. u...
‘ I
‘~~.-.. h
‘ \ V1
‘ I‘~'.‘
. o.
.. ‘
_"‘_«
v-».,“ i.
.O
”‘2." ‘1":—
E'“ ~..__
... .
' “c~ ..-
..‘.‘d t-
.‘I
‘ ""v-§‘
U h \
.‘ _..-~
f‘ .
A~~‘$‘.-‘
u».-. ' ;._
F, u._
.‘-.'\'~
... .-
‘—
~V|~A
~"3 ”r;
. ....u“
an,“ '
' ‘F’5
‘J r.
.“
..-
‘:
.-
W
-.. Cc. ,. ~
.'» ~_
“\

 

 

 

nu

primarily by the president or trustees. He was

given general supervision and responsibility for student
conduct and discipline. Beyond that he had multiple
duties that varied somewhat from college to college.
With the influx of women to the campuses, a number of
rules were written to maintain order and discipline.
Women deans were hired as disciplinarians as well as
advisors. Mullerl indicated that this greatly handi-
capped their effectiveness as counselors. The deans of
men entered on the scene some years later, and were
hired more as counselors than controllers.

A major direction in the role of the dean of
students came in 19382 and again in 191193 when the
Committee on College Personnel of the American Council
on Education published pamphlets describing student
personnel work at the college level. Muller“ points
out that this "personnel point of View" was based on

three assumptions:

 

lKate H. Muller, Student Personnel Work in Higher
Education (Boston, New York: Houghton Mifflin Company,
1961), p. 54.

 

 

2

The Student Personnel Point of View: A Report
of a Conference, Series 1, Vol. 1, No. 3 (Washington:
American Council on Education, 1937).

3The Student Personnel Point of View, (revised ed.;
Washington: American Council on Education, 19U9).

 

“Muller, Work in Higher Education, p. 56.

 

 

 

 

. a
q . fl .
:.
.... . .
. . u
3.. o
a. «d — .n o
....n t . C.

 

“5

1. Individual differences are anticipated, and
every student is recognized as unique.

2. Each individual is to be treated as a functioning
whole.

3. The individual's drives, interests, and needs
are to be accepted as the most significant
factor in developing a personnel program
appropriate for any particular campus.

Using this "personnel point of view" as a guide,
Williamsonl indicates that it is the responsibility of
the dean of students to:

1. Inform and counsel prior to, and at the time
of admission to college.

2. Provide vocational and educational counseling;
maintain records and diagnostic data useful in
helping the college and the student understand
his capabilities and his progress.

3. Maintain a friendly and personal relationship
with students.

4. Assist students in the development and redevel—
opment of constructive and meaningful group ac-
tivities--social, recreational, political, pro-
fessional, etc.; development of effective and
satisfying group leadership and membership roles.

5. Provide a healthful and congenial living quarters.

6. Provide a mental and physical health service which
helps maintain sound personal conditions in the
community.

7. Organize a coordinated interfaith religious
activity and encourage strong denominational
programs by churches.

8. Provide student judicial organizations within all
organized groups and in the college as a whole.

 

1E. G. Williamson, Student Personnel Services in
Colleges and Universities (New York: McGraw-Hill Book
Company, 1961), p. 20.

 

 

. r. I I . J g
. . r.. . . .. u
w. n. .... a. 2. S ..u n. . x
A .
3 a L. .2 ... . .. . 9..
o . ... . . nu n... ....n n. u .r.
flu... . v a u . o .3 h . n. .
... no a u. a a. a. a: g e a a
r“ . . —.. ~.. “a. .a. ... a:
..a ru ... ... .. ..a v. to" ...
... . a. . c u o u :u -\h n‘m 5 - ...

 

 

A6

9. Supply financial counseling and resources
necessary for the student's personal and
professional growth.

10. Assist in finding initial postgraduation
employment in which the student's training

and aspirations will be advantageous.

Woodburnel had the following to say regarding the
functions of the dean of students. "This office carries
in a large measure the responsibility of the whole insti-
tution in all out—of-the—classroom activities. He some-
times becomes a temporary parent of the student, and in
some measure accepts the responsibility of this kind of
supervision. The extent varies from school to school,
and in urban and suburban areas." Wrenn2 points out
that the dean must be much more than a "watcher." He
must help students gain a sense of personal identity by
developing good counseling relationships. The dean must
encourage student organizations as a means of developing
proper social relationships and provide the housekeeping
aspects of the campus life--dormitories, eating, finan-

cial aids, etc. He further states that work of the

personnel dean must be totally educational in its aim as

 

1Lloyd 3. Woodburne, Principles of College and
University Administration. (California: Stanford Uni-

versity Press, 1958).

 

2C. Gilbert Wrenn, "The Development of Student
Personnel Work in the United States and Some Guidelines
for the Future," in The Student and the System, ed. by
M. John Menter (Boulder, Colorado: Viche, 1968), pp. 101-
118.

 

 

 

~

.\...,.:~
,.

hdfithfi

3

 

«3 ‘ a
“‘

g
.-
‘..,

in“!

L.

“7

well as helpful and should affect all phases of the
college program.

1 in discussing the role of the dean

Joseph Katz,
of students, refers to recent research that indicated that
only nineteen per cent of entering freshmen at twenty-
three selected universities labeled their concern in
college to be primarily academic. Other research studies
at Stanford found only a very few students oriented toward
academic concerns. The primary concerns of students--
love and affection, personal identity, and self-respect--
are almost entirely ignored by the academic scholars.

Katz feels that the dean can provide this development by
offering opportunities to develop closer and warmer inter-
personal relationships and help in solving personal prob-
lems. The dean should work to make faculty aware of these
student needs and encourage revision of the curricular to
facilitate this growth.

In discussing the role and functions of the dean
of students, Wrenn2 feels that in the future he must em-
phasize improving the quality of human relationships

rather than increasing administrative efficiency. Services

should be disbursed to different parts of the campus.

 

lJoseph Katz, "The Role of the Student Dean in
Educational Innovation" (paper read at College Personnel
Institute, Claremont, November, 1965).

2Wrenn, "The Development of Student Personnel
Work," p. 52.

 

Igfl—nf
net-v0. bln"

" ‘9

""::.

‘I-.¢~V“

Foo ‘rja .
\

"' .c-.. ..

.
\:§,‘.~ r—

I- ..A “
‘ \ P...
-‘~‘

.
WA

 

‘

'v "A

 

48

Changing age levels of students must be taken into account;
women must be given equal opportunity; transfer students
must receive additional help and guidance; and nonconform-
ing students must be encouraged to develop their creative
potentialities. Because the student is better prepared,
more knowledgable, more questioning, more concerned about
himself and his world and because more is expected of him
by his teachers, parents, and peers, the process of edu-
cating him must fall to both the academic faculty and
also the personnel dean who can help the student apply his
learning in a true—life situation.

Most recently, Philip Trippl projected the dean's
role into the 1970's. He refers to the 1970 dean as a
leader, teacher, and learner. The dean will provide four
main functions for the university: (1) Welfare functions
to include counseling and financial aids. (2) Control
functions to include discipline, admissions, and operation
of the resident halls. (3) Co-curricular and extra-curr-
icular activities, to include traditional activities
and new implications for educational development in the
community. (A) Teaching functions to include orientation,
especially for foreign and remedial students.

Tripp emphasizes also the need to work with leader-

ship and citizenship training as an aid for students to

 

1Philip A. Tripp, "The Dean-—Leader, Teacher and
Learner" (paper prepared for the NASPA 52nd Annual Con-
ference, April, 1970).

l ...

 

"b

I I
.v L. .4 . 1 . .. 4 .

n9. 6 H .1 J n. a. e .2 a. . m: L. .... 3 to u... .3 t. a
C S a. ”a e .. r“ .3 r“ C ... .1 T. n. n. Z. .
. . e ,. no .2 3: .. . . . v .. . .1 a. c. L ...4 a.
a. in.“ on. S l . z . i . .... .l .. . a. . . Z a . . L... 4. 2
wt t. n. .... r“ .2 G. 2* s. uh .... 2. a. u. .nq .

A» A u G. r“ ... . ... .2 n. n . 2. . . .... . . a: ... a. a. a a 2..
a F» r... at a e 9.. 2. n». a... A; 7. 3 L ..g 3. .: .... n. L .. .. .

#1
‘c
‘K.

M9

develop self-identity. The dean will continue to be

both servant and leader, but he will become also an ex-
pert in student development and will become a student

on student life. As an extension of the president's
office, he will coordinate and cooperate with other ad-
ministrative officers in areas that are specifically
assigned to him. He will be in close touch with the
president and be thoroughly devoted to him and his pro-
gram. The dean of students has a charge to make recommen-
dations regarding plans, policies and procedures in his
zone of control which are consonant with the cardinal ob-
Jectives of the institution.

But despite all the responsibilities he carries,
Elizabeth Greenleafl feels that the dean is too often seen
as a member of the establishment, as a pretended baby-
sitter, and as an obstacle to student power. Faculty
members also often see the dean's office as a bank of
red tape. This poor definition of the dean's role leads

2 too feels that the dean

to disharmony and confusion. Lee
is still the most misunderstood character in the academic
procession. The public and too many students think of
him as the campus spoilsport, the man who "orders the

vital tackle out of action Just before the big home game,"

 

lElizabeth A..Greenleaf, "How Others See Us,"
The Journal of College Student Personnel, 9 (July, 1968),

pp. 225—231.
2Lee, God Bless Our Queer Old Dean, p. 33.

 

II
TLo- rim .flu , ».~ 5 . _ ~ 0. . *Ilull n.‘ V. wk.
v. C a. Z ”a S a . a a c ..J .1 p c.
e .... a 2 .4 . a . .. a. 5.. ~ . c. 2.
t S 4 . c: C A a .. . S 3 t .. 3 a u h. A e n .
n . r . o. b .no. a. . 1 an : . s u c e rd ab .1 3:
“v” m. ‘54 a. — . 3“. ..C . e w. . .. . ¢ « ...: a.
n g ',I v. ul 4 n 0- .. A
o v Ada -u A, a .\~h w“ a.’ m t -. nnd. A.“ U. “15‘. 5A .o‘ A. a. ~A. -‘ .sr a. ‘8 .v

 

~\~
.. .
ts

.hw

\.

p:
‘K.

a.»

50

the temperance agitator who seems to have an overwhelming
aversion to bourbon or beer, the stuffy upholder of
standards who ranks history ahead of hockey, geology ahead
of Jazz, philosophy ahead of fraternity initiations, the
symbol of authority against whom university riots are
waged.

For the best interests of the dean and of the
institution, said Lee, there must be some basic assump-
tions: (1) that the educational institution has solved
or is solving its real problem, that of the aim and destiny
of the institution; (2) that the dean is an integral
part of the administration of the school where there ob-
tains an equilibrium of forces similar to what the econ-
omist calls "perfect competition"; (3) that there are
clearly established services for students, grouped under
the dean and his staff, who are given adequate authority
to grapple with them.

Too many presidents, says Lee, accept these basic
assumptions in "principle," but then they make decisions
and change policy in such a way as to negate the very
basis on which the dean is working. The smart dean, says
Lee, "is one who can make a polite 'no' sound like 'hell
no,‘ so that it does not occur to the student, parent,
or patron to go to the president anyway."

Alternately the dean is a sort of policeman, pastor,
teacher and tyrant, sympathetic counselor and condemning

Judge. Occasionally he is forced into the unclear position

0 «no
A. “'3‘, :—

vb . “'

are ‘A ..
vub'v in] f

I

.- Q'
c. U.
“PA

'
;- .
"—

 

 

 

51

of representing the whole range of law enforcement,
and, in succession, serves as detective, prosecutor,
defendant, Jury, and Judge for a single infraction.

Lee offers the following definition of a dean as
one to which no one can obJect:

A student-minded or student-oriented faculty member
who has administrative responsibilities that put

him squarely in the middle of students, teaching
faculty members, and administrative faculty members.
Our role in the center is to serve as interpreters

or catalysts in relation to the fundamental functions
of the college;.a center position where we must be,
in effect, custodians of the best interests of all;
maybe, in a way, the cohesive element in the insti—
tution.l

The Student's Role in Development of
Policies and Codes of Conduct

 

In the recent past, students who entered the
university were denied the chance to participate in
university governance, except in areas of student govern-
ment. In earlier years the college president set the
standards of conduct. Later the faculty led the way for
control of student behavior, and most recently the dean
of students was expected to enforce the numerous rules
established by colleges in an attempt to keep everything
calm and orderly. The idea of student participation in
rule making, though not a new thought, is now emerging as

an additional force on the college campus. As Ralph Keyes2

 

lLee, God Bless Our Queer Old Dean, p. 89.

2Ralph Keyes, "Student Involvement: The Why and
How," NASPA, 6 (October, 1968), pp. 77-82.

 

52

writes in an article for NASPA, students should be
involved in decision making purely on practical grounds.
It is easier to implement decisions if those affected by
them have had a voice in making them. He says that
allowing students to participate is in vogue now and
results in prestige to the university that is willing to
make this innovation. Faculty members will be more honest
in their recommendations and comments if students are
present. Keyes hopes that eventually the mistrust between
faculty and students will disappear and college groups
will meet as people, not as power blocks, to work and
solve educational problems.

Much of the literature sanctions the move to give
students a part of the action--some control of the vote.
Educators are recommending that students be allowed to
participate in drafting the rules and regulations that

govern their lives. A recent issue of College Managementl

 

devoted itself entirely to the question of student par-
ticipation in university governance. The survey indicates
the trend in attitudes of various university groups on
this vital question.

A large number of deans were surveyed to determine
the extent of student participation. Seventy-five per cent

of the deans in four-year colleges felt that students

 

1"How Much Should Students Have to Say?" College
Management (May, 1969) , pp. 30-39.

”-fi 'Qv‘.

(I)
(I)

i'c‘o w -

,-.. ..-
"A, F.‘
-_n ,._
"‘I“ ‘—
' 5

. I
:a'V'Jp-

‘u...-‘.- \-

 

< A
44v Ca.‘
t'
'A
'4‘: “V:
c“
M"
' U
“‘ 1:“-
§ 1 b.
x
“v-
{

 

53

should have a voice in university decisions. At the
present time, only fifty-six per cent used students as
voting members of key committees. Seventy-three per cent
felt that students were equally responsible as faculty
and administrator, and nearly ninety per cent of the
four-year schools had received requests from students to
participate on committees. Sixty-three per cent of the
deans said that the administration, faculty, and trustees
were more receptive to student participation now than a
year ago. Nearly half of the deans indicated that the
administration had taken the lead in encouraging student
participation, while forty-eight per cent indicated that
the faculty was the most resistent to the participation.
A group of distinguished educators, writing
recently for the Editorial ProJects for Education,1
traced the recent move on the part of students for a
larger voice in the governance of the university to
organized student groups, both national and local. Among
the most prominent is Students for a Democratic Society.
Founded in 1962, with a membership of 35,000 members on
350 campuses, SDS has had an unchallenged influence on
the university. The organization maintains that the
university is corruptive and exploitative. An honest

university is not possible within a dishonest society.

 

lEditorial ProJects for Education, Inc., "Who's
in Charge?" (paper, 1969).

c“: ~-~-
...-v V‘-

O‘rafi ‘5 l

..
.’A.van U‘-

*nc‘oc‘:
hcvd'vv .e
O

p..- ”A"
.s‘a-Av. J‘s

~
5" “..‘
ou.‘

.U .4.

..2‘. ‘-

0
.‘Ar 1..
.-.” ‘2

“I

'."‘- I‘-

..A

I)

,'u t,

\
H":
t‘-‘_3

 

(ll
1 J

I
(I)
1‘ f

K
ll)
5
'J’
("D

5”

SDS would destroy society, including the university and
then build something new after the revolution. Their
protests concerning the Vietnam war caused disruption on
numerous campuses in the past few years, and has required
administrators to look inward at student involvement

in campus and national issues.

Educators feel that far more influential in the
long run on student involvement in university governance
will be the National Student Association. This organiza-
tion is more moderate and indicates that, "We'll go on
strike, rather than burn the buildings down." This group
works with student government leaders and is represented
on “00 campuses. It talks about "student power" and helps
organize student government to participate in university
governance. Recently it received a $315,000 grant from
the Ford Foundation to establish a center for educational
reform. The money will be used to "generate quiet revo-
lutions instead of ugly ones."

Also in the picture are organizations that repre-
sent Black student interests. The most recent one is the
Congress for the Unity of Black Students. Claiming repre—
sentation on at least thirty-seven campuses, it is moving
toward greater participation in university governance.

It encourages its students to work within the structure
so as to not disrupt university operations and Jeopardize

their own academic standing.

55

A more recent organization, representing a more
conservative approach to student participation, is the
Associated Student Governments of the USA. It claims
representatives on 150 campuses. Although it has some
of the same goals as the other organizations, it is
likely to pursue them in a more orderly way.

These principal national groups, along with many
local organizations, are making campus administrators
aware of student needs, and an increasing number of
institutions are making the students a part of the de—
cision-making process.

A number of leading educators have voiced their
support for this current movement. Morris B. Abram,l
president of Brandeis University, recently supported the
movement by saying that students today are more mature.
They have a real desire for reform and show good Judgment
in their decisions. Dr. Otis A. Singletary,2 President
of the University of Kentucky, stated recently that he
felt, "students are going to have a real impact on the
improvement of undergraduate teaching." One of the most
exhaustive studies of this entire area of concern was
undertaken recently at the University of California at

Berkeley3 under the chairmanship of Caleb Foote. Dr. Foote

 

lIbid. 21bid.

 

3C.-Foote and H. Mayer, The Culture of the Uni-
versity: Governance and Education (San Francisco: Jossey-

Bass, Inc., 1968).

v .
3-n.‘ ,Ar
F “F "Vc
IAO‘II"

v... 1...

..Fa "fiA
4"" K. v
U

n""'“ar ‘
v..l‘-. v..

I

.—":V|:A

-...uv. ~ “
.

I

 

 

56

and his associates recommended a rather elaborate orga-
nization of student participation, beginning with a re-
organization of student government. They based their
rationale for student participation more upon the hope
that participation would enrich the relationships of
the various university groups and would help promote
the growth of human communities and thus transform an
environment that has become confining, fragmented, and
impersonal into one that is liberating.

Ray Heffner,l President of Brown University,
calls for the students to be Junior partners, while
preserving the authority of the president and governing
board. He feels that if students are not satisfied short
of radical revolution and if they shun the partnership
being offered them, then education will be lost.

In his book, Gilbert Wrenn advocates strong
participation in policy making. He feels that colleges
cannot develop their most effective programs without the
administration, and students, and by administrative pro-
vision for the most effective execution and coordination

of the various programs on campus.2

 

lRay S. Heffner, "The Student Voice in Institu-
tional Policy," AGB Reports, Vol. 10, No. 5 (February,
1968), pp. 3-10.

2Gilbert C. Wrenn, Student Personnel Work in
College (New York: The Ronald Press Company, 19513, p. lU6.

.. c
.. v~
u“ A:

“‘dd-‘i-

-
a V
...-1“}, 5
’- e

,F“ 1....
-

o"
A“ L
ed. LE'.

0
-
.n.

 

 

57

Morphet, Johns, and Reller, in their book on

Education Administration, make a case for student par-

 

ticipation in policy making, stressing that everyone

affected by a university policy should share in the devel-

opment of that program or policy. Students grow and

develop in an atmosphere in which they share responsibility

for decision making. They will understand the policies

better if they help formulate them. When members of a

group share in the formulation of policies, regulations,

and goals, that group is more apt to accept them than

if they are handed down by the status leader.l
Gordon Kloph used his book to criticize universities

for teaching democratic processes to students, but then

denying them the actual experience. Klopf feels that

there is Just as much mistake in placing a student in

areas where he is unprepared or disinterested as in not

giving him any voice at all. He would carefully chose

areas of participation, with intelligent ground rules by

which students operate, and with intelligent guidance

of his progress. In the foreword to Klopf's book,

 

lElgar Morphet, R. L. Johns, and Theodore Reller,
Educational Administration (New Jersey: Prentice-Hall,
Incorporated, 19597, p. 65.

58

Samuel B. Gould said, "One cannot champion one of the most
important ingredients of democracy, such as creative lead-
ership, without offering students practical opportunities
to develop such an attribute."1
A problem facing educators is deciding in which
areas of the universities students should be given a
voice and a vote. A study by M. F. Golden2 at Cornell
requested that students list the areas of participation
they desired. Seventy-five per cent listed areas that
affect them personally and directly, such as freshmen or-
ientation, seeking visiting speakers, dorm policies and
developing campus safety programs. Fewer than twenty-
five per cent had interest in selecting sites for new
buildings, regulating college placement programs, estab-
lishing tuition policies, and regulating scholarships and
loan policies. J. T. Horner, writing for NASPA, reviewed
his survey of seventy universities. Over one-half of the
student governments were concerned with some areas of
administrative policy, although less than ten per cent

were involved with scholarships, admissions, or trustees,

 

lGordon Klopf, College Student Government (New York:
Harper and Brothers, 1960), p. 8.

2M. P. Golden and N. A. Rosen, "Student Attitudes
Toward Participation in University Administration: An
Emperical Study Related to Managerial Prerogatives," The
Journal of College Student Personnel, 7 (November, 19667,

PP- 323-330-

 

yo&“=: 6‘.
iv. w. J"

V”: A,“
“-J‘Joo;

.
0
”A“:- r ~

‘Od‘~-“;r

I'd—e. ,

U"’OU

‘I
F‘W‘PFI‘

.“- -.c‘

 

 

59

and most of the reported student participation had be—
gun only recently.1
Ludwig Spolyar, a personnel worker at the Uni-
versity of Minnesota, reviewed the resolutions of the
National Student Association urging student governments
to take control of registration, chartering student groups,
student government finances, cultural programming and
housing regulations. Students were urged to work for
Joint control over curriculum matters, calendar planning,
hiring and firing faculty, financial aids, grading sys-
tems, admission policies, course requirements and other
areas. Mr. Spolyar urged student personnel workers to
seek new ways to communicate effectively with the students
so that distrust would not move students and personnel
people into enemy camps.2
Data from the Faculty Characteristics Study con-
ducted by Robert C. Wilson and Jerry G. Gaff show a varied
faculty attitude toward student voting privileges in non-
academic and academic areas. Only nine per cent of the

1069 faculty members in the research sample thought that

students should have an equal vote with faculty in

 

1J. T. Horner and R. L. Horner, "Student Involve-

ment in Governance and Administration of Higher Education,"
NASPA, 4 (October, 1966), p. 59-6u.

2Ludwig J. Spolyar, "Student Power: Threat or
Challenge of Student Personnel?" NASPA, 6 (October, 1968),

pp. 7A-77.

..VHd-d.

P443~£ -
Sau-.-g

I]...

.v

 

.s
\
~-~-‘-
‘f"
,—
a“
9*.
a-
L.’
V
v-
‘1...
V‘-.
~v-
5‘
$‘,_
v._
"cflfi‘.
‘Q‘vd"
‘ \
"n« 7.-
-‘»‘ .‘
'[AJV‘
c' ‘.J'
:“A..‘ .3
~.."
‘wA
‘:
n ‘1;—
‘--r:ne.
‘v
Jr-
*.

1",
N
_ “
VDNL; ‘ c
‘Q Q \

 

60

developing academic policies. Both young and older
faculty were agreed in their attitudes. When asked about
student participation in social affairs, a more liberal
response appeared: forty—five per cent would accord
students equal voting rights on committees, and an
additional twenty per cent would leave the students
totally responsible for their own social regulations.l

Henderson, as do other writers, cautions that

there should be an understanding of the scope of respon-
sibility assigned to students. He said,

Educational progress is a professional under-
taking and it is essential that faculty and adminis-
tration have full authority over it and student.rela-
tionships to it. Students should participate, but not
control. It does not promote the welfare of the
group as a whole to become democratic to the extent
that everybody decides everything.2

Not everyone agrees with the recommendation to

involve students in all areas of university governance.
Fred Kerlinger at New York University makes a negative
point for student participation. He feels that students
should indeed participate in decisions that affect them
directly, but should not participate in decisions regard-

ing course content, curriculum, admission requirements

 

1University of California, Berkeley, "The
Campus Confrontations," The Research Reporter, Vol. IV,

No. l (1969), p. 3.

2Algo D. Henderson, Policies and Practices in
Higher Education (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1960),

p. 235-

 

 

61

and educational programs. They are too transient and
cannot take responsibility for their actions. He feels
that the respect and influence of the faculty will di-

minish if students are given equal debating and voting

privileges.1

J. E. Hodgetts, principal of Victoria University,
feels that student influence exists better outside of
the governing organizations. Students have a better

chance on the outside exerting pressures than they would

have if they were given official participation.2

President Kingman Brester, Jr. of Yale University
shares some of these same feelings about student partic-

ipation.

I do not think that the great maJority of
students want to spend very much of their time or
energy in the guidance and governance of their
university. They want to live and learn up to the
hilt, and make the most of what they know to be a
very unusual and remarkably short opportunity to
develop their capacities by trial and error in the
pursuit of personnal enthusiasms. Over and over
again this has been demonstrated even in times of
crises which shook and threatened the existence of
the institution

So assumption number one which led me to the
conviction that broader sharing of responsibility
for ultimate academic decisions is not the primary
thrust of useful university reform is: The maJority
is not sufficiently interested in devoting their time

 

1Fred N. Kerlinger, "Student Participation in
University Educational Decision Making," The Record, 70
(October, 1968), pp. U5-51.

2J. E. Hodgetts, "Some Hints on De-coding 'Student
Power,'" University Affairs, 9 (December, 1967), pp. 10-11.

 

62

and attention to the running of the university
to make it likely that "participatory democracy"
will be truly democratic.

Assumption number two is that most students
would rather have the policies of the university
directed by the faculty and administration than by
their classmates.

Brewster recommends that the answer to "unre-

sponsive administration" is not formal representation

in all matters, but rather "administrative accounta-
bility." He recommends full disclosure and public access
to the records on which decisions are made. There would
also be a "right of petition" for those affected by de-
cisions. Additionally, periodic reappraisal of the com-
petence of administration, to include all top administra—
tive officials including the president, should be con-
ducted.

Warren Martin, a research educator at Berkeley,
maintains that the two arguments against student partic-
ipation-—students are immature, and they have only a
limited stake in the university--are not valid. Most
college students today are mature and much more sophis-
ticated than Just ten years ago. The lack of continuity
in the university is not confined Just to students.
Faculty are highly mobile, and the tenure of a president

averages five years. He feels that the university should

reorganize to allow student participation at the departmental

 

1Kingman Brewster, Jr., "The Politics of Academia,"
Boston Sunday Globe, October 5, 1969.

. avqow

--Iy-’

4'};

.‘ol v-Ab

 

‘3‘
'3

~. g.,.
\b ‘

v
-

2v;

\‘U _
‘n n
‘

 

63

level, where important decisions are made, especially

in the large institutions.1
Other literature reviewed concurred with the

maJority of authors cited above that if students are

allowed to participate in the decision-making process,

they naturally will feel more obligation to cooperate

in moving the university forward. This theory may allow

students to develop self-reliance, a sense of responsi-

bility and potential leadership.

Communication of Conduct Policies and Rules

A maJor concern of college administrators is the
drafting, writing, and publication of the rules and reg-
ulations that govern student conduct. These rules,
however, are of little value if they are not communicated
in a systematic manner to the students. Colleges have
attempted a variety of ways to do this. Some produce a
comprehensive student handbook that lists the policies;
others use a college catalogue or bulletin; and some take
advantage of the student newspaper. Other media used to
communicate regulations includes campus bulletin boards,
letters to students and parents, broadcasts over campus
television and radio stations, and student orientation

and class meetings.

 

lWarren B. Martin, "Should Students Rule?"
Motive Magazine (1967), pp. 12-17.

 

, .
ng‘r» -‘

LAB catwa-

‘V’An v

«Au-tn. :.

W’s-I .-
VOob.“ ..
0 Q
1 .

k-..‘

HA-v
‘1“

~ -
\:V\§‘~
b. In-
H.“
‘1'.
,.
9- Vs
1“. ‘
'4
V
I
‘0‘ ‘
“-:
‘
I
~
\‘kn *
~‘v.
9 ._
V5.
v-
“'6 AV
b-
...
.
‘cv‘h
.
Lg’
.‘ 1v- ‘

 

6A

A review of the literature indicates the favored
method to communicate policies is an organized orienta-
tion program that is designed to reach the maJority of
students. Esther Kronovetl found in a survey of 1,378
colleges and universities that ninety-two per cent of
them had some type of orientation program. While varying
in length and type, most were provided during all or
part of the week prior to the beginning of classes.

About fifteen per cent consisted of a semester or longer
course. Goals of the orientation programs included an
introduction to college life, facilities, facts, remedial
work, or discussion courses. Among the information pre-
sented at the orientation meetings was a discussion of
the rules and regulations governing student behavior.

Lowell Gifford2 feels that since orientation to
life is the goal of education, orientation to the univer-
sity is only the initial step in a much broader goal.

The orientation program is designed to aid students with
their problems on a basis other than a one-to-one rela-
tionship. The aims of the program should include (1) pro-

viding new students with knowledge of the physical

 

lEsther Kronovet, "Current Practices in Freshman
Orientation Throughout the United States (paper read at
American Personnel and Guidance Association, Washington,
April, 1966)

2Lowell D. Gifford, "Orientation for What?"
Proceedings of the Canadian Association of University
Student Personnel Services (Vancouver, October, 1966),

pp. 67-71.

 

 

O
A vv‘“’
..r.
bu. ..

,
F1'.G

&%‘v

Q
.‘fl 6;.
...- S

 

r “P-
v_ ,—
§‘._‘
7‘“
.-
‘
V. .‘fi:
. v.‘
»‘~
. ‘
II 5"
‘
UV
._
g
‘
n
a
\
.-
4
N

A ~
-h"
\
..
g .
‘\
., ‘
-

65

environment of the university, campus personnel, campus
rules and regulations, educational offerings and require-
ments, and various student activities; (2) helping stu-
dents understand themselves better through test data
and personal information; and (3) encouraging freshmen
to accept personal responsibility and leadership.
Johnsonl gave credit to Reed College of Oregon
for starting the first orientation course for credit
in the 1911-12 academic year. These programs gained in
importance following World War I and again after World
War II as many servicemen increased the college enroll-
ments. He lists the University of Southern California,
Oklahoma, Maine, Akron, and Michigan as having good
programs.
According to Johnson, these are objectives of
a college orientation program:

1. To familiarize the student with regulations,
customs, and traditions of the campus.

2. To give the student information and advice
relative to college life and problems in general.

3. To complete the routine of registration.
A. To make freshmen and new students feel welcome.
5. To establish a basis of contact with students

upon which personnel and guidance services may
be built.

 

lDudley Johnson, Jr., "College Orientation Pro-
cedures," (unpublished Master's thesis, University of
Southern California, Los Angeles, 1961).

 

 

 

I
. X . ... . l. ... .. . ...
Ta 3 . .3 at S a. w M .. .
a: w“ ... G. 4 . .. .n.. e a
o o . 5 n. .. . 5. n . .. e a.
my. .9,» n . A. . e e ... e 2. ”4 ...
a e ..C .... 4 . .1 r .. 2. ...

I ‘ .
‘\~ ~ g
~.. .1
Z. ..4
h. a:
‘1» ..u.

S: .

J. a: ...n .u‘ e .
. . e. ... 2‘
a. r. ._ e e . ....
n. ... To .. e.

N»\.\ n ‘e

...
na‘

66

In a study at the University of Washington,

Dr. L. J. Spolyarl visited thirteen universities to
obtain current information concerning orientation pro-
grams. He divided the programs into four basic cate-
gories: academic, intellectual, mechanics, and activ-
ities. The academic area includes all events related to
academic departments, introduction to faculty and de-
partmental requirements. Intellectual activities include
such functions as lecture series, faculty open houses,
meetings for superior or scholarship students, chats

with the faculty, summer reading, and how-to-study pro-
grams. The mechanics area includes events that are
usually administrative in nature such as testing, phy—
sical examinations, advising, registration, and campus
tours. Activity functions include open houses, concerts,
parents days, social programs, carnivals, dances, picnics,
religious meetings and other traditional events.

A most interesting finding in the study is that
in all thirteen institutions, the activities events far
outweigh and sometimes outnumber those in any of the
other three categories, thus leading to a conclusion
that colleges are more concerned with life adjustment than

academic adJustment.

 

lLudwig J. Spolyar, "Summary of Orientation Pro-
grams as Reported by Thirteen Selected Universities" (un-
published report to Ad-hoc Committee to Study Orientation
and Registration at the University of Washington, May, 1963).

II III I
I: r». C L“ .1“ n .C F. Le ...». ...
a. 4‘
.L . .
... 3
v“ .n..

 

67

Discussiong the goals of orientation, Black said:

Orientation is a process designed to overcome reluc-
tance to give one's all, designed to break down the
barriers that stand between the opportunity that
college offers and the ability of the student to
make the most of this opportunity. Orientation
comprises those services which assist students to
become better acquainted with a new education
environment--the curricular offerings, student
organizations and activities, school policies,
rules and regulations and their fellow students

and faculty.

One writer, Lee, expressed some doubt as to the
value of the typical college orientation program:

A student who arrives ready and willing to be
plunged immediately into the rigors of a tough
class schedule is let down by the discovery that
his mentors consider him incapable of facing it
until he has been properly conditioned. Mass
"orientation" programs are planned to help freshmen
settle comfortably and congenially into their college
environment, yet the impression inadvertently left
by the agenda is that the college is more concerned
with introducing its recreational facilities than
its cultural opportunities.2

Eddy3 has indicated that colleges fail to recog-
nize the importance of the freshman year in gaining and
holding student interest in academic work. He notes that

colleges must take great effort to make known the underlying

 

1Bernard R. Black, "Student Needs and Orientation
Directors' Aspirations," The Journal of College Student
Personnel, Vol. 6, No. 2 (December, l96u), pp. 102—108.

2

 

Lee, God Bless Our Queer Old Dean.

3Edward D. Eddy, The College Influence on Student
Character (Washington, D. 0.: American Council on Educa-
tion, 1959), p. 100.

 

68

postulates of both its academic and student conduct
programs. Misunderstandings can develop very quickly.
If there are not sound reasons behind the rules and
regulations, and if these reasons, as well as the rules,
are not made known to the students, then cooperation

will be withheld.

Summary

Governing boards of universities are granted
authority under state charter to admit students to the
institution, develop rules and regulations to govern
their behavior, and authorize officials to regulate
student conduct and provide programs and services many
of which involve regulation of student behavior. The
president and the faculty traditionally hold the respon-
sibility for maintenance of student discipline. Often
this authority is delegated to a dean of students who
administers a university's disciplinary program.

In the early history of American higher educa-
tion, the rules and punishments were strict and severe.
Currently, however, student discipline programs emphasize
rehabilitation and re-education rather than punishment as
desirable obJectives. Rule-making and rule-enforcing
functions are often shared with students, faculty and
administrators. The rules and their enforcement emphasize
fair play in the treatment of students by institutions

of higher education. Williamson comments on the leadership

 

 

.... s .. l ... e
i e. «C :e a. .T ... .e .r..
3 1 E 2 . . 9 i . . C.
u 1. e .2 C .r... .. _ .J .. . 3
Au .1 .t C. T. T. +. C A.
.l C .-. w .. ...H E .. l n n
u» .u .. . r; .. . ri. w... e o 3 re
.1 I C .... g c .. o e a
.3 4n. n. .C S n :3
w” r” .... «3 .... ..e mi
.. . pd «(V «D .C ‘3 a. A:
G» e . u. . .h.. vs.
. . .2 .-. .«4 . e
.A . . e u 2. r.. v. .
n. a... v. . —._ a: r».

69

role colleges must take to assure fair play and reasonable
rules:

Clearly, an institution of higher learning would
be in the vanguard of society in shielding the
individual against unjust, arbitrary, capricious,
and unilateral action by administrators or by
committees of faculty and student members.l

Emphasis is placed on the importance of making
rules both clear and just. Such considerations are
stated in the Preamble to the "Joint Statement" or as
it is sometimes called, the "Student Bill of Rights."
Each institution should work to develop campus regulations
and codes of conduct which aid in the development of a
proper atmosphere for learning. The last paragraph
speaks to the development of this desired purpose:

The responsibility to secure and to respect general
conditions conducive to the freedom to learn is
shared by all members of the academic community.

Each college and university has a duty to develop
policies and procedures which provide and safeguard
this freedom. Such policies and procedures should

be developed at each institution within the frame—
work of general standards and with the broadest
possible participation of the members of the academic
community. The purpose of this statement is to enum—
erate the essential provisions for student freedom

to learn.2

The present study describes the efforts of a

selected number of institutions to meet this challenge.

 

1E. G. Williamsen, Student Personnel Services in

Colleges and Universities (New York: McGraw—Hill Book
Company, 1961).

 

 

2Joint Statement, under the auspices of American
Association of University Professors.

 

It is an attemp
:0 meeting the

5.. ‘
smcent codes 0

 

70

It is an attempt to determine how close universities come
to meeting the requirement of providing fair and just

student codes of conduct.

Q~

CO

. 4

Q .
2"” "G‘FA
..u. ...v atav“

nu

n!

'zth
4-
" n I

CHAPTER III

DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

Introduction

 

Chapter III is devoted to a description of the
methods and procedures used to conduct the research.
These two areas will be reviewed: (1) Population
and method of sampling. (2) Procedures used to obtain

and analyze the data.

Population and Selection of the Sample

 

The main objective of this study, in addition to
its historical importance, was to present information that
could serve as background material to update and recon—
sider current policies that attempt to regulate student
behavior. An effort was made to secure a variety of
descriptive data on a wide range of issues as quickly
as possible. A primary objective was to obtain data that
would be useful to practicing student personnel administra-
tors in coping with various problems and the rapid changes
in student behavior. It was not the intent of the study
to provide comprehensive and normative data but rather to

gain a degree of understanding of institutional approaches

71

:

tothe issues

A‘
\—

uctive a

‘
5.1"

N"
UUAO

neto school

FR
\
uni
“
nab
A,
..v

taile"

a de

 

72

to the issues in sufficient depth to form a basis for
constructive action.

Nineteen items that are current and often trouble-
some to school administrators were identified. It was
surmised that a general knowledge of institutional
practices concerning these items was somewhat limited and
that a detailed description might be helpful, both in
terms of the per cent of universities formally communi-
cating the policies to the students and a review of the
substantive elements of the policies.

The nineteen items are listed below.

1. Academic Irregularity

2. Use and Possession of Alcoholic Beverages

3 Drugs

A Hazing

5. Women's Dormitory Hours

6 Dormitory Room Entrance and Inspection
7 Entertainment of Members of the Opposite Sex

in Residence Hall Living Quarters
8. Theft
9. Confidentiality of Student Records
10. Compulsory Class Attendance
11. Student Demonstrations
l2. Disruptive Activities
13. Invitation of Controversial Speakers to Campus

14. Unacceptable Off-Campus Behavior

e
r
o e
xni.
m A

:1 no‘

«.1.

.icns wou

.

k -v
ucxe "7"

cf the a

 

I

an).
uvui

‘7‘
‘eo‘

“A
c

A ..
a
v .

”‘th

to...

.. ,3.

M

y‘,‘

 

73

15. "Student Rights" in Procedural Due Process

16. Procedural Due Process

17. Deviant Sexual Behavior

18. Dress and Appearance

l9. Recognition of Student Organizations

The researcher was aware that a number of institu-
tions would not have formally adopted regulations in some
of the above variables. Additionally, it was understood
that some institutions that might have formally adopted
regulations in all these areas might not have systemati-
cally communicated the policies to students in handbooks.

Using the Education Directory1 as a source, forty

 

colleges and universities were chosen randomly by use of
a random number table for each of the following catagor-
ies: (1) Large state colleges and universities with
more than 10,000 students. (2) Small state colleges and
universities with less than 10,000 students. (3) Large
private colleges and universities with more than 5,000
students. (A) Small private colleges and universities
with less than 5,000 students. (5) Religious colleges
and universities.

A letter was mailed to each of the 200 colleges
or universities requesting a copy of their student hand-

book containing the policies and regulations used to

 

1Education Directory, l968-69--Part 3, Higher
Education, (Washington, D. C. : U. S. Government
Office, 1968).

 

e

E C .1 L...

 

C».
L...
U

 

 

.-
%

,
2+

de
te

1..
.AQ Sta
7‘.
Priv

cl st

“vs-
V
..
’\_"'l!
..
~m--l

,"
-—'C

.454.
v

 

 

 

Mr‘r

my ~ . do .
S O S 2.. o . e . t
.5. ..h t T.
my A» o 5 v Q» S a: n
a: O n Q» .. d «Q 1 4+
“1 k e cal a» e n . «...
4 u «G .fia S ~b Pb. L w
n... 3Q -. e i ..
a: 2. fig “4 A» Q.»
u. 2: no. 3 1 . a...
4 u a. r. ... e
h. a. u e A... a u 4. A h;
.. e «C 2‘ h .. l . J ‘ 2,.
... . ..a A e e e e a ‘11.. FL.

 

74

control student life. Table 1 indicates the number of

institutions responding to the request.

TABLE 1.--Response to the Request for Student Handbooks

 

 

No. in No. Per Cent
Sample Responded Responded

 

Large State Schools 40 A0 100
Small State Schools NO 37 90
Large Private Schools A0 36 90
Small Private Schools 40 35 87
Religious Schools 3g 33 80
TOTAL 200 181 90

 

Each of the institutions responding to the request
for handbooks was listed. A table of random numbers was
used again to choose 20 schools from each of the five
categories. These 100 handbooks were then included in
the present study.

The geographical distribution of the 100 institu-
tions is as follows: 28 per cent in the New England/
Middle Atlantic region; 25 per cent in the South; 27
per cent in the North Central States; and 20 per cent

in the West.

 

hand:

their

in

‘ V
:nrAfl s
Ugo-UV- .

‘i‘ w ..n tint-v-
-... ‘no‘ 9 “:‘.

a
en.

.1

 

r‘
‘C-U‘

~
‘$n
N's

15‘s

hv-wl
. ...‘Ije re :

'%

 

‘V
av]
b

*3 T31:-

is

75

Analyzing the Date

 

One of the main objectives of the study was to
determine the per cent of institutions that communicate
in their handbooks policies concerning the nineteen
variables listed above. It was intended that compari-
sons be drawn between the five categories, in addition
to comparisons between state, private, and religious
schools. A final comparison between large institutions
with more than 10,000 students and smaller colleges and
universities was intended also.

In addition to the per cent comparisons, a main
emphasis of the study was to detail examples of the sub-
stantive elements so that student personnel administra-
tors could have access to current written policies from
a wide variety of institutions. An effort was made also
to outline the philosophical rationale used to justify
student codes of conduct as stated in the handbooks, to
determine methods used to establish and revise the codes,
and to list any apparent trends.

Using a checklist on which the nineteen variables
were outlined, the researcher read carefully each hand-
book in an attempt to identify explicit policies in each
of the nineteen areas of concern. If a school outlined
its policy in the handbook, it was noted on the summary
sheets.

Following a review of the handbooks to determine

the per cent listing policies, another reading produced

n~“.’
.‘UUV

W

S.

I
aflu

a».

 

 

76

written examples of each policy to be used as an aid to
personnel workers in developing their own codes. Final
readings of the handbooks identified stated purposes
and values of the codes, the rationale on which they
are justified, the means of development and revision,

and any apparent trends.

 

 

 

fiAy- "5

A

. .—

'U ‘1‘.’ v
.

T a

_ ‘ \

1..., ~

A

’1“; t
-.-

2 “:v
"r~..

K

3’: ,.
."~. \
A'A~v~.
bv“u.

-\

tine
-..g

CHAPTER IV

ANALYSIS OF THE DATA

Introduction

 

This chapter contains an analysis of the data
concerning the issues under scrutiny: (1) What are
the stated values or purposes of student codes of conduct?
(2) What rationale do universities use to Justify their
policies regarding student non-academic life? (3) How
are the codes developed and revised? (A) What are the
apparent trends in student code development? (5) What
per cent of the institutions reviewed for this study
communicate in their student handbooks policies for the
nineteen variables identified in Chapter I? (6) What
percentage differences exist among varying university
sizes and types in communicating policies in the hand-
books? (7) What is the content or substantive elements

of these policies?

Value and Purpose of Student Codes of Conduct
University student handbooks were reviewed to
identify statements that outlined the purposes of student

codes of conduct. A maJority of the handbooks precede

77

 

 

5"": “my-'-
u'

-. ‘1‘..-

[U

cr
\

In

78

specific regulations and policies with an introduction
outlining the goals of the university and setting forth

a need to create and maintain a living, social and campus
environment which allows the greatest possible freedom

to learn. In order to preserve this educational pur-
pose, to protect the individual's freedom to learn and
develop, to maintain an order to its operation, and to
continue a necessary degree of harmony with its surround-
ing environment, the university develops certain regula-
tions and limitations on behavior.

1

The University of Iowa indicates guidelines to

be used when members of the university community consider
matters that may require regulation by written code:

1. All the University's resources must be fully
employed in the intellectual and personal
development of its students.

2. Institutional regulations should be adopted only
when necessary to the achievement of the University's
academic goals, the safety and freedom of indi-
viduals, or the orderly operation of the University.

3. Students should be encouraged to participate,
through orderly procedures, in the establishment
and revision of regulations governing their
conduct.

A. Regulations should be clearly stated, and made
conveniently available to every student.

5. Disciplinary action for violation of regulations
should be corrective, rather than punitive.

6. Disciplinary procedures should be consistent with
the principle of due process, channels of appeal

 

1University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, Student
Guide, 1969-70. p. l.

79

should be clearly defined, and information re-
lating to appeals should be readily accessible
to all students.

7. Institutional regulations cannot provide specif-
ically for every question of conduct under every
set of circumstances which might arise; they are
intended to define the practice ordinarily necess-
ary to maintain working order in a complex system,
and to protect the essential freedoms of everyone
in the community.

1 introduces its set of regu—

Cornell University
lations by saying that no policy or regulation can be of
influence in the community without representative student
participation in formulating the rules. The policies at
Cornell are based on the guiding principle that each stu—
dent should take major responsibility for the governance
of his own affairs. Each student has an obligation to
conduct his life so as to show consideration for the
rights and integrity of the community and its members.
The student handbook is presented to make clear to all
students and student organizations the nature of their
obligations as members of an educational community and
to establish the consequences of any failure to meet
those obligations for which they are held accountable.

The handbook at Indiana State University sets
forth in its introduction an informal moral agreement

between the student and the institution. Students agree

to obey the rules and regulations both of an academic and

 

1Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, Policy
Notebook for Students, and Desk Book, 1969-70, p. l.

a
Li

rflY‘-

A‘VI‘
afar":
VOUM

I. 1.. .1. . u ‘q 11 u .‘\ 1 .1 .IL Frh _\N fi - h - V. k u S H er.-

aC 3 a. a. .5 .... u. 3 n. ... 3: e a... .1 E .1 e . c o 5
av 4“ .. ”a 2.. G» .au h. 5. o‘. h...

4‘ ..u .. . we. a. Le a. 2. 2. . . H. av

r“ .3 e 7. a h . a: a. .n u . . L .. ... e A e v. .

C .4. a: e . a: we. 3 . nu e - ... .4 5... a . ..., .

8O

non-academic nature and observe the standards of student
conduct expected of all students. The University agrees
to furnish the student an environment conducive to growth
and development. A major purpose and value of regulations
is to guarantee that the educational opportunity for each
student to develop his individual abilities is not our-
tailed. Indiana indicates that, "If a student violates

a public law or university regulation, refuses to take
prescribed courses, or does inferior academic work, this
is evidence that his relationship with the university
needs attention." University officials are charged with
the responsibility of taking the necessary action to
clarify the student—university relationship and to assure
that both the student and the university fulfill their
obligations.

Southern Methodist University1 uses as its basis
for establishing student conduct regulations a paragraph
from the "Joint Statement":2

Standards of Conduct Expected of Students--The
institution has an obligation to clarify those
standards of behavior which it considers essential to
its educational mission and its community life.
These general behavioral expectations and the resul-

tant specific regulations should represent a reason-
able regulation of student conduct but the student

 

1Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas,
The SMU Encheridion, 1969-70, p. 13.

2American Association of University Professors,
et. al, "Joint Statement."

81

should be as free as possible from imposed limitations
that have no direct relevance to his education.
Offenses should be as clearly defined as possible

and interpreted in a manner consistent with the afore-
mentioned principles of relevancy and reasonableness.
Disciplinary proceedings should be instituted only

for violations of standards of conduct formulated

with significant student participation and published
in advance through available body of institutional
regulations.

At St. Anselm's College1 the purpose of the social
regulations is to serve as a practical guide to a profit-
able participation in the life of the student community.
The code indicates that regulations are not ends in them-
selves. They are formulated to assist the college student
to achieve those goals of Catholic higher education-—
namely: intellectual formation, spiritual development
and social graces. Framingham State College2 in a handout
to students provides some helpful hints on understanding
rules. The College indicates that rules of conduct are
not and should not be oppressive. They should be utilized
as natural controls on student life. A student's life
will be made easier and less complicated by knowing and
obeying formal and informal rules of conduct. The value

and need for these rules are outlined in this statement:

Many people still believe that the written word alone
is law, and they will not be civil unless their conduct

 

lSt. Anselm's College, Manchester, New Hampshire,
Student Handbook, 1969-70, p. 13.

2Framingham State College, Framingham, Massachusetts,
Student Handbook, 1969-70, and "Helpful Hints on Under-
standing Rules,‘r 1969.

 

82

is controlled by written rules no matter how unpleasant
their conduct appears to their neighbors. For them,
we still bother to write out rules of conduct with
the hope that one day they will learn to live in a
more positive, self-initiated way. We may pride our-
selves on the fact that our written rules are few,
for this indicates how natural good manners have be-
come on our Campus. But written rules are here to
stay as we consider them as a necessary means of ex-
plaining those rules we consider to be the minimum
level of conduct we desire, and we need them as evi-
dence that the violator must know our rules.
Framingham State lists the following reasons why
individuals obey rules:
1. Because their socialization has taught them to
respect the rules of conduct of their society as
a sign of social maturity.

2. Because of the fear of punishment or sanctions
society may place against them.

3. Because since they made the rules themselves,
they see the immediate need for such rules.

u. Because they understand the need for certain
rules of conduct.

5. Because the rules of conduct are of direct
advantage to their needs.

A reading of the codes emphasizes the variety of
ways that universities state the purposes and values of
student regulations. Generally they stress that the
primary responsibility for preserving the system of
order rests upon the individuals making up the community.
Each individual must accept responsibility for his own
actions and values and for recognizing that his actions
and values reflect upon the whole community. Implicit
in the community's recognition of the rights of the
individual is an obligation on the part of the student to

accept his responsibilities toward the community.

83

Rationale

 

From their early beginning, universities have

traditionally acted in loco parentis. They have worked

 

under the assumption that students are not capable of
approaching and utilizing the facilities of an institu-
tion of higher learning as adults, in a mature manner.
In 1913 Berea College in Kentucky1 passed a rule which
prohibited any of its students from patronizing any off-
campus restaurant. The court upheld this regulation
stating that:

. . . college authorities stand in loco_parentis
concerning the physical and moral welfare and mental
training of pupils. For the purposes of this case,
the school, its officers and students are a legal
entity, as any family and, like a father may direct
his children, those in charge of boarding schools are
well within their rights and powers when they direct
their students what to eat and where they may get it;
where they may go and what forms of amusement are
forbidden.

 

This attitude on the part of universities has
prevailed since the beginning of higher education in
America. In a society where parents did indeed govern
their children's lives almost completely, this concept
has some meaning. However, this is not the case today,
and many universities are attempting to move away from
this type of parental control.

The student handbooks chosen for this study were

 

lGolt v. Berea College, 150 Ky. 376 (1913).

..
”,1:

h. ....
2. ‘ru
n c . .

 

a

 

 

G

v...

A
5 r-

 

8H

reviewed to identify statements or policies that either

support the concept of in loco parentis or attempt to

 

reduce its influence.

An attempt to reject the concept of in loco
parentis is outlined by the University of Bridgeport.1
The student code states that "by recognizing the respon-
sibilities, dignity and worth of all individuals and
groups on campus, the University can effectively elim-

inate the out-dated concept of in loco parentis." This

 

same belief is expressed in part by the code at Cornell

2

University which rejects the "service facility" and

in loco parentis views of a university as unsuitable for

 

Cornell's needs.

3

Brown University also expresses its concern in

the area of paternalism:

In our view, the concept of in loco parentis--if
indeed it can be dignified by calling it a concept--
is essentially irrelevant to the problems confront-
ing Brown University. For reasons that we have
already noted, a university community such as Brown,
which includes young people in various states of
developing maturity, must have a certain number of
basic student conduct regulations. It must also ex-
press its legitimate concern through counselling and
education.

 

 

1University of Bridgeport, Bridgeport, Connecticut,
Key to U B, 1969-70, p. 3.

2
Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, Policy Note-
book for Students, and Desk Book, 1969-70, p. 3.

 

3Brown University, Providence Rhode Island,
Community and Partnership: Student Conduct at Brown,
1967, p. 2.

12:11

5.4.

A“

V.
V»:
9...;

A:

5'

e S l i nu. e C. 3 no {.1 v».

 

85

Brown University, along with many others, finds it
very desirable to discard peternalism, but they have diff-
iculty in doing so completely.

As indicated in the previous section of this
chapter, most of the codes include a basic statement of
principle or purpose under which a code is defended. It
usually develops an outline of the goals of the college
or university, which includes the acquisition and dis-
pensing of knowledge. Included also in the statement
of purpose will be a reference to the "development of
students" and the need to maintain a proper atmosphere
for learning. Everyone has the responsibility to maintain
this academic atmosphere. Using this purpose as a guide,
universities develop a variety of parental rules, and
failure to obey these rules may subject the student to
university discipline. The University of Washington1
makes this clear:

The University is maintained by society for the
accomplishment of certain special purposes, namely,
the provision of programs of instruction in higher
education, the advancement of knowledge through
scholarship and research, and the provision of re-
lated community services. Like any other social
institution having its own special purposes, the
University must maintain conditions conducive to
effective performance of its functions. Conse-
quently, it has special expectations regarding the
conduct of the various participants in the academic
community. Student conduct which distracts from or

interferes with the accomplishments of University
purposes is not acceptable.

 

1University of Washington, Regulations on Student
Conduct and Discipline, 1967, p. 2.

n+1-
av;
lt-UOO

V“ 5"",

.a i 9
n1 .5“
a o .1 .
-..-u n.

n y.

€ a n
t v 2‘
«\h fi\b

.3

«\y
a. 1

86

Many schools now desire only to regulate those
activities that affect their functions and purposes.
Michigan State University1 makes a real effort to outline
quite clearly which functions will be supervised. The
Academic Freedom for Students Report indicates that,
"There shall be no regulation unless there is a demon-
strable need for it which is reasonably related to the
basic purposes and necessities of the University as
stipulated herein." The University of California at
San Diego2 points out that, "a student enrolling in
the University assumes an obligation to conduct himself
in a manner compatible with the University's function
as an educational institution." From the "Joint Statea
ment" comes the recommendation that, "Only where the in-
stitution's interests as an academic community are dis-
tinct and clearly involved would the special authority
of the institution be asserted."

Universities generally agree that any behavior
that will impair the intellectual atmosphere and normal
functions of the school cannot be condoned and must be
regulated. Some of these concerns still leave the uni-

versity in the position of providing rules that border

 

1Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan,
A Handbook for Students, 1968, and Academic Freedom for
Students, 1969, p. 2.

2University of California, San Diego, California,
Student Handbook, 1969-70, p. 8.

 

 

 

 

I
”VI
VA \
6";
v..-
5!!va

 

-.

9",:zv
VI ‘
‘ I

“’P~.>. A”

‘r‘

V“-‘v

9-».-

 

 

-.
::.h- ’-
N“ '
*3
.0 ~ -.
.
"' v
v: an,» ‘.
'5
.. w .,
I. 7“: y
C“' “
7‘
r:
«
ais‘1 ‘
"‘v“ v...
a
.1 ‘4‘
.
‘

 

87

on paternalism. The University of Oregon1 provides
an example:

The University may apply sanctions or take other
appropriate action only when student conduct directly
and significantly interfers with the University's
(a) primary educational responsibility of ensuring
the opportunity of all members of the University
community to attain their educational objectives,
or (b) subsidiary responsibilities of protecting
the health and safety of persons in the University
community, maintaining and protecting property,
keeping records, providing living accommodations
and other services, and sponsoring non—classroom
activities such as lectures, concerts, athletic
events, and social functions.

At Cornell University2 the school may apply
sanctions or take other appropriate action only when the
student's actions severely affect the University's
interests, namely: (1) The opportunity of all members
of the University community to attain their educational
objectives. (2) The generation and maintenance of an
intellectual and educational atmosphere throughout the
University community. (3) The protection of health,
safety, welfare, property and human rights of all members
of the University community, and the safety and property
of the University itself.

Even though the trend is to move away from par-

ental rules, especially in the larger colleges and

_¥

1University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon, Student
Handbook, 1969-70, p. 56.

2Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, Polio
Notebook for Students, and Desk Book, 1969-70, p 6

 

 

 

vr.VI
‘s. V

f'” ‘
‘1.

’Lr‘t

oublt J I

~
on "
u 'l

Q -~

fi'wn».
Vauu,‘
.

 

 

v

at.
y-

-fl

v
. A
‘.

.

88

universities, a large percentage of the codes reviewed
for this study still maintain considerable control over
non-academic life. Southeastern Louisiana Collegel indi-
cates that women students may not visit off—campus apart-
ments, or other off-campus housing for men, unless prop-
erly chaperoned. Approved chaperons must be registered
in the Office of the Division of Student Life. Students
who violate this regulation may be suspended from the
rolls of the College. At Kentucky State College2 off-
campus students who are not living in their own homes or
the homes of their parents must reside in homes approved
by the College. Students under twenty-one years of age
who desire to reside off—campus must have written par-
ental consent to do so.4 Senior men and those men students
over twenty-one years of age at Niagra University3 may
request permission to live off—campus provided their
parents submit permission on a written form. Central

A

State University will not allow a student to change an

 

1Southeastern Louisiana College, Hammond, Louis-
iana, The Student Handbook, 1969, and Living Standards
for Women Students, 1969, p. 30.

2Kentucky State College, Frankfort, Kentucky,
The K-Book, 1968, and Supplement, 1969, p. 26.

3Niagra University, Niagra, New York, Information
fiandbook for Undergraduate Students, 1969-70, p. 2H.

“Central State University, Wilberforce, Ohio,
§§udent Handbook, 1969, p. 35.

 

 

 

 

 

' v

1“

 

 

 

3 .

a a

PA

CL
.r 5

 

89

off-campus residence without approval of the Dean of
Men and the parent or guardian.

Another interesting example of in locoAparentis

 

is in the requirement for chaperones. Eastern Montana
Collegel serves as an example, which is prevalent in a
number of colleges:

All social events sponsored by student organiza-
tions require the presences of the group's approved
adviser and one or more faculty persons, or their
equivalent, as guests. The presence of these persons
acts as a leveling influence, presents opportunity
for growth and social interaction by the students,
and leads dignity to an event. Adviser and guests
must be present from the time the activity opens
until it ends. They must be familiar with college
regulations concerning conduct and are required to
report any violations.

Chartered student organizations may secure per-
mission from the Director of Student Activities and
the Dean of Students to hold events off-campus.

At Northern Arizona University2 no one can solicit
on-campus. A student may invite a sales person to visit
him, but the salesman must have the approval of the Dean
of Students to do so. It may be necessary on occasions
to do a credit review on the salesman, and a charge will
be made for this action. The West Texas State University3

may take action against a student who has bad debts

 

lEastern Montana College, Billings, Montana,
Student Handbook, 1969-70, p. 19.

2Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Arizona,
Student Handbook, 1969-70, p. 14.

3West Texas State University, Cayon, Texas,
General Policy Statements of Student Life, 1969-70, p. 8.

9O

off-campus. The University will not collect bad checks
or bad debts for off-campus businesses; businessmen will
be provided with the names and addresses of students and
their parents upon their request.

Some schools may take on a parental concern re-
garding marriage. At Wheaton College1 students planning
to marry during the academic year must file written not-
ification to the Student Personnel Office thirty days
in advance of the wedding. A statement from the student's
parents, advising the College that the parents are aware
of the planned marriage, must be filed with the notifica-
tion of marriage. At Oklahoma Baptist University2 a stu—
dent who marries during the college year without the per-
mission of parents and the knowledge of the Dean of Stu-
dents may be asked to withdraw from the University.

No academic credit will be given for work in progress at

the time of withdrawal. Antioch College3

requires a
student planning to be married to have the written consent
of parents otherwise and have a clearance with the Dean of

Students Office.

 

1Wheaton College, Wheaton, Illinois, Student
Handbook, 1969—70, p. 31.

2
Oklahoma Baptist University, Shawnee, Oklahoma,
The Green Book, l969-70, p. 41.

3Antioch College, Yellow Springs, Ohio, Antioch
Community Handbook, 1969-70, p. 22.

 

 

 

: r-w
u .o-Autlv
:na 2‘-
‘OV “V \-

 

Uhl‘v V“

W:.;A~~fi

-doxg“

O

9‘
, Q ‘M
...~l u‘
s}: .
a 1: INF
u‘" v“
53.. .
v..e C
-.
v
+rac.

.
\‘ n
w: ‘5

v“

91

A review of the codes, in relation to their con-
trol of students on the basis of the traditional phil-

osophy of in loco parentis, leads to a conclusion that

 

a number of universities, especially the larger ones,

are attempting to move away from this close control. They
are writing their codes with the idea that students must
be responsible for their own acts. This assumes also
that they are mature enough to make proper decisions
without the constant supervision of university officials.
This trend will be made more clear in a later section of
this chapter dealing with a description of the substan-
tive elements in the codes. It should be noted, however,
that even though there is an effort toward fewer rules
governing non-academic activities, with rare exceptions,
universities still exert considerable control over the

student's life.

Code Development and Revision

 

A review of the student handbooks reveals that
less than 25 per cent of them contain specific procedures
used to revise and develop student codes. Of those list-
ing procedures, however, the majority allowed for student
participation in recommending policies that affect non-
academic life.

Generally the university will establish a committee

on student affairs that will be responsible for recommending

 

rfi" q"
A l
...D we
.
"V‘Wgh:
‘bD‘V-C

M. 91 1
vi: a-..

C
“cue:

u .4
.H‘U-

H .

u:'§ .

92

changes to the regulations. The University of Massachusetts1
has such a committee composed of eight faculty members, nine
undergraduate students, and the Dean of Students ex officio.
Its responsibility is to review and make recommendations

on all non-academic rules and regulations, including non-
academic discipline, student rights, dormitory life, and

all other matters of common concern to the faculty and
students which are not within the scope of responsibility

of some other regular or special committee of the faculty
senate. The Committee also advises the Dean of Students

on recommended policies for the operation of student
personnel services. It does not have supervisory powers
over the Student Senate or over recognized student orga-
nizations.

The rules governing student life at Southern
Methodist University2 are determined by the Faculty Rules
and Regulations Committee and can be changed only by the
following means:

1. Requests for rule change must be submitted by
student organizations through their policy-
committee chairman, their president, or a desig-
nated student member.

2. Proposals, when they are properly submitted, will
be put on the committee calendar and will be heard
1University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts,

§§udent Handbook, 1969-70, p. 6.

2Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas,
Ehe SMU Encheridion, 1969-70, p. 19.

93
by the committee chronologically, according to
their date of submission.

3. The proposed change will not be considered by the
committee less than seven days after twenty-five
copies of the proposal have been submitted in
writing to the committee chairman.

A. The chairman of the Faculty Committee on Rules
and Regulations will make all press releases of
committee decisions.

5. Committee meetings will be scheduled regularly,
once a month, with called meetings at any other
necessary time.

6. All procedural rules can be waived by a unanimous
vote of the committee.

A few schools make the process of change less
formal. Niagara Universityl allows its code to be changed
by a majority vote of the students, provided the majority
is representative of more than one-third of the student
body and provided the amendment is ratified by the
University Senate, and the Administrative Council and
has received ultimate approval of the Board of Trustees.
Students at Southeast Missouri State College2 may recommend
the adoption of new regulations. These rules, however,
will be reviewed by the president of the college who may
designate a committee to review the proposed change. The

president has the final authority to adopt new or amended

 

lNiagara University, Niagara, New York, Information

 

Handbook for Undergraduate Students, 1969-70, p._65.

2Southeast Missouri State College, Cape Gerardeau,
Missouri, Student Handbook, 1969, p. 1b.

‘-

wu‘

A

'bili

respCflSl

"e

1
4..‘

Q

oca

7'.

allows any

 

Q
OACUCtS a

RAF
9

-4..-

‘

0“,»
Cu

ORS St

v
I"

a

 

 

 

 

9“

rules, regulations and procedures concerning student
responsibilities and discipline.

The University of California at San Diego1
allows any member of the University community to initiate
change and amendment of the policies, rules and regula-
tions simply by making his specific concern known to an
appropriate administrative officer of the campus. A
student affairs committee at the State College of Arkansas2
conducts a continuing study of College policies and regu—
lations stated in the student handbook and makes recommen—
dations to the president for possible needed changes and
revisions.

Some institutions do not list specific procedures
used to change rules but do make reference to the role
that students play in the operation. Xavier University3
states in its handbook that during the year students will
continue to participate in establishing guidelines for the

following year. Texas Christian University“ indicates

 

1
University of California, San Diego, California,
Student Handbook, 1969-70, p. 2.

 

2State College of Arkansas, Conway, Arkansas,
Handbook, 1969-70, p. 10.

3Xavier University of Louisiana, New Orleans,
Louisiana, Student Handbook, l968-69, p. 3.

“Texas Christian University, Fort Worth, Texas,
Frog Horn, 1969-70, p. 19.

é.

1

’9

t in so 1

Va.“

ate

n‘n
V‘rr‘

ngnifi

not]

»‘
a

men,

govern t

.fld

leU

a”!

a:
a:

n;

~7'Q":v
'Vnw-‘, 1‘
v

'9»

 

 

 

 

C... C... n v .V. x 1FL rL. $ . r; y t v

Q ~\ . .

w NW a.“ n. .1 nm. .. on v. .1 e n.. n

. . .2 1. ..r T a 1n . yr: .1 .n .. r. I; a.
0 e P . n. A u l x .C a a n n. “W . .Hu
0. . av "...! “V +4 colt t I M
Lb 4k a: :1. win «D 3C at S r u ... w
a: L.” » ... g 1 a nu r1. .0. Q.» s
. A «u CC rm ‘flu .AM 3; A: i h.
n A .1 Q; .N « o- ‘ P M $ H Flu ‘9! «Ha n.‘ t
are Q» 2‘ ~- I AN» AN» .. 4 O . h MA 3
a. n: -.. .... A, h. a. .... ... a. nu. ....
ha .5 LL. A: Tu. # . .94 A.» a: w: a: L .

 

 

 

 

95

that in so far as possible, students will be asked to
participate in making and enforcing the regulations that
govern them, although it must be understood that day-to—
day decisions must be in accord with basic policies and
philosophies of the University.

Occasionally the university will assume the
perogative to change rules as it feels the need. The
handbook at Yale Universityl indicates that, "the Uni-
versity reserves the right to amend or supplement these
regulations at any time upon such notice to students

as it deems suitable and within its discretion."

Trends in Student Code Development

Faced with student unrest and protest, universi-
ties have rethought their position on control of the non-
academic lives of students, and have consequently been
moving towards a relaxation of rules and controls. This
trend will be verified more completely in the next section
of this chapter. Administrators are moving also toward
opening the universities to fuller and more meaningful
student participation in those university and community
affairs which shape student life and development.

One trend in student code development that becomes
apparent in reading the student handbooks is the emphasis

that students now have "rights" as well as responsibilities.

 

1Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, Under-
graduate Regulations, 1969, p. U2.

 

 

4 Va — ~ ~
«L ...— OL Av .
FM 0 .o I A V L y o I o o O a h. o 3 o 6 ”4. ”HR PM HQ» WA... h—
I n. E C (x S A. E C D C P A. E C D E T. w. t 6. anJ
l D. V
N“ Du» { x ’
O O I t O O in .1
.1 ¢ . $ '1' V I T‘ a ‘1‘ NW N
y i w 1 Pl ....v a . t t
V & “...! 4.! «\v Qy o
a.» bi L-v

 

 

 

 

96

Many codes in the past placed a great deal of emphasis
on the responsibilities of students but said very little
about their rights. A major attempt to correct this
concept came in the form of a "Joint Statement of Rights

"1 written in 1966 by some

and Freedoms of Students,
national educational organizations. Some idea of the
enlarged scope of student freedom may be gained from the
"Rights and Freedom" as outlined by the "Joint Statement":

I. Freedom of Access to Higher Education

II. In the Classroom
A. Protection of Freedom of Expression
B. Protection Against Improper Academic Evaluation
C. Protection Against Improper Disclosure

III. (Confidentiality of) Student Records

IV. Student Affairs
A. Freedom of Association
B. Freedom of Inquiry and Expression
C. Student Participation in Institutional
Government
D. Student Publications

V. Off-Campus Freedom of Students

VI. Procedural Standards in Disciplinary Proceedings
A. Standards of Conduct Expected of Student
B. Investigation of Student Conduct
C. Status of Student Pending Final Action
D. Hearing Committee Procedures

VII. Enforcement
This statement of student rights and freedoms has
led a number of institutions to preface their codes with

a student "bill of rights." Michigan State University,

the University of Iowa, and Northwestern University

 

1American Association of University Professors,
et. a1, "Joint Statement."

97

provide examples of this approach. These statements of

student "rights" vary both in detail and scope. The

statement at Northwestern University,1 however, includes

most of the freedoms expressed by other codes. It is

presented here as an example:

Policy Statement on Student Rights and Responsibilities

1.

An applicant will be considered for admission to
the University and for financial aid without
regard for race, color, national origin, relig-
ious creed, or political belief.

The student has freedom of research, of legiti-
mate classroom discussion and of the advocacy of
alternative opinions to those presented in the
classroom.

The student will be evaluated on knowledge and
academic performance for purposes of granting
academic credit. He will not be evaluated on
personal or political beliefs.

The teacher-student relationship within the
classroom is confidential and disclosures of

a student's personal or political beliefs ex-
pressed in connection with course work will not
be made public without explicit permission of
the student. It is understood that the teacher
may undertake the usual evaluation of knowledge
and academic performance.

Students' records may be released to persons
outside the university only through legal
proceedings or on request of the student.

Students will be informed of all rules, rates,
and regulations deriving from contractual agree-
ments with the university before signing any
such contracts.

Students residing in university-owned housing
will be secure in their possessions, and will

 

1Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois,

Student Handbook, 1969-70, p. 16.

         

 
  

       

 
 
   
     

4m. HO. rev... 5“ .... M. C. T .3 a C t ‘7. .... S .... .3 a. T. E .2 .1. i .3 a. . :l .... S III
r. .1 t o C. ...a C St to. 9.1 4837. 4319 1.3.3.1. .J . . .....l ......
t l . . 1 t . .. Md .
C ..u C o. rt 3.1 n... C. t r C ... C ar. C T. t e .1 .1 .C k... .1 L.. to .1 T. R a“. at 0 Maul...“ Q L .1
Q» _. l 0 Cu ad +9 fly n6 Q; i e a“ ”W ad .v AM Mu Cu w“. «L «L Cu my “W «a Cy «C ..G u h... Qu ary but 0” «MR» n+9... hv‘ «MN
\ n

0: Oz 3 a . Ad 33 ,4 :4. t...

l 1. l l . l l 1..

10.

ll.

l2.

13.

14.

15.

16.

98

be secure against invasion of privacy and un-
reasonable search and seizure. The university
shall be responsible for the safety of residence
halls.

Students will be free from censorship in the
publication and dissemination of their views so
long as these are not represented as the views
of Northwestern University.

Student publications are free from any official
action controlling editorial policy. Publica-

tions shall not bear the name of the university
or purport to issue from it without university

approval.

Students are free to form, join, and participate
in any group for intellectual, religious, social,
economic, political, or cultural purposes.

A student is free, individually or in association
with other individuals, to engage in off-campus
activities, exercising his right as a citizen of
the community, state, and nation, provided he
does not in any way purport to represent the
university.

Students are free to use campus facilities for
meetings of student chartered campus organiza-
tions, subject to uniform regulations as to
time and manner of governing the facility.

Students may invite and hear speakers of their
choice on subjects of their choice and approval
will not be withheld by university offices for
the purpose of censorship.

Students will have their views and welfare con-
sidered in the formation of university policy,
and will be consulted by or represented on
university committees which affect students as
members of the university community.

Students are free to assemble, to demonstrate,

to communicate, and to protest, recognizing that
freedom requires order, discipline, and responsi-
bility and further recognizing the right of all
faculty and students to pursue their legitimate
goals without interference.

Students will be exempt from disciplinary action
or dismissal from the university except for
academic failure, failure to pay a university

t I1 CL.“ S t a. E...
.D 1 pt P a S t n... S
EPUUUEt $.11
dOfsaVS AaCh

7!.
.1.

 

 

1‘ w» 2» r5}. r... .r\ ... .. u. I .II I
w. 7. e S e o e h. C. .r.. .1 C 7.. 0.. S
ab C ... .r.. e a; n a. 4‘ O D. 1 x... C 0 e e 1
Ti C .5 t P W Ti 8 e a. a .C C d hu 1
‘1‘ 1 ¢ 3 e 1 hi. 0 t A:
wu no . and h; 1‘ O 1 S y 01
. 3: .1 t a a 4 a n a e 1
Q; A.» #L .h u are ‘3 h {L P l
a a he r.” 3 VJ n» i A.» .1 w s
a» Q» a» s a 4n Q» 4.. i a» J «
AV .nu ~ a hu 2‘ 4m in ..u. hm ‘ s Cy
«... 4 a ed M . M» 2m hi. DH .1 fie «\v

 

99

debt, or violation of a student or university rule
or regulation. Rules and regulations shall be
fully and clearly promulgated in advance of the
supposed violation. The university has no legal
authority over a student when he is outside uni—
versity property. A student is subject to local,
state, and federal statutes.

1?. A student is free to be present on campus and to
attend classes pending action on criminal or
civil charges, except for reasons relating to
his physical or emotional safety and well-being
or for reasons relating to the safety and well-
being of students, faculty, staff, or university
property.

18. It is recognized that every member of the
community has the responsibility to conduct
himself in a manner which does not violate
the rights and freedoms of others and has the
responsibility to recognize the principles
within this statement of policy.

In addition to demanding the freedom and right
to regulate their own non-academic life, the trend as
identified by reading the codes is for students to ask
also that rules be written as explicitly as possible.
They are opposed to vague rules which seem to serve as
catchall phrases. The "Joint Statement" provides
additional endorsement of this trend: "The institution
has an obligation to clarify those standards of behavior
which it considers essential to its educational mission
and its community life . . . Offenses should be as
clearly defined as possible."

Despite this recommendation, a number of codes

still fail to clarify regulations. The code at Amherst

College1 states that, "Conduct befitting a gentleman is

 

l
Amherst College, Amherst, Massachusetts, Student
Handbook, 1969-70, p. l“.

eY“G

.th
‘

«arfl'
vv’.-u

.: ....

Jav‘uo‘

1“?

Au‘? ,

fl
‘ “A”,

. O v.”

‘vdv..

“
~‘r-
a‘:‘

f',‘ ('1 W:
) . ,"V

/,.

lOO

expected at all times of students at Amherst College.
It is assumed that undergraduates will understand what
constitutes gentlemanly conduct without specific regula-
tions forbidding particular actions." At Butler Univers-
ity,l "Students are expected to maintain high standards
of conduct to be eligible to remain in, and to graduate
from, Butler University. It is not necessary to define
such standards in detail."

Michigan State University's academic freedom

report2

states that, "Every regulation shall be brief,
clear and specific as possible." In an attempt to meet
and to bring their rules into accord with the "Joint
Statement," the University of California at Berkeley3

recently defined more precisely their rules of conduct:

Misconduct for which students are subject to dis-
cipline falls into the following categories:

1. Dishonesty, such as cheating, plagiarism, or
knowingly furnishing false information to the
University;

2. Forgery, alteration, or misuse of University
documents, records, or identification;

 

1Butler University, Indianapolis, Indiana, Student
Handbook, 1969-70, p. 5.

2Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan,
Academic Freedom for Students, 1969, p. 2.

3University of California, Berkeley, California,
University of California Policies Relating to Students &
Student Organizations,_Use of University Facilities, and
Nondiscrimination, 1969, p. 5.

 

10.

11.

12.

101

Obstruction or disruption of teaching, research,
administration, disciplinary procedures, or
other University activities, including its
public service functions, or of other authorized
activities on University premises;

Physical abuse of any person on University-owned
or -controlled property or at University-sponsored
or -supervised functions, or conduct which
threatens or endangers the health or safety of

any such person;

Theft of or damage to property of the University
or of a member of the University community or
campus visitor;

Unauthorized entry to or use of University
facilities;

Violation of University policies or of campus
regulations, including campus regulations
concerning the registration of student organi-
zations, the use of University facilities, or the
time, place, and manner of public expression;

Use, possession, or distribution of narcotic or
dangerous drugs, such as marijuana and lysergic
acid diethylamide (LSD), except as expressly
permitted by law;

Violation of rules governing residence in
University-owned or -controlled property;

Disorderly conduct or lewd, indecent, or obscene
conduct or expression on University-owned or
-controlled property or at University—sponsored
or -supervised functions;

Failure to comply with directions of University
officials acting in the performance of their
duties; or

Conduct which adversely affects the student's
suitability as a member of the academic community.

It appears that a demand to be more explicit in

stating rules has led to a proliferation of them. In the

past, these rules may have been written down only when

it was convenient to enforce them. Students now have a

more clear impression of the entire range of control. A

 

review

‘tst wk
J
I‘L‘es ’

(see me

no. mn‘

a! J “A? .

‘ V
l‘ V! I"
a. "95"
50 ~$..4
v; a“!

102

review of the various codes could lead one to conclude
that while there is a trend to reduce the quantity of
rules, such as relaxing the hours for women in the dorms
(see next section of this chapter), the schools are
attempting also to make the remaining rules more clear.
These trends to identify and clarify student
rights and to present in more detail student non-academic
rules and regulations could be added to another one pre-
viously outlined in this chapter. Student codes are
making a concerted effort to move away from parental
rules and are providing students with more responsibility
to regulate their own lives. A forth trend is the demand
of students that better processes be established to
deal with rule violators. Many schools in the past have
failed to provide a "court" system that would guarantee
fair treatment to all students. This trend is discussed
in more detail later in this chapter. A final trend that
has been mentioned earlier but should be noted again is
the tendency to allow students to participate in the
code formulation as members of student-faculty and ad-
ministrative committees on student life. Other trends
could be noted, but the researcher has limited himself

to identify these as the most important.

 

A9
V.

k H
§\§

 

‘

3..

..\

103

Per Cent Stating Policy and Substantive Elements

 

Academic Irregularity

 

Policy.--For the purposes of this study, academic
irregularity was defined as academic cheating and pla-
giarism. An overall survey of the student handbooks
revealed that 79 per cent contained specific statements
prohibiting this behavior (Table 2). When a comparison
was made between state, private, and religious schools,
87 per cent of the state colleges listed statements,
while 72 per cent of the private ones and 75 per cent
of the religious schools had written policies. Uni-
versities with over 10,000 students listed policies
81 per cent of the time while smaller schools stated
policies 75 per cent of the time. An interesting ob-
servation is that every state institution with more
than 10,000 students had written policies regulating

academic irregularity in their student handbooks.

Substantive Elements.--A careful reading of the
student handbooks emphasizes the great differences among
colleges in the amount of detail used to prohibit aca-
demic irregularity. Some schools, such as the State

College of Arkansas,1 simply state that "academic

 

1State College of Arkansas, Conway, Arkansas,
Handbook, 1969-70, p. 16.

 

..x \

.xL —..

9..

—~.

~

 

.; AC

10“

TABLE 2

POLICIES REGARDING ACADEMIC IRREGULARITY AS
STATED IN STUDENT HANDBOOKS

 

 

 

 

 

Per Cent Per Cent not
Category Stating Stating N
Policy Policy
State over 10,000 100 O 20
State under 10,000 75 25 20
Private over 5,000 70 3O 20
Private under 5,000 75 25 20
Religious 75 25 20
Total 79 21 100
State 87 13 A0
Private 72 28 40
Religious 75 25 20
Total 79 21 100
Schools over 10,000 81 19 60
Schools under 10,000 75 25 40

Total 79 21 100

 

105

cheating and plagiarism" will bring appropriate dis—

ciplinary action. Other schools begin with a rationale
for honesty and then develop procedures to handle vio-
lations. Indiana State University1 follows this trend:

The benchmarks of any great university are directly
related to high standards of academic endeavor on
the part of both teacher and student. It is in this
relationship that truth and honesty are recognized
as fundamental to a university community. The Uni-
versity expects both students and faculty to adhere
to these principles and in so doing to foster the
ideals for which the University was founded. Put
simply, this means that the student will do his
academic work without unauthorized aid or recourse
to unauthorized means of any kind.

Such breaches of academic honesty as may occur
will be handled in the following way: In instances
of cheating that appear to warrant a failing grade
in a course, the professor will notify the department
chairman and the academic dean, in writing, of the
circumstances. The student shall have the.right of
appeal of the professor's decision to both the chair-
man and the dean. After such an appeal, the student's
grade will be determined by the instructor upon the
advice of the department chairman and the academic
dean.

A number of schools define in very clear terms
what they consider academic dishonesty to be. The
regulation stated by Northern Michigan University2 is
fairly representative of this procedure:

1. No student shall, during the course of a quiz or
examination, offer information of any kind to

another student, receive information of any kind
from another student or from the quiz or

 

1
Indiana State University, Terre Haute, Indiana,
Student Handbook, 1969—70, p. A2.

2Northern Michigan University, Marquette, Michigan,
Student Code of Conduct, 1969, p. 3.

106

examination responses made by another student,
or have in his possession any tool, written
material, or other device which may be of assis-
tance to him in taking the quiz or examination
and which has not been authorized by the person
proctoring the quiz or examination.

2. No student shall submit as his own to an instructor
any work which contains ideas or materials taken
from another without full acknowledgement of
the author and the source.

3. No student shall take, steal, or otherwise
procure in an unauthorized manner any piece or
pieces of writing which contain the questions
or answers to an examination scheduled to be
given to any individual or group enrolled in any
course of study offered by the University.

A. No student shall sell, give away, lend or
otherwise furnish to any unauthorized individ-
ual any piece or pieces of writing which con-
tain the questions or answers to an examination
to be given to any individual or group enrolled
in any course of study offered by the University.
In addition to defining dishonest acts, some

schools describe also rules of conduct during the ex-
amination period. Northeastern University1 admonishes
students to concentrate on their own work and not bother
other students. The handbook specifies that all books,
notebooks, paper, etc. must be left at the front or

rear of the room. All written materials must be kept on
the right arm of the tablet armchair. No student may
leave the examination room during the first 30 minutes
of the examination, and no student will be allowed in

the examination room permanently after 30 minutes have

 

1Northeastern University, Boston and Burlington,
Massachusetts, Student Handbook, 1969-70, p. 32.

107

elapsed, but no one is allowed to leave the room during
the last ten minutes of the examination. Students re—
maining until the end of the examination are required to
cease work immediately when the head proctor announces
the close of the examination and must remain seated
quietly until all the examination materials have been
collected. Students who may become ill during the test
must report directly to the health center.

A few universities govern this type of behavior
by adopting an Honor Code. The code is usually developed
with the aid of students, and students take a type of
oath to adhere to the code's specifications. The Uni-
versity of Miami1 provides a good example of this tech-
nique:

The University asks your allegiance to the
University Honor Code, which is a cornerstone of
University life. The code was drafted by students
in the belief that the maintenance of personal
honesty and integrity is the most important respon-
sibility of any UM student. All students are ex—
pected to abide by this code, which reads:

Since a University of Miami student's academic
conduct must be at all times beyond reproach, at
no time during his academic career shall he conduct
himself in any way that would compromise his honest
or personal integrity.

Examples of violations of this code are as

follows:

1. Possessing any unauthorized aids during an
examination.

2. Obtaining unauthorized information prior to or
during an examination.

 

1University of Miami, Coral Gables, Florida,
Student Handbook, 1969—70, p. A8.

108

Providing false information either orally or
writing to any agency of the University.

Plagiarizing material in any theme, paper, or
assignment.

Withholding any knowledge of violations of this
code from the proper authority.

Violations of this Honor Code are brought by the

students, faculty, or administration to Honor Council

which is composed of representatives from each of those

three groups. The procedure and development of a typical

case is

1.

are the

1.

listed in the following steps:

Knowledge of a violation of the Honor Code is
presented to the instructor who is involved. If
this is not possible, the knowledge is presented
to the appropriate Personnel Dean.

The instructor then presents the evidence to the
dean of the school or college who evaluates and
decides upon referral to the Honor Council.

The Honor Council, in strict confidence, hears

and examines the evidence presented by the parties
involved in the case. Individuals involved may
present witnesses on their behalf.

The council passes judgment and imposes penalties
if warranted.

The student has the right of appeal to the Vice
President for Student Affairs.

The penalties which the Honor Council may impose
following:

Failure to receive course credit by means of
failing grade.

Disciplinary probation for a period of time
with statement of the date of eligibility for
reinstatement.

Expulsion from the University.

P'
,-
......

a...

 

 

 

n a

r»
4“.

2'4-
in“.

 

« ~

~\\
I: s

 

109

In addition to specifying student requirements in
this area, some schools make clear a faculty role in
maintaining academic honesty. Cornell University1
details quite completely the faculty responsibility.
It is the teacher's duty to, "develop and maintain an
academic atmosphere conducive to the spirit of free in-
quiry and academic integrity." He should make clear to
the student the types of collaboration and use of aid or
information that is acceptable. When a faculty member
feels that a student lacks awareness of the meaning of
academic integrity, he "shall try to improve the student's
understanding of his intellectual responsibility." Cornell
also details the course of action a faculty member is to
take when he detects a violation of honesty. Texas
Christian University2 places almost all the responsibility
of enforcing its academic regulations on the faculty.
Its handbook states that "since the University has no
automatic penalty for cheating, each professor is free
to handle infractions as he sees fit." This procedure
is quite common among a number of the universities.

The penalties for violating academic regulations

are very similar among the various universities reviewed

 

1Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, Policy
Notebook for Students, and Desk Book, 1969-70, p. 21.

 

2Texas Christian University, Fort Worth, Texas,
Frog Horn, 1969-70, p. 12.

 

 

is

.

110

for this study. The University of Tampa1 provides
an example:
1. Grade of "F" for the work submitted.
2. Removal from the class with a final grade of "F".

3. Disciplinary probation for a period extending
through one academic year.

A. Suspension for a minimum of one semester.

5. Dismissal from the University.
If a student is suspended or expelled, he is not entitled
to any refunds. The student involved in academic dis-
honesty is not eligible for membership or office in
any University organization during the period of pro-
bation or suspension. He may have also any scholarship
revoked, including a scholarship awarded by outside agen-
cies. Any student who fails to bring dishonest acts to
the attention of university officials shall be considered

remiss in his moral obligations.
Use and Possession of Alcoholic Beverages

Policy.——For this study, use and possession of
alcoholic beverages refers to the consumption, sale, manu-
facture, or furnishing of alcoholic beverages, including
beer and wine, on university property, or in university
housing at any activity sponsored by or for any university

related organization. Student handbooks were reviewed to

 

1University of Tampa, Tampa, Florida, Student
Handbook, 1969-70, p. 88.

111

determine if universities state in written terms policies
prohibiting on all occasions the use of alcohol on campuses
(Table 3). An attempt was made also to determine the
number of schools that allow a limited amount of use and
consumption at university functions or in the living

units.

Ninety-four per cent of the institutions included
in this review listed a policy on the use and consumption
of alcohol. Sixty—four per cent of these schools pro-
hibited any use, while 30 per cent allowed some use
either at university functions or in the living units.
The larger state and private universities were more in-
clined to allow drinking, with 55 per cent of the state
colleges with over 10,000 students and private schools
with over 5,000 students allowing some use on campus.

It is interesting to note that only 5 per cent of the
state colleges under 10,000 permitted drinking. However,
15 per cent of this group listed no policy in their hand-
books. The private schools under 5,000 and religious
schools indicated very little freedom in this area with
20 per cent and 15 per cent respectively allowing use and
consumption of alcohol.

When the state, private and religious schools
are grouped together for comparison, the state and pri-
vate institutions come fairly close in prohibiting alcohol

on campus. Sixty-two per cent of the state schools and

 

~:\ n-l chi fitu lav n.-\ .I‘
:v s u . .. .... u: u. g a .
. . ... ... : . s. . . . ...
s . e . v . Y. ... s . . .
\ v . ~ gr. y-. ‘u. a \ 5 ~ » n \

 

 

 

112

TABLE 3

POLICIES REGARDING THE USE AND POSSESSION OF
ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES, INCLUDING BEER AND WINE,
AS STATED IN STUDENT HANDBOOKS

 

 

 

 

 

Per Cent Per Cent Per Cent
Category Allowing Allowing Stating N
No Use Some Use No Policy
State over 10,000 US 55 20
State under 10,000 80 5 15 20
Private over 5,000 A5 55 20
Private under 5,000 65 2O 15 20
Religious 85 15 20
Total 6“ 30 6 100
State 62 31 7 “0
Private 55 38 7 ”0
Religious 85 15 20
Total 6“ 3O 6 100
Schools over 10,000 57 Al 2 60
Schools under 10,000 75 l2 13 A0

Total 6“ 3O 6 100

 

5V

flu.

 

 

113

55 per cent of the private ones prohibit use, while the
religious colleges are the most restrictive at 85 per
cent.

An interesting comparison is made between the
schools with more than 10,000 students and those with
fewer. Forty-one per cent of the large universities
allow use and consumption of alcohol on campus, while
only 12 per cent of the smaller schools make such allow-
ances. Thirteen per cent of the smaller colleges made
no statement in their handbooks concerning this behavior.
Of those schools that allow alcohol, most of them use a
state law to regulate its use. Some of the schools that
prohibit use do so without reference to disciplinary
action, while others stipulate that particular penalties

will be imposed.

Substantive Elements.--Universities use a wide
variety of written rules to prohibit or allow the use
of alcohol on campus. These policies may include rationale,
quotes from state laws, penalties for violations, specific
guidelines for campus use, complete restriction, or lim-
ited use in married housing units.

Schools that allow limited use of alcohol on
campus do so using the rationale that students are
responsible citizens and must learn to live within the

law. Stanford University1 develops this rationale in

 

1Stanford University, Stanford, California, Stanford
University Bulletin, Series 21 No. 10, January 2, l970, p. 52.

 

W?

(\F

u. §~

L

‘n«

H.
F0

 

 

11A

its handbook:

The University believes that the development of
self-discipline, individual responsibility and re-
spect for law will be enhanced by entrusting to the
students a greater responsibility for compliance
with State law and by the removal of complete pro—
hibitions which are not enforceable in practice.

Therefore, the University draws to the attention
of all its members that it is unlawful for any per-
son to sell, furnish, give or cause to be sold,
furnished or given away any alcoholic beverages to
any person under the age of 21 years. The University
expects each individual student and each student
living group to assume responsibility for his or
its compliance with this provision of the California
Alcoholic Beverage Control Act on the Stanford
campus. The University has particular concern for
the assumption of this responsibility by students
who are not yet 21 years of age and are therefore
more exposed to violations of the law; this concern
applies especially to freshmen students, not merely
because they are exposed to violation of the law
but also and importantly because they are new to
University life with its attendant problems of ad-
justment and achievement. These regulations rest
on the assumption that Stanford students, relying on
the Fundamental Standard, residence regulations, and
their own judicial procedures, are capable of indi-
vidual and group self-discipline.

A number of schools that allow alcohol use on
campus do so in the married living units only. Usually
a very simple statement such as the one at Central Michigan
University1 outlines the policy: "Possession, consumption,
or furnishing of alcoholic beverages on University property
except as permitted by law in University residences
assigned to families and married students is prohibited."

Institutions that expand consumption beyond married

housing do so with a number of restrictions attached to

 

1Central Michigan University, Mt. Pleasant, Michigan,
Student Handbook, 1969, p. A9.

 

 

ihi

(D
xx
, ‘

115

the policy. Syracuse University1 serves as a good

example:

1.

Alcoholic beverages may be served at registered
social functions during week-ends only. Under
unusual circumstances permission to serve alco-
holic beverages at weekday events may be granted
by Standing Committee #1 of the Council on
Student Life. During registered social events
alcoholic beverages may be served only in gen-
eral public areas.

The registering organization assumes the respon-
sibility for the compliance of all those in
attendance and of all those serving alcoholic
beverages with the New York State Laws governing
alcoholic beverages.

Non-alcoholic beverages must be available at all
registered social functions at which alcoholic
beverages are served.

Alcoholic beverages may be permitted in student
rooms in University living centers, including
sororities and fraternities, so long as local
rules governing their use have been approved
and filed with the Council on Student Life.

Requests for use of areas in buildings other than
student residence halls must be presented to
Standing Committee #1 of the Council on Student
Life and the appropriate University administrative
office. However, alcoholic beverages may not be
available, served, or consumed in Hendricks
Chapel, Archbold Stadium, Manley Field House
and/or the penthouses of Lawrinson and Haven
Halls.

For on—campus (University property and all sor-
orities and fraternities) registered social
functions, a qualified non-participating third
party must be responsible for delivering,
serving, and removing all alcoholic beverages

at the conclusion of the event. The third party
requirement is waived if only beer or wine is
served.

 

Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York, Dates

and Data, 1969-70, p. 23.

 

LII-,- \
n" .
w. ”r

‘5

116

7. All private bars at off-campus registered social
functions must be located in the area rented for
the function and available to all in attendance
at the function.

8. In addition to all current requirements for
registration of social functions, the registering
organization shall furnish the following addition—
al information concerning social functions at
which alcoholic beverages are being served:

a. The type (s) of beverages (3) being served.

b. The cost of alcoholic beverages and the
method of payment.

0. Such other information as may be requested
by the Director of Social Activities.

9. Alcoholic beverages may not be available, served,
or consumed at concerts, athletic events, or
rushing sessions.

10. Changes in these regulations require the concurrence
of the Personnel Deans and of the Council on
Student Life.
A review of the handbooks indicates a large variety
of ways used to prohibit alcohol use. Some colleges
simply state that the possession or the drinking of
alcoholic beverages of any kind on the University campus
or on the premises of any recognized living unit is
strictly prohibited (University of Southern Californial).
Another method of prohibiting use is to quote state laws
and then add a few University regulations (Butler Univers-
ity2).

Other schools extend this regulation to off-campus

 

1University of Southern California, S Campus,
1969—70, p. A9.

2
Butler University, Indianapolis, Indiana, Student
Handbook, 1969-70, p. 6.

117

housing also (Southeast Missouri State Collegel). Some
require wise consumption in any off-campus function as
indicated by this statement at Indiana State University;2
"While away from the campus and campus activities, stu-
dents over 21 years of age must make their own decisions
concerning the use of alcoholic beverages, but the
University expects that all students will obey the Civil
Laws and uphold the policies of Indiana State University.
Any violation of this policy will be cause for disci-
plinary action which may be taken in addition to civil
action."

Many of the regulations prohibiting alcoholic
beverage use are accompanied by the penalties for serious
violations. The penalties may include a minor reprimand
or suspension from the university. The College of

Wooster3

provides an example:

1. The Standard--The College of Wooster believes that
it will have the most desirable college commun-
ity if its students do not use alcoholic beverages
while in attendance at the College. In this the
College expects the cooperation of the students.
It specifically prohibits every student from
possessing or using any alcoholic beverages on

 

1
Southeast Missouri State College, Cape Gerardeau,
Missouri, Student Handbook, 1969, p. 20.

2Indiana State University, Terre Haute, Indiana,
Student Handbook, 1969-70, p. 56.

3College of Wooster, Wooster, Ohio, The Scot's
Key, 1969-70, p. 29.

 

118

campus, in any off-campus student room, and at any

meeting, event or activity of any organized stu-

dent group. The College also will take its own
disciplinary action in cases of violation of
applicable Ohio or local laws.

2. The penalty for a first offense shall be from a
minimum of a $100 fine to a maximum of one
quarter's suspension. The penalty for a second
offense shall be from one quarter's suspension
to indefinite suspension. The seriousness of
the violation shall determine the degree of the
penalty in both instances.

3. Use or possession of alcoholic beverages on campus,
and drinking and driving, are considered to be
very serious offenses; therefore, they may be
subject to the maximum penalty.

A. Misconduct by students while under the influence
of alcoholic beverages will lead to disciplinary
action.

A general conclusion with respect to sanctions
would be that penalties administered for violations of
the policies would depend on the nature of the case.
Generally these penalties include fines, limitation of
privileges, work, or counseling. The threat of suspen-
sion from the university, although always a possibility,

was not used often as a penalty.

Dru s

Policy.--University student handbooks were re—
viewed to identify policies prohibiting the possession,
manufacture, or selling of illegal hallucinogens or
other types of drugs (Table A). Ninety per cent of the
schools listed specific regulations concerning the use

of drugs. All of the state colleges with over 10,000

119

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE A
POLICIES REGARDING DRUGS AS STATED
IN STUDENT HANDBOOKS

Per Cent Per Cent
Category Stating Stating N

Policy No Policy
State over 10,000 100 0 20
State under 10,000 75 25 20
Private over 5,000 95 5 20
Private under 5,000 85 15 20
Religious 95 5 20
Total 90 10 100
State 87 13 A0
Private 90 10 A0
Religious 95 5 20
Total 90 10 100
Schools over 10,000 91 9 60
Schools under 10,000 88 12 40
Total 90 10 100

 

120

students listed policies, while only 75 per cent of
state schools under 10,000 outlined regulations. Ninety-
five per cent of the larger private schools and religious
universities had written policies, while 85 per cent of
the smaller private colleges listed rules.

When state, private, and religious schools were
compared, they closely align themselves with respect to
a drug policy. Eighty-seven per cent of the state insti-
tutions listed policies, while 90 per cent and 95 per cent
of the private and religious universities outlined their
rules. If a comparison is drawn between the large
schools with more than 10,000 students and the smaller
ones, only a small difference exists. Ninety-one per
cent of the large schools have stated policies in their

handbooks and 88 per cent of the smaller ones list rules.

Substantive Elements.—-Of all the variables re—

 

viewed for this study, policies concerning the illegal
use of drugs generate more restrictive behavior and

more severe penalties than any other. There is also a
tendency for student handbooks to not only list policies
prohibiting drug use but also to provide educational
information concerning the adverse psychological and
physical effects from illegal drug use. There appears
to be a sincere effort on the part of universities to
protect students from the many problems generated by

becoming involved in this behavior.

121

As has been the case with other variables, some
schools attempt to develop a rationale for controlling
illegal drug use. Stanford University1 serves as an
example:

Drug abuse has become an acute and much-debated
problem throughout society. There is widespread
concern over possible damage to health of individ-
uals, and also over the damage done to the careers
and the individual happiness of those who incur the
penalties imposed by the laws regulating drugs
Stanford recognizes its duty to treat problems of
drug use responsibly and in such a manner as to
safeguard to the greatest possible extent its capac-
ity to carry out its educational mission. Conse-
quently, while discipline is certainly the appro-
priate response under some circumstances, the Uni—
versity's interest must go beyond a disciplinary re-
sponse to the problem. Thus, the University will
continue to provide educational and informational
programs about drugs, and will encourage use of
counseling services provided on a confidential
basis by Health Service and other appropriate
agencies.

In an attempt to analyze the drug problem for

students, Brandeis University2

points out that this
topic is extremely complex. It touches upon crucial
questions of university and individual relationships,
the role of the university in society, the obligation
of the university to advance knowledge and to preserve

the best of tradition, and the necessity to maintain the

university as a functioning academic community. The

 

1Stanford University, Stanford, California,
Stanford University Bulletin, Series 21, No. 10, January 2,

1970. p- A3.

Brandeis University, Waltham, Massachusetts,
Student Handbook, 1969-70, p. 96.

 

122

handbook points out that "the physiological and behavioral
effects of an individual's ingestion of drugs, furthermore,
are not fully researched nor understood. Current evi-
dence, however, indicates that the physical, and psy-
chological and social consequences of drug taking are
always dysfunctional and debilitating in the case of

drugs and are sometimes dysfunctional and debilitating

in the case of all drugs." Brandeis encourages stu—
dents, faculty, and administration to engage in educa-
tional research, forums, and discussions with regard

to the legal, medical, philosophical, and behavioral
dimensions involved in the use of drugs.

Although a large number of schools outline the
drug problem in some detail, some institutions chose to
state the policy in simple terms. Texas Christian Uni-
versity1 outlines its policy in these few words: "The
illegal preparation, possession, or use of any hallucin-
ogenic drugs or narcotics is forbidden. Besides their
legal implication, these drugs are a health hazard and
are incompatible with the philosophy and objectives of
the University." Using about the same language, Southern

2

Methodist University regulates drug use by saying that,

 

1Texas Christian University, Fort Worth, Texas,
Frog Horn, 1969-70, p. 22.

 

2Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas,
The SMU Encheridion, 1969-70, p. 22.

123

"the University prohibits its students from possessing,
using, or transmitting nonprescribed drugs having nar-
cotic, addictive, hallucinogenic, and similar strong
psychological or physiological effects."

Other colleges describe in great detail university
policies concerning drugs. Probably the best example of
this is found in the handbook of the University of
Wisconsin, Madison Campus.1

1. It is unlawful for any person to manufacture,
possess, have control of, buy, sell, give away,
prescribe, administer, dispense or compound any
narcotic drug, except as authorized in this
chapter. Any person violating this subsection
shall be punished.

2. No person shall take or use narcotic drugs
habitually or excessively or except in pursuance
to a prescription for permitted use as prescribed
in this chapter. The unlawful possession of
narcotic drugs by a person or of a hypodermic
syringe or needle, except when possessed by a
diabetic, shall be prima facie evidence of the
unlawful use of such drugs. Any person violating
this subsection shall be imprisoned not more
than 5 years. The judge of the court wherein
said person was convicted may, if said person
requires treatment, commit him to some appro—
priate institution under the control of the state
department of public welfare for treatment
not exceeding 5 years.

3. It is unlawful for any person to grow, cultivate,
mix, compound, have control of, prepare, possess,
prescribe, sell, give away, administer or dispense
marijuana or help or the leaves or seeds thereof,
or any infusion of marijuana or hemp, or of its
leaves or seeds, for beverage or smoking purposes.

A. No person shall use marijuana or hemp or the leaves
or seeds thereof, or any infusion of marijuana or

 

1
University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin,
Rule Book, 1969-70, p. 10.

 

12A

hemp or of its leaves or seeds, for smoking or

beverage purposes. The possession of marijuana

or hemp or of its leaves or seeds, for smoking
or beverage purposes. The possession of mari-
juana or hemp or the leaves or seeds thereof in

a form suitable for smoking shall be prima

facie evidence that it is intended for smoking

purposes. Any person violating this subsection

shall upon conviction be imprisoned not more
than 5 years.

A variety of penalties are outlined for drug
violators. Some schools choose to handle each case on
an individual basis, while others clearly state the pen-
alties without individual evaluation. The West Texas
State University1 states that, "any student finally con-
victed of illegal use, possession, or sale of a drug
or narcotic shall be automatically expelled from school,
regardless of whether or not the illegal act that gave
rise to the conviction was committed on the campus of
West Texas State University." Other colleges are less
harsh in their discipline. Eastern Montana College2
will review drug cases whether on campus or off campus.
The student offender may be expelled, suspended, placed
on probation, or the college may take other actions
deemed justified under the circumstances of the case.

Cornell University3 lists the following points that are

 

1West Texas State University, Cayon, Texas,
General Policy Statements of Student Life, 1969-70, p. 5.

2Eastern Montana College, Billings, Montana,
Student Handbook, 1969-70, p. 30.

3Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, Polio
Notebook for Students, and Desk Book, 1969- 70, p.

125

considered in any instance related to drug abuse:

1. The University will endeavor to handle student
use of any drug on an individual counseling
and medical-care basis.

2. Any information that comes to the attention of
the University concerning the sale, exchange or
transfer of drugs from one individual to another
is communicated to public officials.

3. The University may initiate action against any
student who, through the use of drugs, becomes
destructive, disorderly, or disruptive.

A. The University cannot prevent Federal, State or
local officials of law enforcement agencies from
their investigation and prosecution of drug
law violators.

5. Persistent drug use by a student in University
owned, operated or affiliated living units which
adversely affects the living conditions of
his roommates or nearby neighbors or which gen-
erates anxieties among students in that living

unit constitutes cause for University disciplinary
action.

Northwestern University1

points out in its hand-
book that it is not an instrument or extension of en-
forcement agencies and will not automatically and uncon-
ditionally respond to student drug involvement with
punitive sanctions. The university recognizes two dis-
tinct instances of student drug usage and will react re-
sponsibly to each: (1) Individuals who, through drug
abuse, disrupt and endanger the health, safety, and academ-

ic welfare of others will be subject to University disci-

plinary procedure. (2) Individuals who, through drug

 

1
Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois,
Student Handbook, 1969-70, p. 20.

 

126

abuse, disrupt and endanger their own personal health,
safety, and academic welfare will be directed to seek
counseling.

A general comment concerning drug policies as
contained in student handbooks is that colleges and
universities generally advise against the use of drugs
for non-medicinal purposes. When use of drugs impedes
the effective functioning of a student, or when his
involvement with drugs is exploiting others or detri-
mental to the university, then his continuance in college
is questioned and resolved as in other violations of
school standards. Most schools urge all students to
consider very seriously the personal and institutional
risks surrounding drug use, and encourage an educational
program to make students aware of problems associated

with this behavior.

Hazing

Policy.——Policies contained in student handbooks
were reviewed to determine regulations governing hazing
(Table 5). Hazing was defined as participation in activ-
ities that tend to injure, frighten, degrade, or endanger
the life or health of another individual. Only 30 per cent
of the universities included in this study listed specific
statements prohibiting this behavior. Forty per cent of
the state schools under 10,000 students and A0 per cent

of the religious ones listed hazing policies, while

127

TABLE 5

POLICIES REGARDING HAZING AS STATED

IN STUDENT HANDBOOKS

 

 

 

 

 

Per Cent Per Cent N
Category Stating Stating
Policy No Policy
State over 10,000 35 65 20
State under 10,000 A0 60 20
Private over 5,000 25 75 20
Private under 5,000 10 90 20
Religious A0 60 20
Total 30 70 100
State 37 63 A0
Private 17 83 A0
Religious A0 60 20
Total 30 70 100
Schools over 10,000 32 68 60
Schools under 10,000 27 73 A0
Total 30 70 100

 

128

35 per cent of the large state schools outlined hazing
rules. Only 10 per cent of the small private colleges
stated specific regulations which might be attributed

to closer supervision on the part of the university or
less worry about this type of behavior. Many of the hand—
books in these schools contained a broad statement such
as, "a student is held responsible for his behavior at

all times," which could easily be used to control hazing
violations.

When state, private, and religious institutions
are compared, the religious schools list specific reg-
ulations A0 per cent of the time, while 37 per cent of
the state colleges outline rules. Again, it is the pri-
vate institutions that show less interest in making
specific statements on this behavior, listing it in their
handbooks only 17 per cent of the time.

A comparison of the large universities, with more
than 10,000 students, and smaller schools indicates a
close agreement. Large schools list this policy 32
per cent of the time, while the smaller ones show a 27

per cent interest in writing a policy.

Substantive Elements.--The schools reviewed for

 

this study include policies on hazing in their handbooks
that attempt to make very clear its meaning. Even when the
statement was short, students were acquainted with the

disapproval of this behavior. Northern Michigan

129

University1 comes right to the point with its statement:
"No student shall participate in any activity that tends
to injure, frighten, degrade, or which endangers the

life or health of another individual." St. Anselm's
College2 attempts to avert injury to persons and property
by prohibiting hazing, snowball fights and all forms of
horseplay. The University of Wisconsin at Madison3
attaches a penalty to its short statement: "Whoever
engages in or incites hazing which results in or is likely
to result in bodily harm to another in any school may be
fined not more than $200 or imprisoned not more than 60
days or both."

Other institutions develop their policies in

much more detail. Texas Christian University“ provides
this example:

Any kind of hazing is forbidden. The University
defines hazing as any action taken or situation
created, intentionally, whether on or off University
premises, to produce mental or physical discomfort,

embarrassment, harassment or ridicule. Such
activities include paddling, creation of excessive

 

1
Northern Michigan University, Marquette, Michigan,
Student Code of Conduct, 1969, p.

2St. Anselm's College, Manchester, New Hampshire,
Student Handbook, 1969-70, p. 21.

3University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin,
Rule Book, 1969-70, p. 16.

Texas Christian University, Fort Worth, Texas,
Frog Horn, 1969-70, p. 22.

130

fatigue, physical and psychological shocks, quests,
scavenger hunts, road trips, or other such activities.
Hazing also includes compelling a person to wear, in
public, apparel that is conspicuous and not in
normally good taste, to engage in public stunts or
buffoonery, to participate in morally degrading or
humiliating games or activities, to participate in
late night sessions that might interfere with his
ability to achieve scholastically. This regulation
applied to organizations as well as individuals.
Central State University1 makes clear its policy
by stating that "physical abuse is unconscionable. It
is forbidden. Organizations which permit it will for—
feit their right to exist at Central State University."
West Texas State University2 prohibits hazing and defines
it as any willful act by one student alone or acting
with others: (1) directed against any other student for
the purpose of intimidating him, or subjecting him to
shame or disgrace among his fellow students, or humbling
his pride, or causing him to want to leave the educational
institution; and (2) in striking, or attempting to
strike or do physical violence to any other student.
The handbook points out that faculty and staff are equally
responsible in the eyes of the law for acquiescing in or
failing to report violations of this policy.

Penalties for violating hazing regulations vary

according to campus. Most of them follow state laws.

 

1
Central State University, Wilberforce, Ohio,
Student Handbook, 1969-70, p. 30.

2West Texas State University, Cayon, Texas,
General Polipy Statements of Student Life, 1969—70, p. 5.

131

Violation of the hazing policy at California State College
at Long Beach1 is considered a misdemeanor and is punish-
able by a fine of not less than $50, or more than $500,
or imprisonment in the county jail for not more than

six months, or both. Any person or organization that
knowingly participates in hazing may also forfeit any
entitlement to public funds, scholarships, or awards

and be deprived of any sanction or approval granted

by any public educational institutions or agencies. In
addition to a $500 fine, the College of Wooster2 imposes
social probation for a quarter and possible disciplinary
suspension from the College for not less than one quarter

for individuals guilty of infractions.

Women's Hours

 

Policy.--Student handbooks were reviewed to de—
termine the per cent of schools that have adopted and
systematically communicated their policies regarding
women's hours (Table 6). For this study women's hours
was defined as a curfew used by universities to require
women students to return to their campus residences by

specified hours each night.

 

1
California State College, Long Beach, California,
Regulations and Information, 1969, p. A.

2College of Wooster, Wooster, Ohio, The Scot's
Key, 1969-70, p. 3A.

 

132

TABLE 6

POLICIES REGARDING WOMEN'S HOURS AS
STATED IN STUDENT HANDBOOKS

 

 

 

 

 

Per Cent Per Cent
Category Allowing Some or Requiring All N
All Unrestricted Women to Have
Hours Hours
State over 10,000 100 O . 20
State under 10,000 65 35 20
Private over 5,000 95 5 20
Private under 5,000 A0 60 19
Religious 75 25 19
Total 75 25 98
State 82 18 A0
Private 67 33 39
Religious 75 25 19
Total 75 25 98
Schools over 10,000 88 12 60
Schools under 10,000 55 A5 38
Total 75 25 98

 

133

An attempt was made to place this regulation into
two categories: (1) Schools allowing some or all un-
restricted hours for undergraduate women. (2) Colleges
requiring all women to meet curfew regulations.

Most of the institutions reviewed for this study
required some undergraduate students to live on campus.
Every college with women students had regulations govern-
ing or eliminating women's hours. Seventy—five per cent
provided some unrestricted hours or no curfew at all for
the women students, while 25 per cent required all stu-
dents to adhere to curfews. The most unrestrictive in-
stitutions are state colleges with more than 10,000
students. All of these allowed at least some of their
women students the freedom of unrestricted hours. The
large private schools were a close second with 95 per cent
requiring no curfew for at least a portion of the women.

The most restrictive schools fall into the small
private university catagory. Only A0 per cent of them
allowed some alternatives to required women's hours.

The religious schools and small state ones were next in
line with 75 per cent and 65 per cent respectively allow-
ing some unrestrictive hours.

When state, private, and religious institutions
are compared, the private universities are the most
restrictive. Thirty-three per cent of them require

hours for all women, while only 18 per cent of the state

13A

schools have this same standard. Twenty-five per cent of
the religious universities require all their women stu—
dents to meet curfew regulations.

Another interesting comparison between the
large universities with more than 10,000 students and
smaller schools indicates that only 12 per cent of the
large ones still require all their women to meet curfew
regulations. Forty—five of the smaller schools require
all women students to return to their campus residence
before specified hours.

The usual pattern for schools that allow some
unrestricted hours is to permit students beyond the
freshman year to establish self—determined hours. In
a large number of these cases, freshmen students, at
least for the first quarter in school, are required to
return to the dorms by certain hours. 1t should be
noted, however, that the larger institutions are moving
away from this requirement, even for freshmen, and

allowing all women students to set their own standards.

Substantive Elements.-—The most obvious observa—

 

tion concerning programs for women's hours is that a great
deal of variety exists. There is a unique program for
each school, which makes it difficult to draw conclusions
and present examples of typical programs.

Programs that outline specific hours for women

most generally require students to be in their rooms on

135

weekdays by 10:00 p.m. to 12 midnight; weekend hours
range from 12:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. Niagara Universityl
provides an example of a school that requires hours for
most students:
The check-in times to be observed by students
in good academic and disciplinary standing are as

follows:

Week Nights--School Friday, Saturday and

 

 

 

 

on following day, Eve of Holidays

Women Men Women Men
Freshmen 11:00 p.m. 11:00 p.m. 1:30 a.m. 2:00 a.m.
Sophomores 12:00 p.m. 12:00 p.m. 2:30 a.m. 2:30 a.m.
Juniors 1:00 a.m. No Curfew 3:00 a.m. No Curfew
Seniors 2:00 a.m. No Curfew 3:30 a.m. No Curfew

Generally specified hours for Women are accompanied
with special late hour passes that allow the student to
return after curfew hours. These special passes are
limited to two or three a quarter and are given only if
the student has not been in disciplinary trouble. The
"Girls' Handbook" at Northeastern University2 extends their
"late permissions" hours to 3:00 a.m. for freshmen and
sophomores, but allows upperclass women to set self-imposed
curfews, which permits them to remain away from the dorms
until 6:59 a.m.

Some schools, particularly the larger ones, are

 

1
Niagara University, Niagara, New York, Information
Handbook for Undergraduate Students, 1969-70, p. 37.

2Northeastern University, Boston and Burlington,
Massachusetts, Student Handbook, 1969-70, p. 20.

 

 

 

136

allowing students to set self-regulated hours. Illinois

State University1

provides this option. It states reg-
ulations this way: "Consistent with the philosophy of
self-direction, students determine for themselves the
hours which they will keep. Men and women in both on-
and off-campus approved housing decide when they will
return to their residences. Students may enter or leave
approved housing at their discretion provided they
follow established procedures for doing so."

A few institutions, such as the University of
Oregon,2 provide alternative plans for the students. In
this case, the University provides dormitory units for
which no closing hours are established, and another set
of dorms where closing hours are required. Any student
has the opportunity of choosing to live in either type
of dormitory.

A variety of penalties are outlined for students
who violate dorm regulations. Generally these penalties
are not too severe, in comparison to drug and alcohol
violations. Usually the offenses are handled by dorm

disciplinary councils or head residents. In general,

infractions such as failure to observe quiet hours, abuse

J—

1
Illinois State University, Normal, Illinois,
Student Life 5,.A, ISU, 1969, p. 13.

2University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon, Student
Handbook, 1969-70, p. 67.

 

137

of telephones, and otherwise disrupting the good order
of a floor are handled by dormitory counselors. Repeated
cases may be referred to dormitory judiciary bodies.
Failure to observe the sign-out system correctly, failure
to observe the fire and safety regulations, such as
using illegal electric equipment, calling out of the
windows and other offenses considered to be more serious
may be referred directly to the Dean of Students. The
dean may refer more serious infractions to an all-univer—
sity judiciary. An example of the type of penalty used
to discipline students is provided by the State College
of Arkansas:1

The SCA Association of Women Students established

a schedule of major and minor penalties for infraction

of most residence hall regulations . . . An accumula-

tion of five minor penalties or three major penalties
shall result in a campusment.
Campusment as used above means:

1. The resident is to remain in her room from 6:30 p.m.
until the hall closing time on the evening she is
campused.

2. The campused resident shall receive no phone calls
(except long—distance) and may not receive guests

in the lobby.

3. No one is allowed in the resident's room except
her roommate during the campusment.

A. If a campusment is violated, the resident must
serve her campusment again, in full, the following
night.

It is suggested that the campused resident put a

 

1State College of Arkansas, Conway, Arkansas,
Handbook, 1969—70, p. 37.

 

138

sign on her door telling other residents that she
is campused.

Late penalties are as follows:

0—3 minutes late . . . . . . Major penalty
3-5 minutes late . . . . . . One night campusment
5-10 minutes late . . . . . . Two nights campusment
10-15 minutes late . . . . . . Three nights campusment
15-20 minutes late . . . . . . Four nights campusment
20-25 minutes late . . . . . . Five nights campusment
25-30 minutes late . . . . . . Six nights campusment

After 30 minutes, parents will be notified. If
an unavoidable delay in the return to a residence
hall occurs, a phone call to a Head Resident should
be made. Students will find the Head Residents
understanding and appreciative of the call. The
Head Residents are concerned with the welfare of
the students at all times.

The type of regulations and penalties listed above
are not atypical, especially of smaller universities.
However, the large number of schools now allowing some
unrestricted hours for women appears to indicate a trend
toward greater freedom in women's housing rules. There

is certainly a strong move to allow more women to be

self-directed in the living units.

Room Inspection and Entrance

Policy.--University student handbooks were re-
viewed to determine the extent of policy development with
regard to entering and searching student occupied rooms
(Table 7). An attempt was made to identify schools that
made specific comments on this variable. Although this
privilege is maintained by most universities, only explicit

statements were categorized for this study.

139

TABLE 7

POLICIES REGARDING ROOM INSPECTION OR ENTRANCE
AS STATED IN STUDENT HANDBOOKS

 

 

Per Cent Per Cent
Category Stating Stating N
Policy No Policy

 

 

 

State over 10,000 30 7o 20
State under 10,000 30 7O 20
Private over 5,000 A0 60 20
Private under 5,000 25 75 20
Religious 65 35 20

Total 38 62 100
State 30 70 A0
Private 32 68 A0
Religious 65 35 20

Total 38 62 100
Schools over 10,000 37 63 60
Schools under 10,000 A0 60 A0

Total 38 62 100

 

1A0

A careful review of the handbooks revealed that
only 38 per cent of the universities included in this
study made specific policy statements regarding entering
and searching student rooms. The religious schools made
statements 65 per cent of the time, but less than A0 per
Cent of the private and state ones recorded policies.

The colleges least likely to record policies were the
small private ones with a 25 per cent interest.

By comparing state, private, and religious schools,
it is again noted that the religious institutions out—
lined policies more often. Sixty-five per cent of these
schools included rules in their handbooks, while the
state and private colleges showed interest only 30 and
32 per cent of the time.

A comparison of large universities with more than
10,000 students and smaller schools indicates a Close
alignment. Thirty-seven per cent of the large ones listed
policies, while A0 per cent of the small schools commun-

icated rules in student handbooks.

Substantive Elements.--Allowing a student the

 

privacy of his dormitory room without the threat of in-
vasion or intrusion has been a request and demand of
many students in recent years. Since these students
occupy areas owned and operated by the university,
schools have generally felt they had the right to

inspect or search student quarters as they desired to

lAl

do so. An attempt was made in this study to determine
how clearly and specifically universities communicate
this assumed right to enter living areas.

Most of the 38 per cent of the schools that list
policies in this area do so in some detail, outlining
the procedures followed in such cases. Some, however,
simply list the right of the university to invade pri-
vate quarters by saying that, "room inspections will be
made in instances involving university property or en-

1

vironmental health and safety matters." The Northern

2 restricts its policy to maintenance

Michigan University
inspections: "In its role as proprietor of student res—
idence hall rooms and as the party responsible for main-
taining such rooms in compliance with applicable law re-
lating to multiple dwelling units, the University re—
serves the right to make occasional entry into student
rooms for the limited purposes of cleaning, painting or
making other improvements or repairs. Prior notice shall
be given to the occupants at least 2A hours in advance
unless the occupant has requested service or unless

immediate entry is necessary due to maintenance problems."

Probably the most complete inspection and search

 

1
University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts,
Student Handbook, 1969-70, p. 21.

2Northern Michigan University, Marquette, Michigan,
Student Code of Conduct, 1969, p. 9.

1A2

policy is detailed by the University of Tennessee.1 It
divides entry into occupied rooms in residence halls into
three categories: inspection, search, and emergency.

Inspection is defined as the entry into an occu—
pied room by University authorities in order to
ascertain the health and safety conditions in the
room, or to check the physical conditions of the
room, or to make repairs on facilities, or to per-
form cleaning and janitorial operations. Search
is defined as the entry into an occupied room by
on-campus authorities for the purpose of investi-
gating suspected violations of campus regulations
and/or city, state, or federal law. An emergency
situation exists when the delay necessary to obtain
search authorization constitutes a danger to persons,
property, or the building itself.

In the case of inspection, a twenty-four hour
notice is required. When a search is conducted, written
permission is required of the resident, or Dean of Stu-
dents, the Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs or in
compliance with state law. An interesting point in this
policy is that a student who may be arrested will be
informed in writing prior to interrogation that:

1. He may remain silent.

2. Any statement he makes may be used against him in
further discipline or legal proceedings.

3. He may have the assistance of counsel during
questioning.

A. Counsel will be provided before questioning in
case the student cannot afford to hire counsel.

5. In case he waives his right to have counsel, the
student may still stop answering questions or
request an attorney at any time.

 

lUniversityof Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee,
Hill Topics, 1969-70, p. 53.

 

1A3

Before interrogating a student, the authorities must
obtain a written waiver from the student stating that he
understands his rights but wishes to answer questions
without the assistance of counsel. In every case the
student will not be deprived of his liberty without
arrest.
' l

The University of Miami provides a great deal
of detail in its policy for search and seizure. An inter—
esting point is its Application for Authorized Search and
Seizure. This application must be completed in duplicate
by the person requesting the search. It will include
the reasons for the search, the date of the search, the
name of the person who initiated the action, the specific
items or information sought, the names of the persons
whose possessions are to be searched, and the name of
the person who will conduct the search. The procedures
for the search are given in detail:

1. All room or apartment searches should be cleared
with the Head Resident of the residence hall area
concerned unless an emergency precludes such a
delay.

2. A diligent effort shall be made to have the
search conducted in the presence and with the
consent of the students involved. If this is
not practicable, the house president or another
house officer should be asked to be present
during the search. Except in the case of an

emergency, at least one student shall be present
during the search.

 

1University of Miami, Coral Gables, Florida,
Student Handbook, 1969-70, p. AA.

1AA

3. No room or apartment should be entered without
knocking. Pass keys are used only when admittance
is denied or when it is necessary to enter the
student's room or apartment when the student is
absent.

A. The student whose possessions are being scruti-
nized should be allowed to open drawers, closets,
luggage, etc., if it is deemed necessary that
these be opened. If this student does not want
to assist in the room search, the searchers
should nevertheless proceed keeping in mind that
the items being scrutinized are personal and
that the searchers are responsible for the
items they handle.

5. If it appears to be necessary, in an emergency
situation, to search a room or an apartment when
the occupant is not present, the student will be
notified of the entry and the reason for the
entry upon his return to the room by the Head
Resident.

6. The privacy of the occupants with respect to
other students should be considered during room
searches. Students other than those directly
involved should be excluded from the room during
the search.

7. Only illegal, stolen or specifically prohibited
items, or those which pose immediate danger
to the health or safety of the residents may be
removed from the student's room or apartment
without consent from the owner. If this must
be done in terms of the above conditions, the
student will be promptly notified of the removal
and a receipt will be left for the item removed.

A rather complete policy is outlined by Duke
University.1 An interesting feature of this policy con-
cerns the records generated by a search.

The request for a search, if approved by the desig—

nated authorities, shall be kept in records with the
authorization until the time of the student's

 

1Duke University,.Durham, North Carolina, Infor-
mation and Regulations, 1969, p. 72.

1A5

graduation and shall be available to the student for
examination. These records will be kept completely
separate from the student's permanent record. Should
the search figure in any trial proceeding within the
University, the authorization shall be attached to
the trial record; if no action is taken following

the authorized search, notation of this fact shall

be filed with the authorization.

As students continue to demand more protection of
their privacy, universities will be required to make more
complete statements about entrance and inspection of
living areas. It cannot be assumed that the 62 per cent
of the universities that do not make any statement in
their handbooks concerning this policy do not have such
regulations. It seems advisable, however, that univer-
sities communicate this policy in writing, thus removing

from the student a fear of invasion without proper pro-

cedures and protection.

Room Visitation

 

Policy.--Student handbooks were reviewed to
determine the extent that university policies allow the
entertainment of members of the opposite sex in residence
hall living quarters (Table 8). The variable was defined
to include only visitations occuring on a regular and
continuing basis. The definition did not include pol-
icies allowing for visitation only on special days such
as open house events that were held only occasionally.

Forty-six per cent of the universities included

in this study allowed some type of visitation in resident

1A6

TABLE 8

POLICIES REGARDING THE ENTERTAINMENT OF MEMBERS
OF THE OPPOSITE SEX IN RESIDENCE HALL LIVING
QUARTERS AS STATED IN STUDENT HANDBOOKS

 

 

Per Cent Not Allowing

 

 

 

Per Cent 0r Making
Category Allowing Statement About N
Visitation Visitation
State over 10,000 60 A0 20
State under 10,000 A0 60 20
Private over 5,000 65 35 20
Private under 5,000 35 65 20
Religious 30 70 20
Total A6 5A 100
State 50 50 A0
Private 50 50 A0
Religious 30 70 20
Total A6 5A 100
Schools over 10,000 57 A3 60
Schools under 10,000 30 70 A0
Total A6 5A 100

 

1A7

hall living quarters on a regular basis. Fifty-four

per cent either prohibited this type of visitation or
did not make any statement of policy. The large private
and state institutions had the most liberal policies.
Sixty-five per cent of the large private schools allowed
some visitation, while 60 per cent of the large state
ones permitted this behavior. The religious colleges
were the most restrictive with only 30 per cent providing
for this type of student association. The small state
and private schools Were also less liberal than larger
ones, with only A0 per cent and 35 per cent respectively
allowing this type of visitation.

When the state, private, and religious schools
are compared, the state and private universities are
equal in allowing visitation, with 50 per cent of them
providing for this activity. The religious institutions
remain the most restrictive with 70 per cent of them pro-
hibiting visitation.

A comparison of the large universities with more
than 10,000 students with those that are smaller again
indicates more liberal policies in the larger schools.
Fifty-seven per cent of the large schools allow visita-
tion while only 30 per cent of the small ones permit

members of the opposite sex to visit living areas.

Substantive Elements.--A number of institutions,

especially the smaller and religious ones, state policies

1A8

prohibiting entertaining in living quarters. Some
schools allow visitation only on special occasions such
as supervised open houses. When visitation is allowed

on a regular basis, guests are usually required to sign
in and out and students are expected to leave their doors
open. Students who violate these regulations are usually
subject to strict discipline, including dismissal.

The schools that prohibit any visitation in
living quarters do so in very simple terms. Lafayette
College1 allows guests in public lounges and studio-
lounge and entertaining areas, but never in bedrooms.
They make clear that "female guests may not visit private
bedrooms at any time." The College of Wooster2 requires
special permission from the Personnel Deans for any type
of visitation. They extend this control to off—campus
homes in saying that, "members of the opposite sex may

visit in the homes where students live if they have been

invited by the landlady or landlord, and only if the land-

lady or landlord is at home. None of the visiting may
be done in the bedrooms. Members of the opposite sex

may visit in the apartments of students if there is

 

l
Lafayette College, Easton, Pennsylvania, Student

Handbook, 1969, p. 38.

2College of Wooster, Wooster, Ohio, The Scot's
Key, 1969-70. p. 33.

 

nwmfl‘!

 

1A9

 

an approved chaperone present." Penalties range from a
fine of $100 to suspension from college.

In providing open halls for its students, Antioch
College1 justifies it for two reasons: (I) to provide
coeducational study and social space, in addition to the
space which exists in common rooms, the Union, the library,

and classroom buildings; and (2) to allow students, on

 

campus, opportunities to learn to handle responsibilities
they will face now, as a part of a co-operative plan of
education, and later throughout their lives. Antioch's
program allows each hall to set its open hall hours within
these limits: After all members of a hall group have
agreed upon the procedures to be followed, each hall unit
selects any set of hall hours it wishes, provided that
it makes the decision in a hall meeting or series of hall
meetings at which each member of the hall is encouraged
to express his feelings, opinions, and desires about the
quality of the hall living situation.

The University of Massachusetts2 spells out its
procedures in some detail:

1. Each residence hall, fraternity, and sorority
will formulate its own visitation program and

determine by ballot whether it is acceptable
to the residents.

 

l
Antioch College, Yellow Springs, Ohio, Antioch
Community Handbook, 1969-70, p. 23.

University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts,
Student Handbook, 1969-70, p. 22.

 

150

2. All votes relating to the visitation policy will
be conducted by secret ballot. An affirmative
vote requires the approval of a majority of all
residents of the unit.

3. A residence unit is not permitted to conduct its
first visiting period until its proposed visita—
tion program has been reviewed by the Student
Life Committee.

A. Each residence unit must review and either
reaffirm or revise its visitation program,
including the scheduling of open houses, at
least once every thirty days from the date of
the last vote on its program.

 

5. The following conditions apply to the scheduling
and conduct of visitation:

a. Each open hours during the thirty-day period
must be voted on separately.

b. Visiting hours may be conducted Mondays through
Thursdays from 3:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.;
Fridays, Saturdays and nights before holidays
from 12:00 noon to 1:00 a.m.; Sundays from
12:00 noon to 12:00 midnight.

c. A resident must meet a guest of the opposite
sex in the lobby, record in a guest book the
time of the guest's arrival and later record
the time of the guest's departure, and also
indicate the host's room number.

d. Entertainment of guests is limited to those
activities which would be acceptable in the
lounge area of a residence unit.

6. All students under 21, wishing to participate in
open houses, must secure parental permission by
means of a card which will be filed with the Dean
of Students and the house government of each
residence hall, fraternity or sorority. Compli-
ance with such permission is on an honor system
with dialogue to be between student and family.

1
Iowa University allows each living unit consider-
able freedom in establishing policies for open houses and

visitations. Each hall develops its own regulations

 

1University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, Student
Guide, 1969-70, p. 2.

151

which must include these features: (1) the schedule of
hours and days for visitation and open house; (2) rules
for the conduct of residents and guest at various types

of open houses and visitations; (3) procedures for reg-
istering guests; (A) procedures for amending and providing
exceptions; (5) means of enforcement.

Living quarter visitations policies at Northern
Michigan University1 allow hall councils the responsibility
of determining the desire and need for open visitation
and open houses. The hall council is responsible for pro-
viding adequate supervision during visitation hours.

Doors must be open during the visitations, and regulations
must be posted in key areas of the living areas. A
feature of this program is that each hall must conduct
complete evaluations of the open houses. This evaluation
shall include: (1) recommendations from the hall con—
stituents; (2) problems as they arose during the pro-
gram; (3) review of the supervision system; (A) recom-
mendations for continuance of open house programs by ref-
erendum of the constituents, taking into consideration

all mutually shared concerns of the residents, the resi-
dence hall staff, and the members of the hall council.

Even though there is a trend toward open visita-

tions, the universities reviewed for this study still

 

1Northern Michigan University, Marquette, Michigan,
Student Code of Conduct, 1969, p. 10.

 

LII '.ebf:‘:c__H 11“"
s .
4

 

152

placed considerable control on this type of activity.
Visitation policies are considered as significant matters,
and although students are given considerable voice in
establishing guidelines, the university maintains a strong
influence. There is always the final word to remind
students to behave: "Whoever is found guilty of violating
or misusing visitation privileges will be excluded from
further participation in visitation. His apartment will
be considered off—limits to women; thus his roommates

will be affected by his actions. He will be subject

to further disciplinary actions by the All Men's Judi-

Ciary."l
Theft

Policy.-—A review of university students handbooks
was conducted to determine if colleges are communicating
in written form their policies concerning the theft of
personal or public property (Table 9). Even though it
seems quite certain that universities would prohibit
theft of any type, only 57 per cent of the schools commun-
icated this regulation to their students in the student
handbook. The large state schools were the most explicit
in stating this rule, with 80 per cent listing it in

their codes. The small private colleges were the least

 

1Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas,
The SMU Encheridion, 1969-70, p. 28.

 

 

 

153

TABLE 9

POLICIES REGARDED THEFT AS STATED
IN STUDENT HANDBOOKS

 

 

 

 

 

 

Per Cent Per Cent
Category Stating Stating N
Policy No Policy

State over 10,000 80 20 20
State under 10,000 65 35 20
Private over 5,000 A5 55 20
Private under 5,000 30 7O 20
Religious 60 A0 20

Total 56 AA 100
State 72 18 A0
Private 37 63 A0
Religious 60 A0 20

Total 56 AA 100
Schools over 10,000 60 A0 60
Schools under 10,000 50 50 A0

Total 56 AA 100

 

 

15A

likely to list the regulation, as more than 70 per cent
failed to prohibit it in writing. State institutions
under 10,000 students prohibited this behavior 65 per cent
of the time, while the large private schools and relig-
ious ones had a written code A5 per cent and 60 per cent
of the time.

A real difference exists when state, private, and
religious schools are compared. Seventy-two per cent of
the state universities prohibited theft in their codes,
but only 37 per cent of the private schools chose to do
so. The religious ones fell in the middle with 60 per
cent.

Not a large difference exists when comparing
large and small institutions. Sixty per cent of the large
schools prohibited theft in their student handbooks, while

50 per cent of the smaller ones outlined policies.

Substantive Elements.—-Most generally policies pro-

 

hibiting theft are simple and directly to the point.
Xavier University1 states in its code that, "theft of
University property or property belonging to another
member of the community, or the selling of stolen prop-
erty, or the use of property belonging to another individ-

ual without his permission, is prohibited." The

 

1
Xavier University of Louisiana, New Orleans,
Louisiana, Student Handbook, l968-69, p. 30.

 

 

a I tau fifi'iififl'

 

155

University of Georgia1 is more specific in the items that
should not be stolen: (1) No student shall sell a text—
book not his own without the permission of the owner.
Violations of this regulation will be regarded as prima
facie evidence of theft. (2) No student shall take,
attempt to take, or keep in his possession, items of

University property, or items belonging to students,

 

faculty, staff, or students groups without proper author-
ization.

The University of North Carolina2 expands stealing
into other categories:

1. Misuse of funds--use of organizational or institu-
tional funds without authorization to do so.

2. Bad checks--writing checks when it is known that
no funds or insufficient funds exist to cover the
payment of said checks.

3. Books--taking books belonging to other students
and selling them.

A. Telephone calls--charging long-distance calls to
numbers without authorization to do so, or
defrauding the phone company in any way.

5. Forging--forging another person's name to a check.

Penalties for theft seem to vary according to
3

each school and situation. Miami University indicates

 

 

1
University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, Student
Handbook, 1969-70, p. 3A.

2

University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North
Carolina, The Honor Code, 1969, and Statement of Policy,
1969, p. 2.

3University of Miami, Coral Gables, Florida,
Student Handbook, 1969-70, p. A2.

 

 

156

that students involved in theft are subject to disciplinary
action by the University. In addition, students are also
subject to arrest and prosecution by civil authorities.

Wisconsin University at Madison1 lists state laws
as penalties for violating theft regulations.

1. If the value of the property does not exceed
$100, a fine of not more than $200 or imprison-
ment for not more than six months or both.

2. If the value of the property exceeds $100 but
not $2,500, a fine of not more than $5,000
or imprisonment for not more than five years or
both.

3. If the value of the property exceeds $2,500, a
fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment
for not more than 15 years or both.

A. If the value of the property is less than $2,500
and any of the following circumstances exist,
a fine of not more than $5,000 or imprisonment
for not more than five years or both:

a. The property is a domestic animal; or

b. The property is taken from the person of
another or from a corpse; or

c. The property is taken from a building which
has been destroyed or left unoccupied because
of physical disaster, riot, bombing, or the
proximity of battle; or

d. The property is taken after physical disaster,
riot, bombing, or the proximity of battle has
necessitated its removal from a building.

A general observation is that universities are
inclined to handle mirror theft problems on campus by
using established university judiciaries. Major theft
problems would likely be referred to civil authorities,

depending on the situation. A number of the large

 

1University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin,
Rule Book, 1969-70, p. 19.

 

 

 

157

universities refer all acts of theft directly to civil
authorities and then maintain the option of reviewing

the case in campus judiciaries, if the situation merits
it. In a number of cases there appears to be a desire

to rehabilitate the thief through counseling. Severe
punitive actions, such as suspension, is usually reserved

only for the most serious problems.

Confidentiality of Student Records

 

Policy.-—A review of university student handbooks
was made to determine what per cent of the institutions
express policies related to the confidential nature of
student records, and to their release only to authorized
persons and with student consent. The data clearly in-
dicates that most universities have not found it necessary
to adopt and systematically communicate these policies
to students (Table 10). Only 29 per cent of the schools
in this study made specific statements on this variable
in their handbooks. It would be assumed that the majority
of the institutions exercise considerable caution in
releasing information, but most of them have not stated
this policy in specific terms.

Again it is the large state universities that
show the most concern. Forty-five per cent of these schools
have written policies, while only 20 per cent of the small
state schools show interest. The small private colleges

indicate the least concern with only 15 per cent of the

 

158

TABLE 10

POLICIES REGARDING THE CONFIDENTIALITY OF
STUDENT RECORDS AS STATED IN
STUDENT HANDBOOKS

 

 

 

 

 

 

Per Cent Per Cent
Category Stating Stating N
Policy No Policy
State over 10,000 A5 55 20
State under 10,000 20 80 20
Private over 5,000 30 70 20
Private under 5,000 15 85 20
Religious 35 65 20
Total 29 71 100
State 33 67 A0
Private 22 88 A0
Religious 35 65 20
Total 29 71 100
Schools over 10,000 31 69 60
Schools under 10,000 25 75 A0

Total 29 71 100

 

 

159

small private institutions stating policies. Thirty per
cent of the larger private schools include policies in
the handbooks. The religious schools show an interest
nearly equal with the large state institutions; 35 per

cent have written policies.

 

Not much difference exists when the state, private

and religious schools are compared. The religious

!

institutions indicate the most interest in communicat-
ing policies with 35 per cent writing regulations. The
state colleges are next with 33 per cent and the private
schools indicate the least interest at 22 per cent.

When large universities with more than 10,000
students are compared with smaller ones, 33 per cent of
the larger schools include policies on student records in
their handbooks, and 25 per cent of the smaller colleges

communicate written statements.

Substantive Elements.--Even though the percentage

 

of schools stating written policies on student records is
small, it is apparent from reading the codes that most
schools develop their policies in some detail. The
University of Oregon1 outlines a basic rationale for
justification of its procedures:

Higher education today is concerned with the full
development of the student and his potentialities.

 

1
University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon, Student
Handbook, 1969-70, p. 96.

160

It is realized that individuals differ in ability,
background, interests, social maturity, emotional
maturity, and goals. To plan educational opportun-
ities, to meet the needs of individual students, and
to counsel effectively with them, the University

must accumulate data and keep records. The personnel
records enable the faculty and administrators of

the University to understand the individual student
better, so that he may have more effective education
and counseling assistance.

The University of Oregon then divides its records
into ten categories: (1) permanent academic records,
(2) disciplinary records, (3) personnel records, (A)
consultations with Office of Student Services, (5) rela-
tionship with parents, (6) information regarding aca-
demic achievement, (7) organization membership records,
(8) rplacement service registration file, (9) University
Counseling Center records, (10) University Health Service
records. In each area guidelines for the use and distri—
bution of the records are indicated, and safeguards are
established to protect student and university privacy.

A number of the institutions use as a basic
guide for the use of student records the "Joint Statement
on Rights and Freedoms of Students." Southern Methodist
University1 begins its policy with this statement:

Institutions should have a carefully considered

policy as to the information which should be part
of a student's permanent educational record and as
to the conditions of its disclosure. To minimize
the risk of improper disclosure, academic and disci-

plinary records should be separate, and the conditions
of access to each should be set forth in an explicit

 

lSouthernMethodist University, Dallas, Texas,
The SMU Encheridion, 1969-70, p. 9.

 

161

policy statement. .Transcripts of academic records
should contain only information about academic
status. Information from disciplinary or coun-
seling files should not be available to unauthorized
persons on campus, or to any person off campus
without the express consent of the student involved
except under legal compulsion or in cases where the
safety of persons or property is involved. No
records should be kept which reflect the political
activities or beliefs of students. Provision also
should be made for periodic routine distruction of
noncurrent disciplinary records. Administrative
staff and faculty members should respect confiden-
tial information about students which they acquire
in the course of their work.

This "Joint Statement" on student records has
had a substantial influence in the way that institutions
have developed their policies. In some cases the schools
have used the exact wording to state their regulations,
while other institutions have adapted the Statement to
local conditions.

The policies on student records at Ohio University1
probably serves as the best example. The major purposes
of its policies are to make current and reliable information
available to those persons or agencies who need it to
better serve students, and to protect students from detri—
mental and disadvantageous circumstances resulting from
misinterpretation or misuse of information maintained
for them. Because Ohio's rules seem to include most of
what is stated in other codes, they are quoted here in

detail:

 

thio University, Athens, Ohio, Student Handbook,

1969-70, p. 26.

 

"i.

 

Int—e
.-
I

 

162

Information about students shall not be assembled
and made part of any of the various record sys-
tems throughout the University unless it is
reasonably germane to the basic purposes and
necessities of the University.

All policies and practices employed by any ad-
ministrative.office acquiring, maintaining or
processing information about students shall be
formulated with due regard for the student's
right of privacy.

Information contributed to student record systems
at Ohio University shall be prepared only by
qualified persons or agencies.

It is recommended that, whenever practical,
those persons preparing evaluations and other
informational materials for a student should
discuss the evaluation with the student before
the materials become a part of the student's
record.

Correspondence from a student to a member of the
faculty or administration, which is not relevant
to his academic performance or personal conduct,
shall not become part of the student's record.

All persons responsible for maintaining, processing
or releasing information about Ohio University
students shall be appraised of the confidential
nature of such information and shall utilize it
only in accordance with acceptable professional
standards.

A student shall have the prerogative to view the
contents of his personal records in the presence
of one qualified to interpret its content, except
when they contain: professional medical, psy-
chiatric and psychological information; informa-
tion in the form of recommendations or evaluations
solicited from members of the faculty and admin-
istration by the student, and information sub-
mitted to the University in confidence (for ex-
ample, high school counselors' evaluations and
confidential correspondence from parents or
employers).

When information which is a part of a student's
personal record is withheld from his visual
inspection as prescribed in Item 7 above, the
student shall be apprized of the existence of

10.

ll.

12.

163

the information withheld and its origin. It
shall be the student's prerogative to petition
the standing committee described in Item 12

below to request an evaluation of the credibility
of the information withheld and to determine
whether or not it should be retained as a part of
the student's personal record.

Release of information about students to sources
external to the University shall be based on the
requisite that the request is presented formally
by an identified representative of a recognized
and established agency, institution or employer
expressing a legitimate interest in, and need for,
the information available for students.

Any student may place a hold on his personal

and disciplinary files directing the Office of
Student Personnel Records not to release infor—
mation, or interpretations, based on information
contained therein to persons or agencies external
to the University without expressed written per-
mission from the student.

All policies, practices and guidelines governing
the collection, maintenance and processing of
student information shall be subject to periodic
review for the purpose of modification in
accordance with institutional and technological
changes.

A standing committee consisting of a representative
from Faculty Senate, student government and the
Office of Student Personnel Records shall be
established to review issues related to the
collection, maintenance and processing of student
information to Ohio University.

Oakland University's policiesl include many of the

features described above. It allows also for social mis—
conduct discipline, that results in suspension or dismissal,
to be noted on the transcript. A student may petition to

have such a notation removed after two years or just prior

 

1Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan, Hand-

book for Students, l969-70,.p. U3.

 

16N

to graduation. Oakland also notes that some data are
public in nature and may be released with the authoriza-
tion of the student: name, home address, local address,
local telephone, class, academic major, sex, United States
citizenship, and marital status. This policy allows
also for all student non-academic conduct records to be
destroyed within five years after the student has grad-
uated. The conduct record of a student who has with-
drawn prior to graduation shall be maintained for five
years. If such a student has been dismissed, the con-
duct file shall be retained.

Occasionally a school will develop policies that
allow for withholding student records. The University
of Georgia1 will withhold academic records for non-pay-
ment of University bills. Records can be released only
by written request from the office that has flagged them.

It should be noted that no penalty is usually
attached for violation of student record policies.
This is to be expected in View of the fact that most vio—
lations relating to student records would probably involve
administration and staff rather than students. A number
of schools, however, establish committees to review any
complaints. None of the policies reviewed contain specific
punitive measures to be enforced in the event that policies

were not followed.

 

1University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, Student
Handbook, 1969-70, p. 60.

165
Compulsory Class Attendance

Policv.—-For purposes of review, this variable
was divided into four categories: (1) policies re-
quiring students to attend all classes unless officially
excused; (2) policies allowing for a specified number of
"cuts"; (3) policies allowing class attendance to be
determined by the class instructor; (4) policies not
requiring class attendance and/or handbooks not making
any statement on class attendance (Table 11).

Sixty-eight per cent of the handbooks reviewed
for this study include policies concerning class atten-
dance. Mandatory class attendance was required by 3M
per cent of the schools. Only three per cent had pol-
icies allowing for class "cuts", while 25 per cent
allowed the professor to set class attendance standards.
Thirty-eight per cent of the handbooks did not require
mandatory class attendance or did not make any statement
at all.

The large state universities indicated the least
concern with compulsory class attendance. Sixty-five
per cent of them had no policy requiring attendance.
Thirty per cent allowed the decision to be made by the
professor. The religious schools were the most restric-
tive with 70 per cent requiring class attendance.

When a comparison is made between state, private,

and religious institutions, the state and private align

166

 

 

 

 

OOH Om mN M 2m Hmpoe
OO mN N ON mm OOO.OH smOcs mHoocom
OO O: m ON ON OOO.OH pm>o mHooeom
OOH Om mN m Om Hmpoe
om OH ON 0 ON OSOHwHHmm
o: H: mm m om mpm>fipm
OO om mN m ON mpmpm
OOH Om mN m Om Hmpoe
ON OH ON O O» msonHHmm
ON mN mm O O: OOO.m smOc: mum>HcN
ON mm ON m ON OOO.m pm>o mpm>Hsm
ON mm ON O O: OOO.OH smog: mumpm
ON mm Om O O OO0.0H cm>o mOOOm

wocwwcmppdw zmpso=

wcfipfisvmm mmmao :mu:o=
z p0\©cm mOHHom wcHSOHH¢ mwmao mocmocmpp<

wcfiumpm powwomopm . mcaonH¢ wchHsvom mmowmpmo
no: pcmo pom Inpcwo.pmm pcoo pom pcmo mom

 

 

mxoomaz<m BZMQDBW 2H QmB<Bm m<
moz<szBB< mmdqo NmomQszoo UzHQm<omm mmHOqum

HH mqm¢8

167

themselves quite closely, with 50 per cent and 41 per
cent respectively not requiring compulsory attendance

or making no statement at all. Only ten per cent of the
religious schools failed to include policies in their
handbooks. Seventy per cent of them required class
attendance.

A comparison of the large schools with more than
10,000 students with smaller institutions indicates that
N9 per cent of the larger ones make no requirement or
statement regarding required class attendance, while
23 per cent of the smaller schools have no policy. Fifty-
five per cent of the small colleges require students to
attend classes unless officially excused, while only
20 per cent of the large ones make this demand. Twenty-
eight per cent of the large schools allow standards to
be set by professors and 20 per cent of the smaller ones
make this allowance.

As indicated by the review, religious schools
are more likely to communicate policies in their handbooks
requiring class attendance, while larger state schools
are the least likely to write policies. Schools under
10,000 students have more restrictive policies than

larger ones.

Substantive Elements.--An attempt was made to

 

identify a variety of policies used to regulate class

attendance. The policies ranged from very strict

168

requirements to statements indicating that professors
could not use class attendance as a basis for awarding
grades. Duquesne University's policy1 states that,
"Regular class attendance is normally essential for
maximum educational advantage and is strongly encouraged.
The responsibility for all course material rests wholly
with the student. Under no circumstances shall class
attendance be used as the basis for altering a grade
in a course." The University of Bridgeport2 states
that, "Students should have the responsibility for their
own attendance and the University adopts a policy of no
debarment as a consequence for non-attendance for all
undergraduate students."

Some schools do not require class attendance
except for certain categories of students. Boston

3

College requires only freshmen to attend classes, while
Albion College“ allows sophomore, junior, and senior

students who are in good standing academically the

 

1Duquesne University, Pittsburg, Pennsylvania,
Student Handbook, 1969-70, p. 7.

 

2University of Bridgeport, Bridgeport, Connec-
ticut, Key to U B, 1969-70, p. 19.

3Boston College, Boston, Massachusetts, University

 

 

Student Guide, 1969-70, p. 13.

”Albion College, Albion, Michigan, Student Life,

1969-70, p. A.

 

 

169

privilege of voluntary class attendance. The College
maintains, however, that the adjustment to college life
is such that it is considered unwise to grant a volun—
tary class attendance system for freshmen. All fresh-
men are required to attend all classes.

A number of schools allow the alternative of
having the professor set attendance standards. Moor—
head State College1 indicates that, "faculty members
may or may not lower the marks of students for the sole
reason of unexcused absence." If a faculty member re-
quires attendance, he must communicate this policy to
his class and submit the policy in writing to the Dean
of Academic Affairs. The handbook at Notre Dame Uni-
versity2 provides a list of instructions for students
to follow. The school indicates that irregular atten-
dance or excessive absence may make it impossible for
an instructor to appraise the student's grasp of the
subject matter and assign a final grade. The instructor
is required to make a clear statement on class attendance
at the beginning of each class. Notre Dame also makes a
statement concerning an instructor's absence: "A class

is to be considered dismissed if the instructor does not

 

l
Moorehead State College, Moorehead, Minnesota,
Handbook, 1969-70, p. 13.

 

Notre Dame University, Notre Dame, Indiana,
Student Handbook, 1969-70, p. 27.

170

appear within ten minutes from the beginning of the
class period."

A few of the schools allowed for a specific
number of class "cuts". Brandeis University1 allows
for "cuts" on a graduated basis:

For an upperclassman in good standing, there are
unlimited cuts provided that he is completing his
work in the course to the satisfaction of his in-
structor. A faculty member, however, may require
attendance in his course and every laboratory assign-
ment must be completed even if a student was offi-
cially excused for the period. Students on warning
are permitted three cuts per course per semester.
Students on probation are permitted no cuts. They
may not hold office in any student organization nor
may they represent the school in any activity on

or off campus. All freshmen, with the exception of
those on warning or probation, are permitted three
cuts per course per semester; those on warning or
probation are permitted no cuts.

The University of Tampa2 allows a professor to
drop a student from his class if the student misses one
week plus one period of class work. There is a mandatory
drop after two weeks of being absent. The university
outlines also the effect of absences upon the future
status of the student:

1. Students should recognize that there is a tendency
to consider absenteeism when the instructor is

undecided about whether to give an A or B, D or
F, etc.

 

1Brandeis University, Waltham, Massachusetts,
Student Handbook, 1969-70, p. 87.

2
University of Tampa, Tampa, Florida, Student
Handbook, 1969-70, p. H6.

 

171

2. Absences are considered by the Academic Policies
Committee when student appeals regarding academic
matters are being reviewed.

3. Absences are considered by the Student Aid
Committee when application for tuition loans
and scholarships are reviewed.

4. Recruiters from industry and prospective em-
ployers inquire about student attendance records
for the four-year period. Such a record is an
indication of the student's sense of responsi-
bility and reliability.

The universities that require class attendance do
so in very explicit terms. At East Texas State Uni-
versity1 a student may be dropped from a course when his
unexcused absences exceed the following: (1) ten from
a class that meets three or more times each week; (2) six
from a class that meets twice each week; and (3) six from
a class that meets once each week. If a faculty member
questions a student's excuse, the student is to be re-
ferred to an appropriate dean. A faculty member is
to have a conference with any student that has excessive
unexcused absences and report the conference to the Dean
of Men or Women.

Professors at East Central State College2 are

authorized to reduce grades when attendance is excessive.

The maximum grade is one grade lower than earned for

 

Eastern Texas.State University, Commerce, Texas,
Student Handbook,l969-70, p. 26.

2
East Central State College, Ada, Oklahoma, The
Student Handbook, 1969-70, p. 8.

 

172

absences of 15 per cent of the class meetings but less
than 20 per cent. The maximum grade of two grades lower
than earned for absence of 20 per cent, but less than

25 per cent, and the maximum grade is three grades lower
than earned for absences of 25 per cent and more. Grades
higher than these maximums may be given only under strongly
extenuating circumstances at the discretion of the in—
structor. Absence from class on the last school day pre-
ceding or the first day following an official college
recess or dismissal may count as two absences at any
other time.

Saint Francis Collegel expects prompt and regular
attendance in the interest of scholarship. Students are
advised to bring excuses to class instructors either
prior to or during the first class attended following
an absence. Absence from classes on the day preceding
or on the day following a vacation warrants a fine of

2 includes in its

$5.00 per class. Syracuse University
policy a note that, "three tardinesses may be considered
by the instructor as equivalent of an absence." Southeast

Missouri State College3 gives strong emphasis to its policy:

 

1
Saint Francis College, Fort Wayne, Indiana, Student
Handbook, l968-69, p. 3.

 

Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York, Dates
and Data, 1969-70, p. 31.

3Southeast Missouri State College, Cape Gerardeau,
Missouri, Student Handbook, 1969, p. 28.

 

173

THERE ARE NO EXCUSED ABSENCES ON THIS CAMPUS.
ONE IS EITHER IN CLASS OR HE IS NOT. Students are
expected to attend all regularly scheduled classes
and WHEN ABSENT TO EXPLAIN THE REASON TO THEIR IN-
STRUCTORS. IT IS THE STUDENT'S RESPONSIBILITY TO
SEE THE INSTRUCTOR, NOT THE INSTRUCTOR'S RESPONSI-
BILITY TO SEE THE STUDENT, REGARDING ABSENCES. When
a student has accumulated three unauthorized absences
WITHOUT AN EXPLANATION SATISFACTORY TO HIS INSTRUCTOR
he may be suspended from class by the instructor
unless and until readmitted by a committee composed
of the instructor, the Dean of Students, and the
Dean of the College. Each absence occurring during
the forty-eight hours preceding and/or following
the end of a holiday is recorded as two unauthorized
absences. THERE IS NO CLASS CUT SYSTEM AUTHORIZED
BY THE COLLEGE.

Very few schools make provisions in their policy
for student grievances. Notre Dame University1 allows
for a committee appointed by the Vice President for
Academic Affairs that decides all questions arising in
connection with the enforcement of regulations on ab-
sences from classes. The committee includes the stu—
dent government academic affairs coordinator and at
least three members of the teaching and research faculty.
East Texas State University2 allows a student to take
his problems on attendance to the Dean of Men or Women.
If evidence is found to support the student's appeal,
this information is forwarded to the appropriate faculty

member, department head, and dean of the school.

 

1Notre Dame University, Notre Dame, Indiana,
Student Handbook, 1969-70, p. 28.

2
Eastern Texas State University, Commerce, Texas,
Student Handbook, 1969-70, p. 26.

17a

Student Demonstrations

 

Policy.--University student handbooks were re—
viewed to determine the per cent of institutions writing
policies allowing for student participation in political
and social issues and guaranteeing the rights of free
speech, petition and assembly (Table 12).

Forty-six per cent of the schools had communicated
in student handbooks policies regarding student demonstra-
tions. At least 65 per cent of the large state institu-
tions specified regulations in this area of student behav-
ior. The small private ones showed the least interest,
with only 25 per cent including policies. The large pri-
vate schools listed policies 55 per cent of the time.
Religious colleges showed a U5 per cent interest in in-
cluding policies, while the small state ones included
written statements in their handbooks HO per cent of
the time.

A comparison of the state, private, and religious
institutions indicates that state schools are more likely
to communicate written policies in this area. Fifty-two
per cent of them included policies, while only no per
cent of the private schools and A5 per cent of the religious
ones showed an interest.

There is a rather large percentage difference when

comparing large schools with more than 10,000 students

175

TABLE 12

POLICIES REGARDING STUDENT DEMONSTRATIONS AS
STATED IN STUDENT HANDBOOKS

 

 

 

 

 

Per Cent Per Cent
Category Stating Stating N
Policy No Policy
State over 10,000 65 35 20
State under 10,000 A0 60 20
Private over 5,000 55 us 20
Private under 5,000 25 75 20
Religious A5 55 20
Total A6 5A 100
State 52 A8 A0
Private A0 60 A0
Religious A5 55 20
Total A6 5A 100
Schools over 10,000 58 A2 60
Schools under 10,000 27 73 A0

Total A6 5A 100

 

176

with the smaller ones. Fifty-eight per cent of the large
colleges feels it necessary to include policies in their
handbooks. Only 27 per cent of the small ones chose to
do so.

A review of this variable indicates that large
state universities are more inclined to communicate
written policies in this area of student behavior, as
are all large colleges in general. Small private schools
and small state ones are the least likely to write poli-
cies guaranteeing the rights of free speech, petition
and assembly and to set guidelines within which students

can organize demonstrations.

Substantive Elements.-—This variable is difficult

 

to separate from the variable, Disruptive Activities.
Most generally universities will make a short statement
on the rights of free speech, petition and assembly and
then develop in detail a list of rules disallowing dis-
ruptive activities. An attempt was made to separate
these regulations and to list the philosophy and specific
regulations that allow for peaceful student demonstrations.
A number of institutions precede their regulations
with a statement of philosophy. The College of Wooster1

takes the position that every member of the community

 

1College of Wooster, Wooster, Ohio, The Scot's
Key, 1969-70, p. 31.

 

177

has the right to speak freely on all subjects, the right
to listen to others, the right to express himself, and
the right to assemble in public meetings. The handbook
states that, "Because these are rights for each member of
the community, it follows that no member of the community
has the individual right to prevent or to disrupt an
exercise of such rights by others, whether the persons
involved are expressing approval or disapproval of an idea
1
or of an action." Boston College encourages its students
to engage in discussions of social problems but warns
against the use of fear and violence to prohibit objective
examination:

It seems very clear that an educational institu-
tion which has become infinitely more involved and
engaged in the very fiber of our society must of
necessity encourage all its members to participate
in these engagements. Any meaningful appraisal of
our commitment to society demands an objective exam-
ination and challenge at the roots of society even
in those areas of debate and uncertainty. It will be
a shameful indictment of our intellectual climate
and personal integrity if the tranquility of dialogue
and reasoned partisanship must ever succumb to either
fear of violence or the transgression of human rights.
Violence in every form and peaceful intimidation
which incites violent reactions are repugnant and
intolerable in any expression of assent or dissent.

Some colleges refer to the right for students to

demonstrate in rather simple and concise language. The

University of Tulsa2 lists its policy this way: "The

 

1Boston College, Boston, Massachusetts, University

 

Student Guide, 1969-70, p. 72.

2University of Tulsa, Tulsa, Oklahoma, Student
Handbook, 1969-70, p. 3.

 

178

University recognizes that students are citizens with
all the rights and privileges possessed by other cit-
izens, including those rights granted by the Bill of
Rights, specifically including freedom of speech, freedom
of assembly, and freedom to dissent." The University

1 includes in its handbook a statement

of Santa Clara
that every effort is made to guarantee and protect stu—
dent freedoms--the freedom to speak, to organize, to par-
ticipate. The code indicates that, "A logical consequence
of this statement certainly includes the right of each
student or student groups to express disagreement, to
submit proposals for consideration, to protest and to
demonstrate, provided that this right is expressed in an
orderly fashion." The University of Tennessee2 indicates
its policy in these words:

Because free inquiry and free expression are
indispensable to the attainment of goals of a
university, the University of Tennessee encourages
students to develop the capacity for critical
judgment and to engage in an independent search
for truth. The institution supports the rights
of students and other members of the University of
Tennessee community to express freely their views
for or against actions and opinions with which
they agree or disagree.

In order to guarantee this right, Tennessee outlines some

procedures which are designed to safeguard this freedom.

 

1University of Santa Clara, Santa Clara, California,
Student Handbook, 1969-70, p. 39.

 

2University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee,
Hill Topics, 1969—70, p. 5A.

 

179

Campus demonstrations may be conducted in areas which are

generally available to the public, provided such demonstra-

tions:
1.

2.

Are conducted in an orderly manner;
Do not prohibit vehicular or pedestrian traffic;

Do not interfere with classes, scheduled meetings,
events, and ceremonies, or with other educational
processes of the University; ‘

Are not held (a) within University buildings,
(b) within University stadia, amphitheatres, or
(c) in residential areas of the campus.

A number of universities regulate student demon-

strations by listing a set of rules that must be followed.

Northern Illinois University1 indicates that picketing

should not involve invasion of the rights of others and

should not interfere with the operations of the University.

Specifically, the following conditions must be met before

a demonstration can be held:

1.

Automobile, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic must
not be obstructed.

Entrances to buildings and driveways must not be
blocked or traffic interfered with.

Picketing inside University buildings is prohibited.

There will be no disturbing of classes by noise
or by other means.

There will be no harassing of passers-by or
other interference with their activities.

There will be no damage to property, including
lawns and shrubs, nor littering of premises with
signs, leaflets, or other materials.

 

1Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, Illinois,

 

Student Conduct and Discipline Regulations, 1969, p. 2.

180

Some schools apparently do not require students
to register before a demonstration is held. However, a
number of institutions do specify this requirement. The
University of Pittsburgh1 requires groups to register
rallies and demonstrations 2A hours in advance of their
happening with the Office of the Assistant Chancellor
for Student Affairs. They must be held in approved
areas of the campus and must not interfere with the
personal rights of non-participants. Brandeis Univer—
sity2 will set aside a suitable location for demonstra-
tions after the student group registers for the event.
There is a requirement for an advance written notice of
three hours for all in-building demonstrations where
there is no probability of damage or loss of property;
a six—hour notice is required for use of the public
areas of other buildings after closing hours. The per-
son or persons providing notice for in-building demon-
strations must sign a statement accepting responsibility
for any damages caused by the demonstration, unless the
person or persons can prove that the damages were not
caused by a member of the Brandeis community. Non—members
of the Brandeis community may not participate in in—building

demonstrations.

 

1University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania,
Student Handbook, 1969-70, p. 21.

2Brandeis University, Waltham, Massachusetts,
Student Handbook, 1969-70, p. 95.

181

Southern Methodist University1 outlines in its
policy some protections required for peaceful dissent.
Among these is the provision that guests of the Uni-
versity are to be treated with respect and dignity.

They also welcome visitors on campus but expect them to
abide by all University regulations, as well as civil
law. The University reserves the right to ask non-
University members who are demonstrating on campus to
leave the campus. They establish procedures for griev-
ances to be taken through channels and provide oppor-
tunity for grievances to be discussed with appropriate
persons.

Penalties for violating regulations on demonstra-
tions vary according to campus. Generally they include
a request of the students to desist from the activities
and allow a reasonable amount of time for such action to
occur. In the event of the failure of this effort at
persuasion, the campus security office is usually con-
tacted for help and assistance in dispersing the demon-
strators. These penalties and procedures are discussed
in more detail as a part of the analysis of the variable,

Disruptive Activities.
Disruptive Activities

Policy.--An attempt was made to determine the

 

1Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas,
The SMU Encheridion, 1969-70, p. 26.

 

182

per cent of institutions communicating policies in their
student handbooks prohibiting the disruption or inter-
ference with authorized university activities. This
variable was separated from the variable, Student
Demonstrations, in order to identify and outline regu-
lations specifically written to prohibit the disruption
of the peaceful and orderly functioning of the university.

As indicated in Table 13, 77 per cent of the
schools in this study included policies in their hand-
books prohibiting disruptive behavior. All of the
large state institutions with more than 10,000 students
had written policies, and 90 per cent of the large pri-
vate ones with more than 5,000 students included regu-
lations. The small state colleges communicated their
policies 85 per cent of the time and the religious insti-
tutions indicated a 70 per cent interest. Only A0 per
cent of the small private schools felt a need to outline
this policy in their handbooks.

A comparison of the state, private, and religious
institutions indicates that state universities are more
explicit in communicating this policy. Ninety-two per
cent of them included policies in their codes. The
religious schools showed a 70 per cent interest while
the private institutions followed with 65 per cent. A
factor in the private schools showing less interest is
that the small private colleges are the least likely of

all categories to include the policy in their handbooks.

183

TABLE 13

POLICIES REGARDING DISRUPTIVE ACTIVITIES AS
STATED IN STUDENT HANDBOOKS

 

 

Per Cent Per Cent
Category Stating Stating N
Policy No Policy

 

 

 

State over 10,000 100 0 20
State under 10,000 85 15 20
Private over 5,000 90 10 20
Private under 5,000 A0 60 20
Religious 70 30 20

Total 77 23 100
State 92 8 A0
Private 65 35 A0
Religious 70 30 20

Total 77 23 100
Schools over 10,000 88 12 60
Schools under 10,000 60 A0 A0

Total 77 23 100

 

18A

When the large institutions with more than
10,000 students are compared with smaller ones, a con-
siderable difference appears. Eighty-eight per cent of
the large schools have written policies, while only 60
per cent of the smaller ones do.

A general comment concerning this variable
would be that larger universities, some of which have
already experienced disruptive activities, are more
likely to make clear to the students the bounds within

which they can operate safely.

Substantive Elements.-—A review of the student

 

handbooks reveals that no other variable identified for
this study generates more detailed regulations than this
one concerning disruptive activities. This is particu-
larly true of the larger universities that go into consid-
erable detail outlining which behaviors are not acceptable
and penalties that will be imposed.

Many of the codes begin with a statement of
philosophy or justification for the regulations. The
University of Georgia1 serves as an example:

In recent years a new and serious problem has
appeared on many college and university campuses in
the Nation. Students, faculty, and others have on
occasion conducted demonstrations, sit-ins and other
activities that have clearly and deliberately inter-
fered with the regular and orderly operation of the

institution concerned. Typically, this action has
been the physical occupation of a building or campus

 

1University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, Student
Handbook, 1969-70, p. 37.

 

185

area for a protracted period of time or the use or
display of verbal or written obscenities involving
indecent or disorderly conduct.

These actions have gone beyond all heretofore
recognized bounds of meetings for discussion, per-
suasion, or even protest, in that: (l) acquiescence
to demands of the demonstrators is the condition for
dispersal, and (2) the reasonable and written di-
rections of institutional officials to disperse
have been ignored. Such activity thus has become
clearly recognizable as an action of force, operat-
ing outside all established channels on the campus,
including that of intellectual debate and persua-
sion which is at the very heart of education . . .
The Board reaffirms its belief that all segments of
the academic community are under a strong obligation
and have a mutual responsibility to protect the
campus community from disorderly, disruptive or ob—
structive actions which interfere with academic
pursuits or teaching, learning, and campus activ-
ities.

Probably the most elaborate set of rules pro-
hibiting disruptive activities is included in the hand-

1 The

book at the University of Wisconsin at Madison.
policy covers restrictions on persons who may enter campus,
the presence of persons in university buildings during
closed hours, prohibitions against obstructions of en-
trance, and rules governing picketing, rallies, parades,
and demonstrations. Michigan State University2 also

outlines in some detail an ordinance governing disorderly

assemblages or conduct:

 

1University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin,
Rule Book, 1969—70, p. 6-10.

 

2Michigan State.University, East Lansing, Michigan,
A Handbook for Students, 1968, and Academic Freedom for
Students, 1969, p.711.

 

 

186

No person or persons shall, without authorization,
assemble together anywhere on the campus for

the purpose of creating any noise or disturbance,
riot, or other improper diversion, or assemble

in a manner which obstructs the free movement of
persons about the campus or the free and normal
use of University buildings and facilities, or
prevents or obstructs the normal operations

of the University.

No person or persons shall disrupt the normal
operation of any properly authorized class,
laboratory, seminar, examination, field.trip or
other educational activity of the University.

No person or persons shall disrupt the normal

use of any campus building or area which has

been assigned or scheduled through appropriate
channels for educational or extracurricular ac-
tivities. Included within, but not limited to
the foregoing, is the use of appropriate build-
ings or areas for dramatic or musical presenta-
tions, lectures, athletic events, military exer-
cises, orientation meetings, registration,
commencement ceremonies, and placement activities.

No person or persons shall disrupt the normal
activity or molest the property of any person,
firm or agency while that person, firm or agency
is carrying out the provisions of a contract or
agreement with the University.

No unauthorized person or persons shall enter

upon the playing area of any athletic contest

or exhibition while said contest or exhibition
is in progress.

No person or persons shall project or drop any
object which could cause injury, damage or
interference in the spectator or playing area
where any athletic contest or exhibition is
conducted.

No person shall enter or attempt to enter into
any dance or.socia1, athletic, theatrical, or
other public event without a ticket of admission
to such event when such tickets are required, or
enter or attempt to enter contrary to any estab-
lished rules or qualifications for eligibility
for attendance at such events as provided by the
sponsors. No person ineligible to attend such
events shall loiter about the premises where such
an event is being held.

187

In Cornell University's1 standards of conduct

a student is advised to conduct himself on University

premises in a manner that does not disrupt or obstruct

University operations or functions. Accordingly, all

students are advised to observe and comply with the

following regulations:

1. No person shall disrupt or obstruct or attempt
to disrupt or obstruct any instructional, re-
search, service, or other University operations
or functions, or interfere with or attempt to
interfere with the lawful exercise of freedom
of speech, freedom of movement, freedom of
peacable assembly, or other rights of individ-
uals, by

a.

Using or threatening physical force or
violence to harass, abuse, intimidate, coerce
or injure another, or to cause damage to or
loss of property; or

Using language or actions likely to incite
the use of physical force or violence by

Persistently making or causing to be made
unreasonable, excessive, or tumultuous

Obstructing or causing to be obstructed the
lawful use of, access to, or egress from
University premises or portions thereof, or
unlawfully entering or remaining in or on the

Obstructing or restraining the lawful move-
ment of another or obstructing or restraining
his lawful participation in authorized activ-
ities and events, including, without limita-
tions, regular and special curricular activ—
ities, extracurricular activities, and em-
ployment interviews; or

 

b.

others; or
c.

noise; or
d.

same; or
e.
1

Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, Policy

Notebook for Students, and Desk Book, 1969-70, p. .

 

188

f. Engaging in any other reckless, tumultuous,
or unlawful act or course of conduct.

2. No person shall refuse or fail to comply with a
lawful order of any University or public official
acting in the performance of his duties in the
administration and enforcement of these regu-
lations.

3. The possession, carrying, or use of firearms,
including rifles and shotguns, ammunition, ex-
plosives, or other dangerous weapons, instruments,
or substances in or upon University premises,
except by lawful enforcement officers or except
as specifically authorized by the University, is
prohibited.

While most institutions do not detail the procedures
to be used in case of campus disruptions, some of them
outline the steps to be taken in the event of action by
students which disrupt or tend to disrupt the peace, or

endanger the life of any person. Oklahoma Baptist Uni-

1 lists rather clear procedures:

versity
1. The disrupter(s) will be advised by an University
administrative officer that the activity is an
abridgment of University regulations.

2. The disrupter(s) will be given fifteen minutes to
cease and desist.

3. If they do not cease and desist within that time
period, they will be asked for their student
identification cards.

A. Those who produce their student identification
cards will be suspended and asked to leave the
University by the President, the Assistant to
the President, or the Dean of Students.

a. After notification of suspension from the
University, such students will be given five
minutes to cease and desist unlawful activity.

 

1Oklahoma Baptist University, Shawnee, Oklahoma,
The Green Book, 1969-70, p. 3A.

189

If unlawful activity continues after the five-
minute period, the students will be notified
of their dismissal from the University. They
will then become subject to action under the
law as described in (b) below.

b. Those persons who do not have or will not
produce student identification cards will
be assumed not to be student members of the
University community and will be charged
with those offenses under the law which are
appropriate to the situation. Under state
law these can include felony charges.

5. A student who is suspended or dismissed because
of participation in a riot or an unlawful
demonstration may request a review of the
action by the appropriate judicial agency of
the University. This request must be presented
to the Dean of Students within two weeks. The
student will remain suspended or dismissed until
the judicial agency has considered the appeal.
There are a number of colleges that have not found
it necessary to develop policies in such detail. The
University of Tulsa1 prohibits disruptive activities by
simply saying that the university cannot tolerate abuse
of student rights of freedom of speech and assembly to
the extent that they interfere with the functioning of
the university as a free academic institution or the rights
of the members of the University's academic community. East
Central State College2 expressly forbids, "that any group

of students gather in such a manner as to disturb the

public peace, do violence to any person or property, or

 

1
University of Tulsa, Tulsa, Oklahoma, Student
Handbook, 1969—70, p. 3.

 

2East Central State College, Ada, Oklahoma, The
Student Handbook, 1969- -70, p. 20.

 

190

disrupt the function of the college or interfere with

its faculty or staff in the performance of their duties."
Some schools such as East Texas State University1
and West Texas State University2 use existing state laws
as a basis for their rules on disruption.

Penalties for disrupting peaceful campus opera-
tions are generally rather stiff. In every case where
penalties are specified, suspension or expulsion are
listed as possibilities. The University of Scranton3
indicates that, "Members of the University community who
violate the stated provisions for free assembly or protest
or who refuse to cooperate with the requests of the Dean
of Men in such circumstances are subject to serious dis-
ciplinary action including suspension or dismissal. They
may also be subject to arrest and prosecution as duly
provided for in civil law." The College of Wooster”
outlines in its policy that, "If any person who is par—

ticipating in any disruptive action fails promptly to

 

1East Texas State University, Commerce, Texas,
Student Handbook, 1969-70, p. 33.

2West Texas.State.University, Cayon, Texas, General
Policy Statements of Student Life, 1969-70, p. 12.

3University of Scranton, Scranton, Pennsylvania,
The Student Handbook, 1969-70, p. 37.

A
College of Wooster, Wooster, Ohio, The Scot's
Key, 1969-70, p. 31.

 

191

desist on the request of any authorized college adminis-
trator or faculty member, such official may suspend such
student or students from the college, effective imme-
diately." In addition to possible suspension from the
university, the University of Miami1 will deny any stu-
dent found guilty of violating lawful regulations re-
garding disruptions the benefit of any and all financial
aid programs for two years including any aid previously
committed.

Faculty and staff members who participate in
unlawful demonstrations may also receive penalties.
Syracuse University2 lists the following penalties for
staff and faculty:

1. Reprimand: Written reprimand for violation of
a specified regulation.

2. Censure: Public reprimand for violation of
a specified regulation.

3. Suspension: Loss of all faculty right, privi-
leges, responsibilities, either with or without
salary, for a specified period of time.

A. Terminations: Discontinuation of employment in
cases in which the violation is found to consti-
tute cause for terminating the faculty or staff
member's appointment, term contract or tenured
position.

Most generally violators will be handled by es-

tablished university judiciary committees. Vanderbilt

 

1University of Miami, Coral Gables, Florida,
Student Handbook, 1969-70, p. AA.

Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York, Dates
and Data, 1969-70, p. 25.

 

192

1 however, establishes a special committee to

University,
hear violations where issues of conscience or academic
freedom are raised by the accused student. The Uni-
versity of North Carolina2 in a special report on dis-
ruptive conduct recommended special hearing bodies to
review violations.

As more universities experience activities
that tend to disrupt peaceful campus functions, addi-
tional regulation and ordinances will be enacted by

colleges to attempt to maintain order. These regula-

tions will probably continue to be strict and exhaustive.

Off—Campus Speakers

 

Policy.--A review of a selected group of uni-
versity student handbooks was made to determine the per-
centage of schools that communicate in this way policies
allowing for the opportunity to listen to speakers rep-
resenting a wide variety of opinions and beliefs on
important public issues. As recorded in Table 1A,

59 per cent of the institutions do not include policies
in the student handbooks. Some additional schools im-

plied that they did in fact have policies, but they did

 

l
Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee,
Undergraduate Student Affairs Handbook, 1969-70, p. 5.

 

2
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill,
North Carolina, The Honor Code, 1969, and Statement of

Policy, 1969, p. l.

 

 

193

TABLE 1A

POLICIES REGARDING THE INVITATION OF
CONTROVERSIAL SPEAKERS TO CAMPUS
AS STATED IN STUDENT HANDBOOKS

 

 

Per Cent Per Cent
Category Stating Stating N
Policy No Policy

 

 

 

State over 10,000 50 50 20
State under 10,000 30 70 20
Private over 5,000 60 A0 20
Private under 5,000 25 75 20
Religious A0 60 20

Total Al 59 100
State A0 60 A0
Private A2 58 A0
Religious A0 60 20

Total A1 59 100
Schools over 10,000 53 A7 60
Schools under 10,000 22 88 A0

Total Al 59 100

 

19A

not formalize them in writing. The large private colleges
were the most inclined to include policies, with 60 per
cent of them outlining regulations. This is in contrast
with the small private schools that only included poli-
cies 25 per cent of the time. Only 30 per cent of the
small state institutions included policies, while A0

per cent of the religious colleges had written state-
ments. The large state schools showed a 50 per cent
interest in stating their policy in the handbooks.

When state, private, and religious institutions
are compared, there is little percentage difference.

The state and religious schools included regulations in
A0 per cent of the handbooks, while the private institu-
tions included them at a A2 per cent rate.

A considerable percentage difference exists when
large and small universities are compared. Fifty-three
per cent of the large schools included written policies
in the handbooks, while only 22 per cent of the small
ones chose to do so.

A review of the handbooks indicates that large
state and private institutions are more inclined to write
explicit regulations outlining speaker policies, while
the small private institutions find the least need to do
so. Large schools will more often include these policies
in their codes than will small ones with less than 10,000

students.

195

Substantive Elements.-—A large variety of regu—

 

lations exists among the institutions regarding the invi-
tation of controversial speakers to campus. A large
number of the schools require some type of institutional
approval before a speaker can appear. This is often
handled by an administrative committee, or in some
colleges, usually smaller ones, the president himself
must give approval. There are some institutions, es-
pecially the larger ones, that only require student groups
to list the speaker and clear facilities. Other uni-
versities require formal committee procedures and will
approve speakers only if it is determined that there is
potential educational value in the talk, and no threat

of riot.

As justification of university policy concerning
speakers, a number of schools list a paragraph from the
"Joint Statement." Tuskegee Institutel follows this
procedure:

Students should be allowed to invite and to hear
any person of their own choosing. Those routine
procedures required by an institution before a guest
speaker is invited to appear on campus should be
designed only to insure that there is orderly
scheduling of facilities and adequate preparation for
the event, and that the occasion is conducted in a
manner appropriate to an academic community. The

institutional control of campus facilities should not
be used as a device of censorship. It should be made

 

1

Tuskegee Institute, Tuskegee, Alabama, Student
Handbook, 1969-70, and Student Guidelines and Disci-
pline Proceedings, 1969, p. 10.

 

 

196

clear to the academic and larger community that

sponsorship of guest speakers does not necessarily

imply approval or endorsement of the views expressed,

either by the sponsoring group or the institution.

A good number of schools do not list their policies
in much detail. They simply state a basic philosophy
and do not go into much detail as to the procedures used
to implement this philosophy. The University of Tulsa1
follows this procedure. It states that, "An integral
part of a student's education is the freedom to inves-
tigate various points of view and to hear personal
Opinion as expressed by public speakers. To hear speak-
ers of various convictions, to give them a respectful
hearing, and to reach conclusions on the basis of evi-
dence provided by the speaker are part of the academic
experience of free inquiry. Duly recognized student or—
ganizations are free to invite speakers of their choice.
In inviting speakers to the campus, student organizations
have the responsibility of exercising good judgment in
selecting speakers who may contribute to the educational
process."
Schools that allow students to invite speakers

without restrictions are generally large private or

state institutions. The University of Southern California2

 

1University of Tulsa, Tulsa, Oklahoma, Student
Handbook, 1969-70, p. A.

 

2University of Southern California, S Campus,
1969-70, p. 5”.

 

197

serves as an example:

The University of Southern California, committed
to freedom of inquiry and the pursuit of truth as
essential to excellence in education, has a respon—
sibility to provide a forum for ideas for all mem-
bers of its academic community. University-recog-
nized student organizations may select persons they
wish to invite as guest speakers with no restrictions
to control the point of view expressed by speakers
other than those imposed by law.

Students at Boston University1 may invite speakers
of their choice to campus. The only requirement is that
the University Program Director be notified of the speak-
er's background and the topic of his address at least
three days in advance of the speech so that the event
can be placed on the calendar and communicated to the
public. Indiana State University2 student groups may
invite speakers to the campus, subject only to the follow-
ing provisions:

1. That the speaker not advocate violation of any

Federal or State law and that the speaker be

aware that any personal violation of any Federal

or State law on his part will make him subject

to action by the regular civilian authorities

administrating Federal and State laws.

2. That following the speaker's presentation

adequate time be allowed and opportunities pro—

vided for questions and criticisms from members

of the audience. The speaker must be made aware
of and agree to this condition.

 

1

Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts, The
Rights, Freedoms, and Responsibilities of Students, 1969-
70, p. 6.

 

2IndianaStateUniversity, Terre Haute, Indiana,
Student Handbook, 1969-70, p. 50.

 

198

3. That neither the sponsoring group nor the speaker
attempt to indicate University support of the
speaker or his ideas.

A. That a member or members of the sponsoring group
be on the platform with the speaker to present
the speaker and his topic as well as to conduct
the question period.

5. That in order to schedule properly the event . . .
the sponsoring group wishing to invite a visiting
speaker to the University will make arrangements
for reservation of space with appropriate Uni-
versity officials seven days in advance of the
speaker's appearance.

6. That violation by the sponsoring group of the
provisions or intent of the stated policy and
procedure will subject that group and its
members only to those sanctions which are appli-

cable in cases of violation of other University
rules.

The University of Tennessee1 lists many of the same rules
above but adds one regulation: "The representative of
the organization inviting the speaker shall at the time
of the invitation provide the speaker with a copy of the
University speaker policy and campus regulations."

The schools that may restrict campus speakers
usually use a student-faculty-administrative committee
to review each request. Tulane University2 indicates in
its policy that officially recognized groups are en-
couraged to provide forums for the expression of opinions

on important topics. Speakers must be approved by the

 

1
University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee,
Hill Topics, l969-70, p. 55.

 

2Tulane University, New Orleans, Louisiana,
Student Leaders' Handbook, 1969—70, p. 35.

199

Dean of Students acting with the advice of the Sub—committee
on Speakers. The students are advised to word letters
to prospective speakers so as to not imply the actual
giving of an invitation. Speakers are recommended to
the Committee only after the sponsoring group by ballot
or through its officers have decided upon one or more
speakers. No petitions will be considered if a non—
campus organization is one of the sponsoring groups.
Only those speakers listed on the petition will be
approved. No substitutes may be used.

Western Washington State College1 lists a number
of requirements necessary before a speaker can come
to campus. Among them are these:

1. No person who is not a member of the community
of Western Washington State College has an in-
herent right to speak on the campus unless he
has been invited by a member of the faculty or
by a recognized student group. No person not
a member of the W. W. S. C. student body or
faculty has a right to demand that he be
allowed to listen to an address of an invited
speaker.

2. The Dean of Students' office will be notified at
least seven days before the appearance of an
invited speaker.

3. In exceptional cases, the President may at his
discretion limit the audience to the group which
issued the invitation or direct that a tenured
member of the faculty preside over the meeting.

A. The President may take steps to have views other
than those of an invited speaker represented at a

 

1Western Washington State College, Bellingham,
Washington, Navigator, 1969-70, p. 27.

 

200

given meeting or at subsequent meetings of the

host organization.

West Texas State University1 allows the student
organization sponsor or advisor to give approval of an
off-campus speaker. The faculty sponsor is at liberty
to confer with his department head, dean, or the Pres—
ident of the University whenever he is in doubt as to the
acceptability of the speaker. The University of California,
San Diego,2 students may invite non-University speakers
to address meetings on campus only upon prior notification
to the Chancellor. Speakers may be heard only if the
Chancellor deems the meeting to be compatible with the
educational objectives of the University. Whenever
approval is given for a speaker, the Chancellor may re-
quire either or both of the following:

1. That the meeting be chaired by a person approved
by the Chancellor,

2. That the speaker be subject to questions from
the audience.

Xavier University3 allows the Director of Student
Personnel Services to decide that any organization inviting

a speaker to campus is acting in good faith and that the

 

1
West Texas State University, Cayon, Texas,
General Policy Statements of Student Life, 1969-70, p. 3.

 

2
University of California, San Diego, California,
Student Handbook, 1969-70, p. 16.

 

3Xavier University of Louisiana, New Orleans,
Louisiana, Student Handbook, 1968—69, p. 5A.

 

201

invitation would be in the best interest of the University.
In cases involving highly controversial points of view,
the Director may recommend a debate format. The organi-
zation sponsoring the speaker must be explicit in its
invitations and its publicity that the speaker will be
the guest of the student group and not of the University.
Most policies do not include statements outlining
penalties for violating regulations. Those that do
generally state that complaints of abuse of the policy
shall be referred to a regularly constituted review board

representing the students, faculty and administration.

Unacceptable Off—Campus Behavior

 

Policy.--An attempt was made to determine the per
cent of schools in this study that communicate policies
in student handbooks restricting unacceptable off-campus
behavior (Table 15). This behavior was defined as any
off-campus act by individuals or groups that would con—
flict with the welfare and integrity of the institution.
Of all the variables used in the study, this one was
the most difficult to identify in terms of explicit lan-
guage. Many colleges referred to unacceptable off—campus
behavior only as a part of another regulation or in a
paragraph outlining general behavior expectations. Only
those handbooks that explicitly stated a policy were

included in the tabulation, even though many of the

202

TABLE 15

POLICIES REGARDING UNACCEPTABLE OFF-CAMPUS
BEHAVIOR AS STATED IN STUDENT HANDBOOKS

 

 

Per Cent Stating

Per Cent Not

 

 

 

Policy Stating Policy
Category Indicating and/or Indicating N
Concern No Concern
State over 10,000 A0 60 20
State under 10,000 75 25 20
Private over 5,000 65 35 20
Private under 5,000 20 80 20
Religious 75 25 20
Total 55 A5 100
State 57 A3 A0
Private A2 58 AO
Religious 75 25 20
Total 55 A5 100
Schools over 10,000 60 A0 60
Schools under 10,000 52 A8 A0
Total 55 A5 100

203

schools that did not write this regulation clearly could
be expected to apply conduct codes equally on- and off-
campus.

Fifty-five per cent of the schools indicated an
interest in looking at unacceptable off—campus behavior.
Of course the degree of interest varied according to
school. Some considered each case as though the mis-
behavior had occurred on campus. Others merely took
note of the action and pursued it no further than the
civil authorities had taken it. Nearly all the schools
in this study that stated policies, however, were likely
to investigate and take action if the off-campus behavior
reflected a considerable negative attitude toward the
university.

The small private universities showed the least
amount of interest in off—campus behavior, with only
20 per cent listing policies. It should be noted that
this is somewhat inconsistent with the findings of the
previous variables. Other findings in this study indi-
cate this category of schools to be more strict in their
policies. This finding may be more a result of the fact
that the small private schools are less explicit in all
their regulations, than the fact that they do not have
policies prohibiting unacceptable off-campus behavior.

Seventy-five per cent of the religious and small

state schools made statements regarding off-campus

20A

behavior, while 65 per cent of the large private univer-
sities stated an interest. Forty per cent of the large
state institutions indicated they would look at off-campus
behavior with some concern.

When a comparison is made with the state, private,
and religious institutions, the religious schools still
show the most concern with 75 per cent indicating an
interest. Fifty-seven and A2 per cent of the state and
private colleges respectively hold students responsible
for their off-campus behavior.

A comparison of the large and small institutions
indicates little difference, mainly because of the in-
consistent findings in the small private school category.
Sixty per cent of the large colleges have policies pro-
hibiting unacceptable off-campus actions, and 52 per cent

of the small ones indicate the same attitude.

Substantive Elements.--While the majority of the

 

schools reviewed for this study concerned themselves with
off-campus behavior, a few institutions stated in their
handbooks that students were not subject to university
discipline because of off-campus actions. The Uni-
versity of Detroit1 indicates that, "The behavior of
students in places other than the buildings and grounds

of the University is regulated exclusively by public law.

 

1
University of Detroit, Detroit, Michigan, Hand-
book, 1969-70, p. 8.

205

With respect to violation of public law in off—campus
situations, the University asserts no authority over
students and assumes no responsibility for their actions."
This same attitude is expressed by Northwestern Univer-
sity1 in saying that, "The university has no legal au-
thority over a student when he is outside university
property. A student is subject to local, state, and
federal statutes." Western Washington State College2
states its policy in more detail and extends it to off-
campus cases of unusual gravity. The regulations at
W.W.S.C. apply to any student only when he is on college
property, is participating in or directly affecting a
college-sponsored function or is representing or claim-
ing to represent the college in an official capacity.
Only the Disciplinary Committee has the authority to
call for a reexamination of students convicted by civil
authority.

A number of co leges that prohibit unlawful off-
campus behavior do so without much elaboration. Xavier

3

University's code states simply that, "it is expected

 

Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois,
Student Handbook, 1969—70, p. 17.

 

2 . .. ..
Western Washington State College, Bellingham,
Washington, Navigator, 1969—70, p. 30.

3Xavier University of Louisiana, New Orleans,
Louisiana, Student Handbook, l968—69, p. 32.

 

 

206

that students will abide by the laws of the community.
Students who violate laws of the nations, state, or mu-
nicipality are subject to disciplinary action by the
University as well as action from the Civil Court."
Vanderbilt University1 adds a little more detail but
draws the same conclusion:

The University commends to all its members a
respect for law. In the event that one of its
members finds himself in jeopardy before the law,
either for the sake of conscience or for the purpose
of testing the validity of a law through deliberate
violation, the University will not seek to protect
him from the processes of the law; but regardless
of the action of the courts the University reserves
the right to determine whether his is fitted to
retain his membership in the academic community.

Notre Dame2 takes almost the same approach in

rather simple terms. It indicates that the student who
violates civil laws is not automatically subject to
penalties of the University, but he may be if the action
against the student is found to be a detriment to the
University community. In this case, definite penalties
for civil violations, which are not also University
violations, must await court judgment.

A few schools use as a basis for their regulation

the "Joint Statement." Bowie State College3 follows this

procedure:

A_.._

l
Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee,
Undergraduate Student Affairs Handbook, 1969-70, p. A.

 

2

Notre Dame University, Notre Dame, Indiana,
Student Handbook, 1969—70, p. 22.

3Bowie State College, Bowie, Maryland, Student
Handbook, 1969-70, p. 70.

 

 

 

 

 

 

207

Institutional Authority and Civil Penalties. Ac-
tivities of students may upon occasion result in
violation of law. In such cases, institutional
officials should be prepared to apprise students

of sources of legal counsel and may offer other
assistance. Students who violate the law may

incur penalties prescribed by civil authorities,

but institutional authority should never be used
merely to duplicate the function of general laws.
Only where the institution's interest as an academic
community are distinct and clearly involved should
the special authority of the institution be asserted.
The student who incidentally violates institutional
regulations in the course of his off-campus activity,
such as those relating to class attendance, should
be subject to no greater penalty than would normally
be imposed. Institutional action should be inde-
pendent of community pressure.

Some universities use their off-campus regulation
to emphasize the need for students to behave themselves
under all conditions. Kentucky State College1 indicates
that, "Students are not to frequent places where atten-
dance thereto would reflect unfavorably on the reputation
of the student or the College. Students are responsible
for their behavior, whether on the campus or away from
it." The State College of Arkansas2 makes the same plea:
"When the student leaves the campus of State College of
Arkansas he is still associated with the school by the
simple fact that he is a student. Students on or off
campus should conduct themselves in such a way as to

bring honor rather than discredit to the college."

 

1

Kentucky State College, Frankfort, Kentucky,
The K-Book, 1968, and Supplement, 1969, p. 32.

2State College of Arkansas, Conway, Arkansas,
Handbook, 1969-70, p. 33.

 

 

208

A few schools include in their philosophy of
proper student conduct a general statement of university
policy. The University of Santa Clara1 begins its
student code in these words:

The University reserves the right to dismiss any
student whose conduct is seriously inconsistent with
the goals of the University and the public good.

It further reserves the right to dismiss any student

whose off-campus activities are such that they bring

discredit to the University.
Students at Stanford University2 are introduced to their
conduct rules with this admonition: "Students are ex-
pected to show both within and without the University
such respect for order, morality, personal honor, and
the rights of others as is demanded of good citizens.
Failure to observe this will be sufficient cause for
removal from the University." In its introduction to
the student code of conduct, Wisconsin State University
at Stevens Point3 indicates that the president of the
University may consider appropriate action, including
suspension and expulsion, for breach of federal, state

or local laws or university rules or regulations. This

principle extends to conduct off campus which is likely

 

1
University of Santa Clara, Santa Clara, California,
Student Handbook, 1969-70, p. 39.

 

2
Stanford University, Stanford, California,
Stanford University Bulletin, Series 21, No. 10, January 2,
1970, p- 37.

 

3Wisconsin State University, Stevens Point,
Wisconsin, Student Handbook, 1968, p. 18.

 

209

to have adverse effects on the university or on the ed-
ucational process or which stamps the offender as an
unfit associate for the other students.

Most generally universities are likely to look
at off-campus violations only if they affect the repu-
tation of the school or indicate that the student con—
stitutes a danger to himself or others on campus. This
broad statement, of course, allows schools a great deal
of freedom in this area of student behavior. Those
institutions listing policies on this variable in their
handbooks appear pretty determined to maintain super-

vision of students in all aspects of their lives.

Student Rights in Procedural Due Process

 

Policy.--Student handbooks were reviewed to
determine the per cent of universities listing the "rights"
accorded to students during the administration of dis-
cipline (Table 16). These rights were defined as state-
ments identifying procedures to be followed by the uni-
versity to assure that the student receives a fair and
impartial hearing.

Seventy-one per cent of the schools reviewed
for this study included in their disciplinary procedures
processes guaranteeing a fair hearing for student vio-
lators. All of the large state institutions with more
than 10,000 students included student rights, and 90

per cent of the large private ones did so also. The

POLICIES REGARDING

210

TABLE 16

"STUDENT RIGHTS" IN

PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS AS STATED
IN STUDENT HANDBOOKS

 

 

 

 

 

Per Cent Per Cent Not
Stating Stating
Category "Student "Student N
Rights" Rights"
State over 10,000 100 0 20
State under 10,000 65 35 20
Private over 5,000 90 10 20
Private under 5,000 A5 55 20
Religious 55 A5 20
Total 71 29 100
State 83 17 A0
Private 68 32 A0
Religious 55 A5 20
Total 71 29 100
Schools over 10,000 87 13 60
Schools under 10,000 A8 52 A0
Total 71 29 100

 

211

small private institutions were the least likely to
list procedural fairness in disciplinary hearings with
only A5 per cent doing so. Fifty—five per cent of the
religious colleges outlined student rights, and 65 per
cent of the small state ones chose to do so.

A comparison of the state, private, and religious
schools indicates that state institutions are more in-
clined to outline student rights. Eighty-three per
cent of them specified the rights of students in judi-
ciary hearings, while 68 per cent of the private ones
listed these procedures. Only 55 per cent of the relig-
ious schools felt it necessary to include these rights as
part of their due process procedures.

When large institutions with more than 10,000
students are compared with smaller ones, a large per-
centage difference appears. Eighty-seven per cent of
the large universities outline procedural fairness pro-
cesses while only A8 per cent of the smaller schools in-
cluded these rights as part of their disciplinary pro-
cedures.

A general comment would be that the large insti-
tutions are more inclined to outline the rights of stu-
dents in due process procedures, as are also state-re—

lated universities.

Substantive Elements.--An attempt was made to

 

identify a few examples of disciplinary procedures that

212

clearly outline for students procedural fairness in

due process. The schools that include statements on

the rights of the accused do so with a varying degree

of detail. Generally a paragraph within the disciplinary
proceedings details the procedural fairness. An example
is offered from the Wisconsin State University at

Stevens Point:

A student charged with conduct which may subject
him to substantial disciplinary action should of
course be afforded reasonable notice of the offense
with which he is charged and the general nature of
the evidence on which the charge is based, a rea-
sonable opportunity to prepare and present any defense
he may have, an adequate and fair hearing, and gener-
ally, procedural due process of law. He should be
dealt with fairly in all respects; and the severity
of the discipline when guilt is established should
be reasonably commensurate with the gravity of the
offense.

A number of colleges use the "Joint Statement"

as a basis for the rights of students involved in dis-
ciplinary action. The University of Tulsa2 adheres to
these statements in its code, which include the following:
The student is (l) to be informed of the nature of the
charges against him; (2) to have a fair opportunity to
rebuke them; (3) to have the right for an appeal of the
decision; (A) to have the right to request the removal

of a member of the judicial board that hears his case on

 

1Wisconsin State University, Stevens Point,
Wisconsin, Student Handbook, 1968, p. 19.

 

2University of Tulsa, Tulsa, Oklahoma, Student
Handbook, 1969-70, p. 7.

213

the grounds that the member is biased; (5) to not be
required to testify against himself; (6) to seek the
advice and counsel of faculty members, his parents,
or other knowledgeable persons regarding the presentation
of his case.

The University of California at San Diego1 lists
its procedural fairness in some detail:

1. The student shall be presumed innocent until shown
to the contrary.

2. The student shall be entitled to a prompt and
impartial hearing.

3. He shall be entitled, in advance of any hearing,
to a written statement setting forth concisely
the alleged misconduct and specifying the policy
or regulation he is alleged to have violated.

A. Upon request, the student is entitled to be
informed of the evidence in support of the
charges and its sources.

5. The student is entitled, but not required, to
have an adviser of his own choice.

6. The student shall have every reasonable opportun-
ity to present his case at the hearing, including
the presentation of written and oral testimony
by himself and by witnesses of his own choice and
the right to question other witnesses.

7. He may decline to answer incriminating questions.

8. In the event of a committee hearing, the entire
proceeding shall be recorded on tape and the tape
shall be available to the student.

9. The hearing agency shall receive and consider
oral and documentary evidence of the kind on which
responsible persons are accustomed to rely in
serious matters and may exclude irrelevant or

 

1
University of California, San Diego, California,
Student Handbook, 1969-70, p. 13.

21A

unduly repetitious matters. Findings of violations
of university policies or campus rules or reg-
ulations shall be based upon the preponderance

of the evidence. A report of the hearing, which
shall include findings, shall accompany the
hearings agency's recommendations. A copy of

this report and the recommendations shall be
furnished to the student upon his request.

10. The student shall have the right of appeal. An
appeal must be filed with the appropriate
appellate agency within ten (10) academic days
from the date on the letter sent to the student
notifying him of the action to be taken. The
appeal must be based on one or more of the follow-
ing reasons: (1) there was a procedural error
in his hearing that prejudiced his case or led
to an improper conclusion by the administrative
officer or committee; (2) the action taken was
too severe in response to the violations committed;
(3) the student has important new evidence that
was not available at the original hearing; or
(A) there was an improper finding of fact on
the basis of the information available at the
original hearing. The administrative officer or
committee considering the appeal may deny the
appeal on the basis of the written appeal alone.

A disciplinary action under appeal does not become
effective until a final decision is made on the
appeal.

11. With the exception of the Chancellor, no admini-
strative officer or other hearing agency may
increase the severity of a disciplinary action
under appeal.

12. Each committee hearing agency shall determine and
specify the circumstances under which hearings
before that committee shall be closed or open
to the campus community.

In addition to the procedural rights stated above,
additional ones are specified by various colleges. The

1

University of Detroit allows the student the right to

confront and cross examine accusers. The student may

 

1University of Detroit, Detroit, Michigan, Hand-
book, 1969-70, p. 9.

215

also choose whether a disciplinary hearing is to be

opened or closed. A student has the right to resolve

the controversy with a Student Personnel Dean or Resi-
dence Hall Program Director without making use of his

full legal entitlement of procedural rights and a full
hearing. Western Washington State College1 indicates

in its code that in no case is it deemed proper action

by the College to suggest waiver of a student's right to

a proper hearing in favor of withdrawal from the college
or other restrictions without a Disciplinary Committee
hearing. The student has also the right to waive stu-
dent representation on the Disciplinary Committee.

Under no circumstances shall a student be made to feel
that refusal to render information will of itself increase
the degree of penalty nor that rendering information

will decrease the degree of penalty. Brandeis University2
outlines for its students constitutional rights and ad-
vises students to become acquainted with them, especially
as they apply to off-campus violations. The University
of Southern California3 indicates that the status of a

student shall not be altered, or his right to be present

 

1
Western Washington State College, Bellingham,
Washington, Navigator, 1969-70, p. 30.

 

2
Brandeis University, Waltham, Massachusetts,
Student Handbook, 1969—70, p. 98.

3University of Southern California, S Campus,
1969’703 p- "5-

 

216

on campus or to attend classes pending actions or charges
or appeals, except for reasons relating to his physical
or emotional safety, and the best interest or well-

being of students, faculty, administrators, or University
property.

There is a trend, particularly in the larger and
state institutions, for students to be allowed (1) legal
or other counsil; (2) names of accusers and witnesses;
(3) written charges, notification of the hearings and
results of the procedures; (A) appeal of committee
actions; (5) written record of the hearing; (6) removal
of action of committees from student records when penal-
ties are terminated; (7) published conduct procedures
for the student body; and (8) allowance to circumvent

conduct procedures whenever the circumstances allow it.

Procedural Due Process

 

Policy.--University student handbooks were reviewed
to determine the number of schools that had developed
practices and procedures used to process student misconduct
problems, and had used the handbooks to communicate these
procedures to students.

Table 17 indicates that 8A per cent of the hand-
books in this study contained practices and procedures
used to handle discipline problems on campus. All of the
large state schools with more than 10,000 students listed

procedures, while 90 per cent of the small state ones

217

TABLE 17

POLICIES REGARDING PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS
AS STATED IN STUDENT HANDBOOKS

 

 

Per Cent Detailing

Per Cent Not

 

 

 

Procedural Detailing
Category Due Procedural Due N
Process Process
State over 10,000 100 0 20
State under 10,000 90 10 20
Private over 5,000 90 10 20
Private under 5,000 70 30 20
Religious 70 30 20
Total 8A 16 100
State 95 5 A0
Private 80 20 A0
Religious 70 30 20
Total 8A 16 100
Schools over 10,000 93 7 60
Schools under 10,000 70 30 A0
Total 8A 16 100

 

f7."

218

and the large private institutions with more than 5,000
students outlined their practices. Seventy per cent of
the small private colleges and the same number of relig-
ious institutions outlined their procedures in the student
handbooks.

Ninety-five per cent of the state universities

outlined discipline practices in their handbooks, while

80 per cent of the private ones chose to do so. The
religious schools indicated the least interest with 70
per cent of them listing procedures.

A rather large percentage difference exists be—
tween the large institutions with more than 10,000 stu-
dents and the smaller ones. Ninety-three per cent of
the large schools develop in handbooks practices and pro-
cedures for handling discipline problems. Only 70 per
cent of the smaller colleges did so. .

The handbooks review would indicate that state
institutions are the most likely to communicate in the
handbooks their policy in this area, as are all large

schools with a student body of more than 10,000.

Substantive ElementS.—-Universities are attempting

 

to provide better practices and processes to deal with
rule violators. Many schools in the past have failed to
provide a "court" system that would guarantee fair treat-

ment to all students, regardless of the misbehavior. A

219

review of the handbooks indicates that at least 85 per
cent of the institutions are now attempting to rectify
this deficiency.

Generally schools will assign an administrative
officer as the person responsible for discipline enforce-
ment and review. Southeast Missouri State College1
indicated in its code that, "the Dean of Students is
designated the officer for administration of discipline
for unacceptable conduct or infraction of College rules
and regulations and will initiate disciplinary action
in accordance with these regulations." This same pro-
cedure is used by Kentucky State College2 as well as the
majority of the institutions reviewed for this study.

At most universities, "the President shall be the final
authority in cases of discipline," as is stipulated by
the Knox College handbook.3

The usual method for handling disciplinary action
is to establish a set of judiciary boards within the

university. Each board will be assigned certain areas of

power and responsibility. The University of Tulsa“

 

1Southeast Missouri State College, Cape Gerardeau,
Missouri, Student Handbook, 1969, p. 1A.

 

2Kentucky State College, Frankfort, Kentucky,
The K-Book, 1968, and Supplement, 1969, p. 27.

3Knox College, Galesburg, Illinois, Student
Handbook, 1969-70, p. 20.

 

 

“University of Tulsa, Tulsa, Oklahoma, Student
Handbook, 1969-70, p. 9.

220

divides its judiciary powers among a series of boards.
(1) The Residence Halls Judiciaries are responsible
for hearing cases involving residents of the residence
halls. The hall judiciaries are comprised entirely of
students from the halls and are advised by residence
directors. Decisions of these bodies may be appealed
to the Student Judiciary. (2) The Inter-Fraternity
Council Judiciary is the judicial body which hears cases
involving fraternities and fraternity members. The de-
cisions of this body may be appealed to the Student Ju-
diciary. (3) The Student Activities Judiciary hears
cases involving student organizations, and individual
students whose cases rightfully cannot be heard by the
two groups above. The decisions of this body may be
appealed to the Student Judiciary. (A) The Student
Judiciary is the highest student judicial body and re-
views questions concerning the Student Association Con—
stitution and appeals from the lesser judicial bodies.
The decisions of the Student Judiciary may be appealed
to the President of the University. (5) The Student-
Faculty Judiciary is a body which hears serious cases
which may involve a student's suspension from the Uni-
versity. It also hears complaints by students against
faculty. It is comprised of both students and faculty.
Its decisions are subject to the approval of the Pres-

ident of the University.

«1

I.“ in.

221

The judiciary processes at Northern Michigan
University1 offers a student some alternatives in
dealing with alleged violations. The student may elect
one of three courses of action. He may admit the alleged
violation and request, in writing, that the administrative
official or resident adviser take whatever action seems
appropriate. The student may admit the alleged violation
and request a hearing before the appropriate judiciary;
or he may deny the alleged violation or stand mute, in
which case he will be referred to the judiciary body
having jurisdiction if he warrants further investigation
or consideration.

Some schools chose to allow the dean of students
the authority to hear all cases and affix the penalties.
The University of Pittsburgh2 allows the dean to suspend,
dismiss or place a student on disciplinary probation
when serious social problems arise. During the term of
probation, the student is especially responsible to the
dean for counseling and development in self-discipline.
If adequate progress is not made, the dean may suspend
or dismiss the student. The student may appeal the
decision of the dean to a higher University official or

to a Review Board.

 

1
Northern Michigan University, Marquette, Michigan,
Student Code of Conduct, 1969, p. 16.

2
University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania,
Student Handbook, 1969-70, p. 23.

 

222

1

Syracuse University outlines a step-by-step

procedure to be followed if a student takes the option
of having his alleged infraction adjudicated through
the court system.

1. The procedure of the Judicial Board—~though
informal-—is directed toward the presentation
of evidence and the resolution of guilt.

2. The Board's proceedings will be closed to the
public unless the charged student requests
otherwise. Two-thirds of the justices present
may vote to close the court despite the defendent's
request, however.

3. The appropriate Personnel Dean or his represen-
tative will appear before the Board to present
charges, evidence and testimony.

A. The charged student will appear before the Board
after the Personnel Dean to plead innocent or
guilty, dispute or agree with the charges, and
to present evidence and other testimony. The
Personnel Dean may remain unless the charged
student or the Judicial Board requests that he
not be present.

5. The Board will ask detailed questions of the
defendent and any of his witnesses.

6. After the student has completed his testimony,
the Board will deliberate the content of the
case and arrive at a decision.

7. All decisions of the Judicial Board are final,
except where the Court of Appeals might change
the decision of the Board.

8. The Board may find a student either innocent or
guilty. If found guilty, the student may receive
a penalty which may range from a reprimand to
expulsion. The Board may suspend a penalty which
it has given.

 

1Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York, Dates
and Data, 1969-70, p. 37.

223

The code at Syracuse outlines also the rights of students
during the hearing and notes that the charged student is
required to answer pertinent questions. If he gives
false testimony, he may face an additional charge of
perjury. The charged student is expected to cooperate
in the process of fair judgement concerning his case.
If not, the Board may vote a charge of contempt.

An important part of the judiciary system of
any college is the selection of the committee to hear
alleged violations. A few schools, generally the smaller
ones, designate the president of the university to select
committee members. The College Discipline Committee

1 is chosen and

at Southeast Missouri State College

appointed by the president. The Committee consists of

six faculty members and the associate dean of the college,

the latter of whom serves as chairman of the Committee.
The predominant procedure used by institutions

is to appoint both students and faculty to judiciary

committees. This is usually done by the president of

the university from lists supplied by the student and

faculty governing bodies. In some cases the president

will choose the members himself without recommendations.

2

Colorado State University serves as a typical example:

 

1Southeast Missouri State College, Cape Gerardeau,
Missouri, Student Handbook, 1969, p. 15.

 

2Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado,
The Rights and Resppnsibilities of Students and Student

Groups, 1969, p. 7.

 

22A

Procedures for selecting members of the University
Committee on Student Discipline. The University panel
on Student Discipline shall consist of a panel of
twenty-three members as follows: Thirteen men and
women from tenured faculty, or from faculty eligible
to achieve tenure who have been employed at least
two years, and ten men and women students in good
standing. The President shall select a presiding
chairman and two alternate chairmen from the faculty
members.

Student members are nominated by ASCSU and confirmed
by the Committee on Student Life. Nominations are
made in April of each spring quarter. Appointees
assume office on July 1 and serve two-year terms,
five being appointed each year. Vacancies are
filled for the unexpired term in the same manner
above.

Faculty members serve three-year staggered terms
and may be reappointed. The time of appointment is
each May. Vacancies are to be filled for unexpired
terms of office. The appointment procedure is the
same as above.

Universities devise a number of penalties for
violations of campus regulations. These range in severity
from a verbal reprimand from the hearing committee to
expulsion from the university. Weber State College1
lists the typical punishments affixed by standards
committees:

1. Warning. An official written reprimand.

2. Warning Probation. A probation indicating that
further violations of regulations shall result in
more severe disciplinary action. This probation
shall be imposed for a specific period of time
and the student shall be automatically removed
from probation when the imposed period expires.

3. Disciplinary Probation. A probation indicating

that further violations may result in suspension.
In addition, the Standards Committee, through the

 

l
Weber State College, Ogden, Utah, Academic Freedoms,
Rights and Responsibilities of Students, 1969-70, p. 13.

225

Assistant Dean of Students, may notify the
student's parents of his probationary status and
may withdraw any or all of the following privi-
leges: (a) The operation of an automobile on
campus; (b) The holding of an office in a campus
organization; (0) The representation of the
college in any college event; (d) The represen-
tation of the college in inter-collegiate athletic
events; (e) The obtaining of any financial aids.
A student's probation shall be imposed for a
specific period of time and the student should
automatically be removed from probation when

the time limit expires.

A. Fine. Forced compensation to the college for
violation of certain rules and regulations and/or
college property damage, and forced compensation
to individuals whose property has been damaged.

5. Suspension. A student shall, subject to the
approval of the Dean of Students, be suspended
from the college for (a) a definite period of
time, or (b) an indefinite period of time. In
the case of a definite suspension, the student
must reapply to the Admissions Committee.

In the case of an indefinite suspension, the
student must appeal in writing to the Admissions
Committee for readmission to the college.

6. Expulsion. A student shall, subject to the
approval of the Dean of Students, be permanently
dismissed.

In addition to establishing procedures for initial
hearings of student violations, most institutions outline
a method of appeal, especially for cases involving sus-
pension or dismissal. The University of Massachusetts1
requires every case of undergraduate disciplinary action
involving a penalty of suspension or dismissal to be heard

by the University Discipline Board, which is composed of

both students and faculty. This shall be so even when the

 

1University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts,
Student Handbook, 1969-70, p. 59.

 

lag“

226

Dean of Students suspends a student, pending an appeal,
upon reasonable presumption that continuance of the student
would present a threat to the safety, peace, or well-

being of the university community. This appeal privilege
is offered by any student whose case has not previously
been heard by the Board. In cases not involving sus—
pension or dismissal, any undergraduate student who has
been a party in a disciplinary proceeding before a student
judicial organization, or any other judicial body including
university officials, may file a petition of appeal on

his own behalf with the Board. The Dean of Students,

the Dean of Men, the Dean of Women, or the deans of the
several schools and colleges may file appeals on behalf

of the University.

An attempt has been made above to outline the
administrative officer responsible for discipline, the
judicial bodies used to hear violations, committee se—
lection, penalties affixed to violators, and appeal pro-
cedures outlined by the codes. One of the best examples
of all these various aspects of discipline codes is

1 In addition

represented by the University of Oregon.
to providing for a unique system of prosecutors and
assistant prosecutors, the University spells out in

complete detail every step of the due process procedures.

 

1University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon, Student
Handbook, 1969-70, p. 56.

227

Deviant Sexual Behavior

 

Policy.--Student handbooks were reviewed to deter-
mine the per cent of institutions that prohibited illicit
sexual relations and perversions and systematically commun-
icate these regulations to students in the handbooks. Table
18 shows that only 26 per cent of the institutions re-
viewed for this study made specific references to this
variable. Schools are more inclined to handle these cases
on an individual basis without stating the procedures in
written form.

A closer look at the variable indicates that all
categories of schools handle the regulation about the
same way. The small state colleges are more inclined
to state rules in the handbook with A0 per cent of them
doing so. Thirty-five per cent of the religious insti-
tutions had statements and 30 per cent of the large state
universities listed policies prohibiting this behavior.
The private schools Showed the least interest with 20
per cent of the larger ones including regulations in the
handbooks and only 5 per cent of the smaller private
schools doing so.

A comparison of the state, private and religious
institutions indicates that the private universities are
the least likely to prohibit this behavior in the hand—
books, with only 12 per cent doing so. Thirty-five per

cent of the state and religious colleges listed policies.

228

TABLE 18

POLICIES REGARDING DEVIANT SEXUAL BEHAVIOR
AS STATED IN STUDENT HANDBOOKS

 

 

Per Cent Per Cent
Category Stating Stating N
Policy No Policy

 

 

 

 

State over 10,000 30 7o 20
State under 10,000 A0 60 20
Private over 5,000 5 95 20
Private under 5,000 20 80 20
Religious 35 65 20

Total 26 7A 100
State 35 65 A0
Private 12 88 A0
Religious 35 65 20

Total 26 7A 100
Schools over 10,000 25 75 60
Schools under 10,000 27 73 A0

Total 26 7A 100

 

229

When large schools with more than 10,000 students
are compared with the smaller ones, hardly any percentage
difference exists. Twenty-five per cent of the large in-
stitutions had policies, as did 27 per cent of the smaller

ones .

Substantive Elements.-—The introductions to many

 

of the student codes of conduct state that students are

n m .212 schanunr Sq
!

expected to observe high standards of personal conduct
and are to be held responsible for actions that are con-
trary to accepted social conventions. While these types
of statements could easily be interpreted to include pro-
hibition of deviant sexual behavior, only those statements
that explicitly referred to illicit sexual perversions
or obscene conduct were counted in the summary. It is
interesting to note that of all the variables reviewed
for this study, this one generated the smallest per cent
of written regulations.

Of those universities that do prohibit deviant
sexual behavior, a variety of statements exist. They
may be as simple as the regulation at Tuskegee Institutel
where "rape" and "sexual irregularities" are prohibited.

2

East Texas State University states its rule in these

 

1Tuskegee Institute, Tuskegee Institute, Alabama,
Student Handbook, 1969-70, and Student Guidelines and
Discipline Proceedings, 1969, p. 67.

 

 

 

2East Texas State University, Commerce, Texas,
Student Handbook, 1969-70, p. 32.

 

230

simple terms: "Illicit sexual relations or perversions
are prohibited." Some institutions expand their regu-
lation a little more and attach penalties. Alma Collegel
indicates that it may initiate disciplinary or counseling
procedures in cases when sexual behavior becomes inimical
to the academic and personal development of the student or
students involved. The College respects the privacy of
the individual but will interfere when the private life
becomes public in its manifestations and a disturbance

to other members of the College community.

The College of Wooster2

is a little more explicit

in the sexual activities it prohibits. Its code states
that, "The College does not condone pre-marital sexual
intercourse." Students who are involved in this deviation
are expected to avail themselves of counseling. West

Texas State University3 also states its policy in explicit
language: "Students are expected to conduct themselves

in a manner that is considered moral and decent by polite
society. Obscene language and activities that are offensive

to modesty or decency are out of place on a University

campus. The intimacies of courtship should be a private

 

lAlma College, Alma, Michigan, Student Handbook,
1969-70, p. 71.

_ 2College of Wooster, Wooster, Ohio, The Scot's
Kex, 1969-70, p- 33.

3West Texas State University, Cayon, Texas,

General Policy Statements of Student Life, 1969-70, p. 6.

 

 

 

231

affair. Public displays of affection that tend to

cast a poor reflection upon the character of the par-
ticipants should be avoided. Public exhibitions of in-
decent sexual behavior will be evaluated in terms of
the state law governing indecent exposure."

Antioch Collegel indicates in its handbook that
private sexual conduct is personal and the persons in—
volved must assume responsibility for them. However,
"the Student Personnel Committee takes the position that
sexual behavior that becomes a public issue, that exploits
other persons, or that affects the College adversely is
cause for College action. Specifically, S.P.C. does not
view as acceptable cohabitation by unmarried couples in
College dormitories."

The Southeastern Louisiana College handbook for
women students2 lists in some detail what is expected of
each girl. These behaviors are specifically prohibited:

1. The use of profanity is certainly not becoming
to young ladies.

2. Public display of affection is not in keeping
with College standards. You are expected to
conduct yourself in a manner that will not be
criticized or bring discredit to you and the
college. The following practices have caused
much critical comment:

1
Antioch College, Yellow Springs, Ohio, Antioch
Community Handbook, 1969-70, p. 21.

 

2

Southeastern Louisiana College, Hammond, Louisiana,
The Student Handbook, 1969, and Living Standards for Women
Students, 1969, p. 12.

 

 

 

 

 

 

232

a. Excessive petting.

b. Your conduct as you walk around the campus.
Your relationship with your boyfriend is a
personal matter. To publicly demonstrate
affection violates the personal privacy of
your relationship with your boyfriend. It
is a manifestation of lack of self—respect.
You must respect yourself if you expect others
to respect you.

c. Your position when sitting in cars.
d. Your conduct in residence hall living rooms.

e. The way you say "good-night" at your residence
hall entrance.

Contrasted to the advice given girls at Southeastern
Louisiana College is the information provided Cornell

freshmen as contained in their Desk Book:l

 

Cornell is quite liberal when it comes to the
subject of sex. The University won't provide it,
but it will generally ignore it unless you choose
an inappropriate time or place . . . There are no
curfews at Cornell and men's dorms have practically
eternal open houses. Liquor is permitted in the
dorms. All you need to do is to talk your roommate
into leaving. Concerning birth control--do it.
Prophylactics are sold over the counter in every

drug store . . . A word of caution to the guys,
don't invest your life savings; it ain't gonna happen
that soon or often . . . Sometime within the first

two weeks after you arrive on campus, your corridor

or dorm group will have a late-night meeting whose
purpose is to give you the low-down on sex. You are
urged to make every attempt to be in attendance .
There are things that Mother never told you and that
you never read in Playboy or My Secret Life that you
should know . . . No matter how sophisticated you
think you are you owe it to yourself and the rest

of society to come to the meeting when it is scheduled.

 

Even though a small number of the schools reviewed

for this study actually listed specific regulations

 

1Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, Desk Book,
1969-70, p. 100.

 

233

concerning this variable, it is not assumed that action
would not be taken against violators. Generally, however,
school administrators would prefer to deal with this
problem on an individual basis. A student with a sexual
problem would more likely be referred to the counseling
staff rather than dismissed from school, unless the coun-

seling approach could not improve the student's behavior.

Dress

Policy.-—A selected group of student handbooks
were read to determine the per cent listing policies
outlining dress standards. Table 19 contains a summary
of institutions that designate appropriate dress and
appearance at least for some occasions. Forty-six per
cent of the institutions designated policies in their
handbooks stipulating the proper dress on campus for
various occasions. The most restrictive schools were
the religious ones, with 70 per cent indicating policies.
Sixty per cent of the state colleges under 10,000 also
showed an interest in dress. State schools over 10,000
outlined policies in only 25 per cent of the handbooks,
while large and small private universities did so 30
per cent and A5 per cent of the time.

A rather large percentage difference exists when
state, private and religious institutions are compared.

Forty-two per cent and 38 per cent of the state and private

23A

TABLE 19

POLICIES REGARDING DRESS AND APPEARANCE AS
STATED IN STUDENT HANDBOOKS

 

 

Per Cent Stating

Per Cent With No

 

 

 

Some Statement or
Category Interest Interest In N
In Dress Dress
State over 10,000 25 75 20
State under 10,000 60 A0 20
Private over 5,000 30 70 20
Private under 5,000 A5 55 20
Religious 70 30 20
Total A6 5A 100
State A2 58 A0
Private 38 62 A0
Religious 70 30 20
Total A6 5A 100
Schools over 10,000 3A 66 60
Schools under 10,000 65 35 A0
Total A6 5A 100

 

235

schools respectively communicated policies in their
handbooks, while 70 per cent of the religious institu-
tions in comparison did so.

When the large and small institutions are
compared, schools with more than 10,000 students indicate
the least interest in writing policies. Only 3A per cent
of these universities listed policies, while at least
65 per cent of the smaller ones did so.

A general comment concerning this variable is
that large schools, either state or private, are the
least likely to enforce dress standards on campus. Re-
ligious institutions have the most concern and generally
prescribe regulations for the entire campus and partic—

ularly for the residential areas.

Substantive Elements.—-As indicated in Table 19,

 

over half of the institutions reviewed did not maintain
campus dress standards in their handbooks. A number of
the schools designated as not having some regulations did
express a desire for students to dress appropriately,
but no specific guidelines were established and no pen—
alties affixed. Among the schools that outline policies,
some only maintain regulations in the living units, while
others require a standard in all areas of the institution.
Quite often a regulation will be preceded by a

justification. Northeastern University1 lists the

 

1Northeastern University, Boston and Burlington,
Massachusetts, Student Handbook, 1969-70, p. A5.

 

236

following reason for requiring dress standards:

The University recognizes that the choice of
attire for general campus wear is a matter of
personal preference, taste, and the prevailing
styles for young adults. However, all students,
men and women, are reminded that the casual attire
typical of a rural college is not entirely fitting
in an urban university. Students should strive for
a high standard of appearance at all times. The
exercise of good taste in dress, appropriate to the
time, the place, and the activity, reflects credit
upon the individual and upon the University. For
certain types of University functions and in the
residences, minimum standards of dress have been
established by student-faculty committees.

Niagara Universityl precedes its specific dress regulations
with this statement: "It cannot be denied that adequate
student dress standards are an essential part of the

total educational experience and that they must be an
integral part of the cooperative effort of everyone con—
cerned. It is generally agreed that personal attire and
dress habits affect behavior and should become a part of
the person and practiced to reflect the proper dress which
is required in different educational, social and occupa-
tional situations." One of its specific regulations is
that, "anyone who wears a beard, goatee, mustache and/or
long hair will be expected to be neat, clean and well-

2

groomed." Texas Christian University lists an interesting

comment in its rationale for dress standards: "Just for

 

1
Niagara University, Niagara, New York, Informa-
tion Handbook for Undergraduate Students, 1969-70, p. 25.

 

2Texas Christian University, Fort Worth, Texas,
Frog Horn, 1969-70, p. 25.

 

237

the record, however, we might add that there are a good

many faculty members, administrators (and students, too)

who still lose their cool over barefeet, bathing suits,

undershirts, and hair curlers in the Student Center,

classrooms and office buildings."

Institutions that require an all-campus dress

standard often do so in great detail. Wheaton College1

may serve as a good example:

Women

A.

Sport clothes (slacks, bermuda and jamaica shorts)
may be worn:

1. On weekdays and weekday evenings except to
classes, chapel, the library (may be worn in
the evening), the dining hall, evening lec-
tures, or formal events.

2. On Saturday during the day and in the evening
except to formal events.

3. On Sunday only for sports activities such as
picnicking, cycling, or ice skating. ‘

Pant dresses and culottes are to be considered
acceptable classroom attire; denim levis and cut-
offs are to be considered acceptable sportswear.

Though there is at present no rule regarding
skirt length, campus opinion poll suggests that
a length of 2 to A inches above the knee is
maximum.

College women should use discretion in the
choice of wearing apparel, including skirt
lengths, undergarments, and the fit of all
clothes.

Sport clothes are not to be worn on special
weekends such as Homecoming, Parent's Day, and
Commencement.

 

1Wheaton College, Wheaton, Illinois, Student

Handbook, 1969-70, p. 3A.

 

238

F. Shoes are to be worn at all times.

Men

A. Knee-length bermuda shorts are acceptable attire.
However, athletic shorts, other shorts and ragged
makeshift bermudas are not considered suitable
attire for Wheaton men.

B. Altered or makeshift athletic shirts including
collarless "T" shirts should not be worn in
campus buildings.

C. Shoes must be worn.

D. Students eating in the Dining Hall are required
to dress up for Sunday noon meals. Men are ex-
pected to wear coats and ties and women heels
and appropriate dress.

Generally, universities are less specific in
their campus-wide regulations. Southern Methodist Uni-
versity1 students should use their own good taste in
regard to dress. Coeds may wear pants in the libraries
and to all meals with the exception of Sundays. Slacks
or shorts may be worn in general on campus and in the
Student Center, but not in classes, except when specified
by the professor. Girls may not wear bathing suits in
public areas. At Southeastern Missouri State College2
men are advised never to wear shirt tails out and to
wear socks with shoes.

Most schools pay little attention to the physical

appearance of a student, beyond what he might be wearing.

 

1Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas, The
SMU Encheridion, 1969-70, p. 35.

 

Southeastern Missouri State College, Cape Gerar-
deau, Missouri, Student Handbook, 1969, p. 22.

 

239

However, a few set standards for hair and beards.
Southeastern Louisiana Collegel indicates that extreme
hair styles and modes of dress are not in keeping with
College standards. The length of hair for men will be
considered appropriate when a male student can be recog—
nized as a male when viewed from the back. fwr
Regulations governing dress in the residence
halls generally consider themselves with eating areas. LJ‘.
Alma College2 indicates that students should dress as
though they are in a well-run restaurant. Western
Washington State College3 allows the Inter—Hall Council
to set dorm dress standards. Men without shirts, wearing
sleeveless shirts or wearing bathing suits will not be
admitted to the dining halls. Women are not allowed
to wear swim suits or have curlers in their hair. All
students must wear shoes or sandals. Northern Michigan
University“ indicates that for health reasons, individuals

must wear shoes and sufficient clothing to cover the upper

 

l

Southeastern Louisiana College, Hammond, Louisiana,
The Student Handbook, 1969, and Living Standards for Women
Students, 1959, p. 29.

 

 

2
Alma College, Alma, Michigan, Student Handbook,
1969-703 p. 3“.

3Western Washington State College, Bellingham,
Washington, Navigator, 1969-70, p. 28.

 

 

A
Northern Michigan University, Marquette, Michigan,
Student Code of Conduct, 1969, p. 9.

 

2A0

and lower torso. If a student is offended in any way by
another's dress, he may file a written complaint to his
residence hall judiciary.

Penalties for violating campus dress regulations
are generally not very severe. Quite often they are

handled by student judiciaries or by personnel deans.

mm;.fi
.1

Unless the problem becomes impossible to handle, the
student would not be referred to an all-campus judiciary.
Brandeis University1 will simply ban a student from a
public function if he tries to enter in inappropriate
dress. The College of Wooster2 allows the faculty to
refuse a student entrance into a classroom if the student
attempts to enter in slacks or shorts. St. Anselm College3
indicates that, "deliberate indecent exposure must be
considered a serious offense." Infractions of the dress

A are handled

policy at Western Washington State College
by the judiciary board of the hall in which the offender

lives.

 

1Brandeis University, Waltham, Massachusetts,
Student Handbook, 1969-70, p. 87.

 

2College of Wooster, Wooster, Ohio, The Scot's

Key, 1969-70, p. 38.

 

3St. Anselm College, Manchester, New Hampshire,
Student Handbook, 1969-70, p. 17.

“Western Washington State College, Bellingham,
Washington, Navigator, 1969-70, p. 28.

 

 

2A1

Recognition of Student Organizations

 

Policies.--A review of the student handbooks in-
dicates that most schools have policies dealing with the
procedures used to provide official recognition to stu-
dent groups (Table 20). Seventy—two per cent syste-
matically communicate these policies to students in the
handbooks. The religious institutions were the most
likely to do so. Eighty-five per cent listed procedures,
while 80 per cent of the small state colleges outlined
their policies. Seventy per cent of the large state and
private universities outlined regulations for student
group recognition. The small private colleges were the
least likely to detail their procedures as only 55 per
cent did so.

A comparison of the state, private, and religious
institutions indicates again that the religious colleges
are more likely to include policies on this variable
in their handbooks. Eighty-five per cent did so, with
75 per cent and 62 per cent respectively of the state and
private institutions outlining procedures.

Very little percentage difference exists between
the large and small institution on this variable. Schools
with more than 10,000 students include policies 73 per
cent of the time and smaller colleges include them at

a 70 per cent rate.

2A2

I
TABLE 20

POLICIES REGARDING RECOGNITION OF STUDENT
ORGANIZATIONS AS STATED IN STUDENT HANDBOOKS

 

 

Per Cent Per Cent
Category Stating Stating N
Policy No policy

: '0-_' "2.: Rank!

 

 

 

State over 10,000 70 30 20
State under 10,000 80 20 20
Private over 5,000 70 30 20
Private under 5,000 55 A5 20
Religious 85 15 20

Total 72 28 100
State 75 25 A0
Private 62 38 A0
Religious 85 15 20

Total 72 28 100
Schools over 10,000 73 27 60
Schools under 10,000 70 30 A0

Total 72 28 100

 

2A3

A general comment is that the majority of in-
stitutions have policies pertaining to the recognitions
of student organizations. Generally this policy will re-
quire official approval of both student and university
officers. The basic contents of these policies are out-

lined below.

Substantive Elements.--Universities use a variety

 

of ways to recognize student organizations. The policies
usually require the group to list the names of officers,
purposes of the organization and the constitution. There
is generally also a requirement for each organization to
have a faculty advisor, approval of the administration
and student government. Most schools require also that
the group guarantee no discrimination as to race, creed,
religion or natural origin.

The two basic ways for an organization to receive
recognition is to either register with the college or
make application through a student or administrative
channel. Michigan State University1 provides a good ex-
ample of a university that requires only that a group
register with the Associated Students.

1. In order to exercise the privileges accorded to
registered student organizations, a student group

which is not a living unit organization must
register with ASMSU.

 

1

Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan,
A Handbook for Students, 1968, and Academic Freedom for
Students, 1969, p. 26.

 

 

. l. 1gm'i.ff“h‘41 any

2AA

Registration shall be valid from the date of
registration until the end of the fourth week of
the succeeding fall term. Student organizations
must register each year.

Registered student organizations have the option
of having an adviser(s).

To be registered, a student organization must file
the following information with ASMSU:

The name of the organization.

The names and titles of the officers.

The purpose of the organization.

The name(s) of the adviser(s), if any.

A constitution and/or written statement

providing that:

(1) Only students registered with Michigan
State University are officers and/or
voting members.

(a) The Student Board of ASMSU, upon
request of honorary and/or profession-
al societies may waive this require-
ment so that Michigan State Uni-
versity faculty and administrative
staff may be included as officers
and/or voting members.

(2) No discrimination on the basis of race,
creed, religion, or national origin shall
exist within the organization.

(004069)

ASMSU must be notified of any change made in the
original requirement information presented to
ASMSU within four weeks after an organization
has instituted the change.

If the required information is not submitted, a
group will be denied registration.

Registered student organizations may submit to
ASMSU for informational purposes:

a. Notification of national affiliations.

b. Notification of dates and times and locations
of regularly scheduled meetings.

0. Notification of dates and times and locations
of regular and special activities.

No organization may have its registration denied
or suspended on the grounds of its beliefs, its
goals, or its attitudes.

2A5

9. A student organization may have its registration
suspended by ASMSU if:

a. The organization is found guilty of submitting
falsified required information.

b. The organization is found guilty of violating
an ordinance or written policy or regulation
of Michigan State University or written pol-
icies of the Associated Students of Michigan
State University (ASMSU).

10. The University may request ASMSU to suspend the
registration of a student organization if:

a. The organization is found guilty of violating
an ordinance or written policy or regulation
of Michigan State University.

b. The organization is found guilty of failing
to discharge its financial obligations to the
University.

11. Any or all parts of a decision by ASMSU to suspend
the registration of a student organization may be
appealed to the All-University Student Judiciary.
A large number of the institutions require orga-

nizations to do more than just register. Generally their
application is reviewed by a series of committees. Tulane

University1

requires the application to be submitted to
the Student Activities Board. With the Board's approval,
the petition then goes to the Dean of Students, then to
the Senate Committee on Student Affairs and to its su—
perior, the University Senate. This procedure serves

the purpose of informing in breadth the University per-
sonnel on student participation in campus affairs.

2

At Morgan State College, a Council on Student Life is

 

1Tulane University, New Orleans, Louisiana, Student
Leaders' Handbook, 1969-70, p. 10.

 

2Morgan State College, Baltimore, Maryland, Student
Handbook, 1969-70, p. 2A.

l '.III.|I.l|IIl {I

 

2A6

the body responsible for group recognition. If this body
disapproves an application, an appeal can be made to the
Faculty Executive Committee. Student organization recog-
nition at Southeast Missouri State College1 is granted

by the Student Senate which also retains the power to
refuse recognition to any group.

A number of schools have a temporary recognition
feature in their policy. The University of Pittsburgh2
grants temporary recognition to a new undergraduate
student organization for a period of one year or less.
During the year of temporary recognition, the officers
of the organization are expected to request an opportunity
to make periodic reports to the student government on
the progress of their organization. At the close of one
year, recognition may be withdrawn, temporary recognition
may be continued, or permanent recognition granted.

An important feature of most policies is the
appointment of an adviser. Almost always the adviser
must be a faculty member. The group usually has the
right to choose its own adviser, but occasionally the

university will make the appointment. At Bates College3

 

1Southeast Missouri State College, Cape Gerardeau,
Missouri, Student Handbook, 1969, p. 32.

 

2University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania,
Student Handbook, 1969—70, p. 7.

 

3Bates College, Lewiston, Maine, Bates Blue Book,
1969, p. 16.

 

ia'..a..-m:wa*
i.

2A7

the adviser is assigned by the student-faculty committee
that grants recognition. The adviser is requested to be
present at all meetings where decisions and policies are
debated. In some cases the duties of the adviser are out-

1

lined. Eastern Montana State College provides a list:

An organization adviser has the following responsi-
bilities:

1. To attend all meetings of the organization.

2. To guide the students in regard to official
college policy, rules and regulations.

3. To act as fund controller, to supervise the
collection or expenditure of organization funds,
and to approve all contracts.

A. To chaperone all activities Sponsored by the
organization.

5. To report periodically to the Dean of Students
concerning the status of the organization.

6. To encourage leadership, resourcefulness, and
good will within the student group, without dom-
inating it.

The benefits derived from being an officially
recognized organization vary, but usually they include
those granted by Illinois State University:2

1. Use of campus duplicating services.

2. Use of campus bulletin boards.

3. Use of campus mail.

 

lEastern Montana State College, Billings, Montana,

Student Handbook, 1969-70, p. 7.
2Illinois State University, Normal, Illinois,
Student Life . . . ISU, 1969, p. 21.

 

 

 

2A8
A. Solicitation for funds on campus under the
organization name.
5. Preferential use of University facilities,
including reduced rates where they apply, after
academic needs of the University have been met.

6. Calendaring and pre-calendaring events.

7. Receipt of University publications which can
assist in their work.

8. Use of the organization communications and mail
center maintained in the University Union.

Another feature of most policies is that each
organization is required to have its recognition re-
viewed annually. The University of Texas1 reviews
each organization before November 1 of each year. It
is determined if each group meets the eligibility re-
quirements set forth in the policy for recognition and
is still active and conducting its affairs in accordance
with the regents' rules, university regulations, and
administrative rules.

Penalties affixed for violating regulations
usually begin with withdrawal of recognition and may
include also some warnings directed toward individual
members of a group. A concluding comment is that pol-
icies governing the recognition of student organizations
attempt to provide campus groups with some flexibility

and freedom. It appears, however, that some control is

 

1University of Texas, Austin, Texas, General
Information, 1969-70, p. 1A0.

 

I Linn-.69.“; A."

2A9

exerted not only from the school administration but
also from the students. Even the most liberal regula-

tions maintain some control.

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Problem

 

Since the beginning of the present world-wide
student unrest at Berkeley in l96A, many colleges and
universities have been forced to review the rules and
regulations governing student activities and behavior.
A recent survey1 by the American Council on Education
revealed that the majority of institutions have under-
gone some revision in their student conduct codes in
the past year. These schools had for years asserted
the right to not sanction certain student conduct. The
rules that were adequate enough in the past to control
student behavior now find themselves in question as
colleges and universities are advised to review them
carefully.

School administrators today are required to deal

with an ever-increasing number of crises, and often they

cannot benefit from the experience of other institutions.

They lack the knowledge of the practices and policies of

other schools, which could likely aid them during campus

 

1The Chronicle of Higher Education, Vol. III,

No. 22, September 15, 1969, p. 8.

 

250

_——-

i" ’ L "own-4:41.»: q”
l

251

problems. The main objective of this study, in addition
to its historical importance, was to gather and present
current information that could serve as background material
to update and reconsider policies that attempt to reg-
ulate student behavior. The study was designed to
gather a variety of descriptive data on a wide range of
issues as quickly as possible, and then to present the
data in such a way that administrators could gain a
degree of understanding of institutional approaches to
the issues in sufficient depth to form a basis for wise
action.

It was not an objective of the study to provide
complete data on all areas of student code development
from all institutions. Instead, the study was designed
to produce enough information so that school administra-
tors would have some knowledge on a wide range of issues
as represented in a substantial number of codes.

It was the intent of the study to use the gathered
data to answer these questions:

1. What are the stated values or purposes of

student codes of conduct?

2. What rationale do universities use to justify
their policies regarding student non-academic
life?

3. How are the codes developed and revised?

A. What are the apparent trends in student code

development?

252

What per cent of the institutions reviewed for
this study communicate in their student hand-
books policies for the 19 variables identi-
fied below?

What percentage differences exist among varying
university sizes and types in communicating
policies in the handbooks?

What is the content or substantive elements

of these policies?

Design of the Study

 

Nineteen items that are current and often trouble-

some to school administrators were identified. Knowledge

of institutional practices concerning these items is some-

what limited, and it was thought that a detailed descrip-

tion might be helpful, both in terms of the per cent of

universities formally communicating the policies to the

students in handbooks and a review of the substantive

elements of the policies.

These are the nineteen items:

1.

.1:

"\IChU'I

Academic Irregularity

Use and Possession of Alcoholic Beverages
Drugs

Hazing

Women's Dormitory Hours

Dormitory Room Entrance and Inspection
Entertainment of Members of the Opposite Sex

in Residence Hall Living Quarters

10.
11.
12.
13.
1A.
15.
l6.
17.
18.
19.

253

Theft

Confidentiality of Student Records
Compulsory Class Attendance

Student Demonstrations

Disruptive Activities

Invitation of Controversial Speakers to Campus
Unacceptable Off-Campus Behavior

"Student Rights" in Procedural Due Process
Procedural Due Process

Deviant Sexual Behavior

Dress and Appearance

Recognition of Student Organizations

Using an education directory1 as a source, A0

colleges and universities were chosen randomly by use of

a random number table for each of the following categories:

1.

Large state colleges and universities with
more than 10,000 students.

Small state colleges and universities with
less than 10,000 students.

Large private colleges and universities with
more than 5,000 students.

Small private colleges and universities with
less than 5,000 students.

Religious institutions.

 

1Education Directory, l968-69--Part 3,;Higher
Education (Washington, D.C., Government Printing Office,

1968).

25A

A letter was mailed to 200 colleges or universi-
ties requesting a copy of their student handbook containing
the policies and regulations used to control student life.
Ninety per cent of the institutions responded (Table l).

The 181 institutions responding to the request
for handbooks were listed again according to the five
categories outlined above. A table of random numbers
was used to choose 20 schools from each of the five
categories. These 100 handbooks were then included in
the present study.

A main objective of the study was to determine
the per cent of institutions that communicate in their
handbooks policies concerning the 19 variables. Com-
parisons were drawn between the five categories, in
addition to comparisons between state, private, and
religious schools. A final comparison was made between
large institutions with more than 10,000 students and
small colleges and universities with less than 10,000
students.

Using a checklist on which the 19 variables were
outlined, the researcher read carefully each of the 19
areas of concern. If a school outlined its policy in
the handbook, it was noted on the summary sheets.

Following a review of the handbooks to determine
the per cent listing policies, another reading produced
written examples of each policy to be used as an aid to

personnel workers in developing their own codes. Final

0V1} “mm-w» -——
i

255

readings of the handbooks identified stated purposes
and values of the codes, the rationale on which they are
justified, the means of revision and development, and

any apparent trends.

 

Major Findings 1

Value and Purpose of Student t
Codes of Conduct A

 

 

A majority of the handbooks reviewed for this
study precede specific regulations and policies with an
introduction outlining the goals of the university and
setting forth a need to create and maintain a living,
social and campus environment which allows for the
greatest possible freedom to learn. The handbook intro—
ductions list also the following values and purposes:

(1) to protect the individual freedom to learn and
develop; (2) to maintain an order to the university's
operations; (3) to continue a necessary degree of har-
mony with its surrounding environment.

Many codes indicate that the university will agree
to furnish the student an environment conducive to growth
and development, if the student will agree to obey the
rules and regulations both of an academic and non-academic
nature. As stated by some schools, the purpose of the
code of conduct is to serve as a practical guide to a
profitable participation in the life of the student commun-

ity. The code is formulated to assist the college student

256

to achieve intellectual formation, spiritual development
and social graces. Emphasized also is the individual's
responsibility for his own actions and a recognition

that the student's acts reflect upon the whole college

Rationale

 

community. L
a

The student handbooks chosen for this study were !
I

reviewed to identify statements or policies that either

support the concept of in loco parentis or attempt to

 

disallow it. A number of universities, especially the
larger ones, are attempting to move away from close control
of students, particularly in the area of alcohol and
dormitory regulations. The codes are being revised to
reflect an emerging concept that students must be re-
sponsible for their own acts. This assumes also that

they are mature enough to make proper decisions without
the constant supervision of university officials. The
move on the part of universities in the direction of more
student freedom is reflected most clearly in the growing
number of schools including a "bill of rights" as a part
of the codes. Even though there is a trend to move toward
fewer rules governing non-academic activities, there is
still considerable control over the student's life except

in a few rare universities.

257

Code Development and Revision

 

Less than 25 per cent of the handbooks reviewed
for this study contained specific procedures used to
revise and develop student codes. Of those listing pro-
cedures, however, the majority allowed for student par-
ticipation in recommending policies that affect non-
academic life.

The general procedure is for the university to
establish a student-faculty-administration committee
that will propose legislation to the student and faculty
governing bodies. The committee is usually responsible
for recommendations on all non-academic rules and
regulations, including non-academic discipline, student
rights, dormitory life, and all other matters of common
concern to the faculty and students. Following approval
of a regulation by the committee and governing bodies,
the general tendency is to forward the recommended change
to the university president who may act upon it or have it
reviewed by an institutional governing board. In most
institutions, the president has veto power over any reg-
ulation.

Another procedure used by some schools for code
revision is to allow the student body to vote for a
proposed change. While this was a method used by very
few schools in this study, it did provide an alternative

plan. It should be noted too, that even though a committee

258

may decide upon the value of a proposal, a few institu—
tions provided a means by which any member of the university

community could bring his idea to a hearing body.

Trends in Student Code Development

 

A review of the student codes reveals a number
of trends in the development and revision of rules and
regulations. The most recent and apparent one is in the
emphasis that students now have "rights" as well as
responsibilities. A majority of the codes used for
this study prefaced specific regulations with a "bill of
rights," which generally lists the same rights and freedoms
recommended by the "Joint Statement."1

In addition to this trend is the attempt by code
committees to write more explicitly the rules governing
student life. Rules that were once written in rather
vague and uncertain language are now outlined in detail.
Added to this is a trend already mentioned to move away
from parental rules and provide the student the opportunity
to regulate more of his own non-academic life.

Another tendency is for schools to provide a de-
tailed "court" system for students who may violate campus
regulations. This includes also a list of "rights" for

students in procedural due process. A final trend mentioned

 

1American Association of University Professors,
et. al, "Joint Statement."

1:? A. .490

first——
A
.1-

259

earlier is for students to participate in the code formu—
lation as members of student, faculty and administrative
committees.

Policies Related to the
Nineteen Issues

 

 

A main objective of the study was to identify the L”
per cent of institutions listing specific policies on E
the 19 variables. A comparison was made between the i
five main categories listed earlier and between the types
of institutions, such as state, private and religious.
Final comparisons were completed between large schools
with more than 10,000 students and small ones with fewer
than 10,000.

A primary objective of the study was to identify
and list the substantive elements of each variable, pro-
viding specific examples for school administrators. A
summary of the percentage differences among the various
institutions is listed in this chapter. The reader is

advised to refer to Chapter IV for the content examples

of each issue under consideration.

Academic Irregularity

 

More than 79 per cent of the institutions commun-
icated policies in their handbooks concerning academic
irregularity. Very little percentage difference existed

between the various types and sizes of colleges or

260

universities. All of the large state schools had written
policies as did 81 per cent of all institutions with more
than 10,000 students.

The regulations generally followed a pattern of
specifying and defining academic irregularity, which
included the behavior required of students during a A“.
quiz or examination and the proper acknowledgement of 1
sources used in term papers. Penalties imposed for vio- i
lating these regulations were generally very severe; they
ranged from a failing grade for a class to dismissal or
suspension. Occasionally the penalty would make a student
ineligible for membership in a campus organization or
prohibit him from holding a student government office.
Scholarships and financial aids also could be withheld.
Student personnel officers were generally responsible
for administering the penalties, although the faculty
also played important roles in the enforcement of this

policy.

Use and Possession of Alcoholic Beverages

 

Ninety—four per cent of the institutions communi-
cated policies in their handbooks regarding the use and
possession of alcoholic beverages. The majority of the
schools (6A per cent) did not permit alcohol on campus,
while 30 per cent allowed some use under controlled
approval and supervision. The religious schools were the

most restrictive with more than 85 per cent of them

261

prohibiting any use on campus. Private institutions were
the most liberal with 38 per cent allowing some use of
alcohol. Small institutions with less than 10,000 stu-
dents were more restrictive than larger schools. Forty-
one per cent of the large colleges or universities per-
mitted some use, while only 12 per cent of the smaller
ones did so.

Universities used a wide variety of written rules
to prohibit or allow the use of alcohol on campus.
Generally the rules included rationale, quotes from state
laws, penalties for violations, specific guidelines for
campus use, complete restriction, or limited use in the
dorms and at special campus functions. Even those insti-
tutions that allowed some use of alcohol on campus did
so under rather detailed regulations. The trend was to
allow drinking in the dorms and married student housing
and other regulated social events, but to prohibit alco-
holic use at such functions as athletic contests, gradua-
tion exercises, academic instruction sessions or lectures.

The regulations varied in detail from a simple
statement prohibiting the use of alcohol on campus to
very detailed procedures. Usually the rules would in-
clude penalties for violating the regulations. These
penalties were generally not too severe and quite often
took the form of a warning or probation. Suspension from

the university was reserved for only the most serious cases.

:"“ “Her——

262

The student personnel staff was usually responsible for

the enforcement of the policy.

Dru 8

Most of the institutions had policies prohibiting
the illegal use of drugs. All of the large state schools
listed regulations, as did the majority of large private
and religious colleges and universities. Very little
percentage difference existed between the varying types
and sizes of schools.

The stated policies on drugs generated the most
restrictive rules of all the variables reviewed for this
study. They also specified the most severe penalties
for violating the policy, which almost always included
suspension from the institution. A few policies included
educational statements that attempted to inform the student
concerning the dangerous nature of drug use. Many of them
made some reference to state or federal laws including
the fines and prison penalties that could be imposed.

A number of schools indicated a desire to handle
this problem internally, but would not protect drug users
from arrest or conviction by civil authorities. Most
institutions urged all students to consider very seriously
the personal and institutional risks surrounding drug use,
and encouraged educational programs to make students aware
of the dangers associated with this behavior. Penalties

were generally handled by the student personnel staff,

 

263

which would usually process violations which occurred on
or off campus, even after civil authorities had taken

action.

Hazing
Only 30 per cent of the institutions listed

policies in their handbooks prohibiting hazing. The
religious schools were the most likely to do so, with
A0 per cent of them outlining policies. Small private
colleges had the least interest as only 10 per cent detailed
their rules. All private schools indicate less interest
than do the state or religious institutions to communicate
their policies in the handbooks.

Many schools listing policies did so in rather
simple terms, making clear to the students disapproval
of any behavior that would tend to degrade or endanger
the life or health of another individual. Penalties
affixed for violating the regulation on hazing often
included social probation, disciplinary suspension or
some prosecution by state authorities if the incident
merited it. Quite often the rule would outline penalties
for organizations as well as individuals that promote
hazing. Student personnel deans were generally assigned
to administer the policy, but lower agencies, such as an
interfraternity council, might be used to hear violations

and impose penalties.

WM - AK. :17...me
1" l

26A

Women's Hours

 

Only 25 per cent of the institutions listed for-
malized policies requiring all women to maintain hours.
The other schools allowed some or all of their women
students to have unrestricted hours. The most restric-
tive colleges are the private ones with less than 5,000 r-

students. Sixty per cent of them required all women to

 

maintain hours. Small state institutions and religious i:
schools restrict all students 35 per cent and 25 per cent
of the time respectively. None of the large state schools
required all women to maintain hours and only 5 per cent
of the large private ones did so.

The specific hours imposed vary greatly and seem
dependent on the type and size of the institution. Those
schools requiring all women to meet a curfew usually
allowed junior and senior women more freedom. Schools
that required only some of their women to maintain curfew
usually restricted the regulations to freshmen and some-
times for only the first quarter in school. A few in-
stitutions provided a choice of dormitories, some with
hours and some without, depending upon the desires of the
occupants. Penalties for violating curfew regulations
were generally not severe. They were usually imposed by
dorm judiciaries and often included restricting the stu—

dent to her room for a specified period of time.

265

Room Inspection and Entrance

 

Less than half of the institutions stated policies
outlining procedures used to enter and inspect student
living quarters. Even though most schools implied this
right, only 38 per cent of them informed the students in

handbooks of the specific processes used for inspection.

'0?“
‘3'

Religious institutions stated policies more often than

A a... "’7

'W'T‘ -.

any other school. Private and state universities were

the least likely to do so. Very little percentage diff-
erence existed when comparing large and small institutions.
Thirty-seven per cent of the large schools stated policies
and A0 per cent of the small ones did so.

Most of the universities that listed policies in
this area did so in some detail, including the steps
required to obtain authorization for the search. The
rights of the student when an inspection was made were
often outlined. Some institutions, however, simply stated
in their policy that the university reserved the right
to inspect rooms when university property or environmental
health and safety matters were concerned. The personnel
dean's staff was usually responsible for authorizing a
search or inspection. Policies did not generally indicate
any penalties, except to refer to other regulations that
prohibit the type of behavior that a search attempts to

uncover .

266

Room Visitation

 

Forty-six per cent of the institutions stated
policies in their handbooks allowing for the entertainment
of members of the opposite sex in residence hall bedrooms.
Large state schools were the most permissive with 60 per
cent providing this opportunity. The religious colleges

were the most restrictive as only 30 per cent allowed

 

visitation. A comparison of large and small institutions i
indicated that 57 per cent of the large ones allow visita-
tion while only 30 per cent of the small ones did.

Even though nearly half of the institutions allow
visitation, there is still considerable control over
this type of activity. The university maintains strong
influence in developing these policies, even though stu-
dents do have considerable voice in establishing guide—
lines. Penalties generally did not include suspension,
unless the students were found guilty of violating other
policies of a more serious nature. The violators were
handled by dorm judiciaries, for the majority of cases,
with only the very serious offenses being referred to

the personnel dean.

.T_he_t:l

Although it could be assumed that all institutions
prohibit the theft of university and individual property,
only 57 per cent of the schools communicated this policy

in their handbooks. The state and religious universities

267

stated policies in 72 per cent and 60 per cent of the
handbooks respectively. Only 37 per cent of the private
schools did so, with the small private institutions
showing the least interest at 30 per cent.

Most generally policies prohibiting theft were
simple and direct. They included the protection against L7

theft of all university and individual property.

 

Occasionally the policy included the misuse of funds, 5‘
bad checks, telephone calls and forgery. Penalties were
most often handled by the personnel dean and were not
referred to civil authorities unless the problem was
deemed very serious. A number of the large schools,
however, referred all theft problems directly to civil
authorities, and only involved the university in addi-
tional penalties if the personnel dean considered it
advisable. Severe punitive actions, such as suspension,

was usually reserved only for the most serious problems.

Confidentiality of Student Records

 

Seventy-one per cent of the institutions did
not communicate in their handbooks policies pertaining
to the confidentiality of student records. A percentage
difference existed between the various categories desig-
nated for this study. The large state universities
communicated policies in A5 per cent of the handbooks,
and the small private schools showed the least interest

with only 15 per cent listing rules.

268

Even though the percentage of schools stating
written policies was small, these institutions developed
the regulations in some detail. They often included
the procedures to be used in distributing various types
of records, such as personnel records, academic records,
and discipline records. The universities emphasized g

student rights in regard to outside agencies and indi-

 

viduals having access to the records. There was rarely 7
any penalty affixed to this policy, since any violation

usually involves an administrator. A number of schools,

however, established committees to review any complaints.

None of the policies reviewed contained specific punitive

measures to be enforced in the event that policies were

not followed.

Compulsory Class Attendance

 

Sixty-eight per cent of the institutions in-
cluded policies in their handbooks concerning class
attendance. Mandatory class attendance was required by
3A per cent of the schools. Only 3 per cent had policies
allowing for class "cuts," while 25 per cent allowed the
professor to set class attendance standards. Thirty-
eight per cent of the handbooks did not require mandatory
class attendance or did not make any statement at all.
Religious schools showed the most interest with 90 per
cent of them requiring class attendance as an institutional

policy, Twenty per cent required attendance as

269

specified by the professor. A comparison of large and
small schools indicated that the institutions with less
than 10,000 students included mandatory attendance
policies 77 per cent of the time, while only 51 per cent
of the large schools did so.

Policy statements in the handbooks ranged from
rather strict requirements concerning attendance to
policies that prohibited a professor to use attendance
as a criteria for grading. The policies generally in-
cluded a variety of plans to include everything from
required attendance for all students to mandatory atten-
dance for only freshmen. Some schools listed the exact
number of days that could be missed without penalty.
Violations were usually handled by the professor, but
could be referred to the personnel dean if the teacher
deemed it necessary. The penalty was usually not very
severe and often included only a reduction in grade, or
in some cases a failing grade. Only extreme cases de—

manded suspension or dismissal from the university.

Student Demonstrations

 

A rather large number of institutions (5A per
cent) did not communicate in their handbooks policies
regarding student participation in political and social
issues and guaranteeing the rights of free speech, peti-
tion and assembly. Large state schools with more than

10,000 students were more inclined to do so, while the

270

small private colleges indicated the least interest.
When large and small universities were compared, the
large ones with more than 10,000 students listed
policies 58 per cent of the time, while only 27 per
cent of the smaller ones did so.

The general tendency regarding this variable
was for a school to make a short statement on the rights

of free speech, petition and assembly and then develop

3". i I“: - "fist-.4

in detail a list of rules disallowing disruptive ac-
tivities. Those schools that stated specific policies
usually developed a means by which the student group
could register the demonstration. The registration
quite often included the date, time, location, and
purpose of the demonstration. A guarantee was almost
always required that the event would not interfer with
the orderly functioning of the university. The
personnel dean was most often the responsible person

to clear this activity and to work with violators.
Penalties for violating regulations on demonstrations
varied according to campus and generally included a
request to cease and desist from the activity. If
action was required, each case was considered individually
and appropriate action taken, to include suspension and

civil prosecution in severe cases.

271

Disruptive Activities

 

Nearly all of the institutions had policies
prohibiting the disruption of the peaceful and orderly
functioning of the university. Seventy-seven per cent
listed this specific policy in their handbooks. All
of the large state universities outlined policies as
did 90 per cent of the large private ones. The colleges
to show the least interest were the small private ones.
Only A0 per cent of these schools included policies
in their handbooks. The state institutions listed
policies more often than the private and religious
colleges, and the large schools with more than 10,000
students outlined regulations 88 per cent of the time
in comparison with 60 per cent of the smaller universities.

No other variable reviewed for this study generated
more detailed regulations. This was particularly true
of the larger universities that went into considerable
detail outlining which behaviors were not acceptable,
including the imposed penalties. These policies included
a statement of philosophy in addition to rules restricting
persons who may enter the campus, occupy university build-
ings during closed hours, obstruct entrances, picket,
parade and demonstrate. Some schools used existing state
laws to prohibit disruption, while others simply stated
in a sentence or two that disruptive activities would not
be tolerated. Most institutions, however, prohibited such

activity in explicit and detailed terms.

 

272

Generally violators were handled by established
university committees under the direction of the per-
sonnel dean. This was the only variable that caused some
schools to establish special committees to hear issues of

consicence and to deal with faculty members who might par-

ticipate in disruptive activity. Penalties were affixed ’_
according to each individual case and could include dis— é
missal from the university and prosecution by civil au- :
thorities. r

Off-Campgs Speakers

 

Only Al per cent of the institutions had a policy
in their handbook outlining procedures for inviting
speakers to campus, even though it could be assumed that
a larger number than this have formulated policies in
this area. The large state and private schools formulated
regulations most often, and the small private and state
colleges did so the least often. When the state, pri-
vate and religious schools were grouped for comparison,
they were nearly even in the number that systematically
communicated policies in the handbooks. A comparison
of large and small schools, however, indicated that uni-
versities with more than 10,000 students listed policies
53 per cent of the time, and the small schools did so

at a 22 per cent rate.

273

A large variety of regulations existed among the
institutions. Generally these rules were not intended
to restrict speakers from appearing on the basis of
their controversiality, but rather to insure that recog-
nized groups were extending the invitation according to
proper procedures. Often a committee of students and
faculty would be assigned the task of clearing speakers.

This was a procedure employed by a large number of the

small institutions. Sometimes the adviser to a group had
the authority to invite a speaker. Many regulations
included also rules that the speaker must follow during
his talk, including the allowance for students to ask
questions. Occasionally the policy would include a
provision to invite speakers to campus with an opposite
view.

Most policies did not include statements outlining
penalties for violating regulations. Those that did
generally stated that complaints of abuse would be re—
ferred to a regularly constituted review board and would
be considered on an individual basis. No policy mentioned

suspension as a possible penalty.

Unacceptable Off-Campus Behavior

 

Even though most schools still take an interest in
the off-campus behavior of students, only 55 per cent of
the institutions communicated this concern in specific
terms in their handbooks. The religious colleges indi-

cated the most interest with 75 per cent of them stating

27A

that off-campus misbehavior would be reviewed. State and
private schools are nearly even in their interest as

57 per cent and A2 per cent included statements respec-
tively.

Institutions that accepted responsibility for
off—campus behavior usually did so with a general state-
ment indicating that disciplinary action would be taken
when the welfare of the institution was threatened or
when requested by civil authorities. Some schools simply
stated that a student who violated civil laws was not
automatically subject to penalties of the university,
but he might be if the action against the student was
found to be a detriment to the university community or
constituted a danger to himself or others on campus.

This broad statement, of course, allows schools a great
deal of freedom in this area of student behavior. If a
school did take action, the penalty for an off-campus
violation would probably be the same as one committed

on campus.

Student Rights in Procedural Due Process

 

Seventy-one per cent of the institutions included
statements in their handbooks outlining student rights in
procedural due process. All of the large state schools
listed these rights and 90 per cent of the large private
universities did also. The religious and small state and

private institutions were less likely to do so. A

 

275

comparison of all the large and small schools indicated
a large percentage difference. Eighty-seven per cent
of the universities with more than 10,000 students out-
lined student rights in due process, while only A8 per
cent of the small ones did.

Most policies outlining student rights in pro-
cedural due process included a guarantee for a student
to be informed of the nature of the charges against him,
to have a fair opportunity to rebuke them, to appeal the
decision, to not be required to testify against himself,
and to choose someone to represent him in the case. These
policies were incorporated into the disciplinary system
to provide the student with a guarantee of fairness, a
right that he has not always had. Because of the nature
of this variable, no penalties were outlined for those

who may not abide by the policy.

Procedural Due Process

 

Nearly all of the institutions (8A per cent) had
policies outlining the practices and procedures used to
process student misconduct problems. All of the large
state schools and 90 per cent of the small state colleges
and large private institutions outlined their procedures
in the handbooks. The small private and the religious
colleges detailed their procedures at a 70 per cent rate.

In comparison of all large and small universities, the

 

276

large ones were more inclined to list their procedures
(93 per cent), while the small ones did so in 70 per
cent of the cases.

Most codes outlined in detail the procedures used
to process student misbehavior. This usually included
a description of the various judicial bodies, such as '
dormitory judiciaries, fraternity and sorority hearing

boards and an all-university standards committee. Although

‘9’.“

the schools varied a great deal in the way these bodies
were organized, most of them were designed to accomplish
the same function. In most cases the committees were
composed of both students and faculty. Each code detailed
the procedures to be followed before, during, and following
a hearing. This included special features such as pro-
secutors, the right of appeal, allowing a student to

choose which type of body should hear his case, and the

penalties that could be affixed.

Deviant Sexual Behavior

 

Although it is assumed that the majority of in-
stitutions have policies prohibiting deviant sexual be-
havior, only 26 per cent of them communicated these pol-
icies in their handbooks. Most of the categories were
evenly matched with the private schools the least likely
to do so.

It is interesting to note that of all the variables

reviewed for this study, this one generated the smallest

277

per cent of written regulations. In most cases the policy

was stated in very simple language such as a prohibition

to engage in illicit sexual relations or perversions.

Most statements were one sentence in length and did not

elaborate or define the exact nature of the prohibited

behavior. Although the students were warned in a number I
of cases that disciplinary action would be taken, usually
the severity of this action was not specified. The F
impression given was that sexual problems would more

likely be referred to the counseling staff rather than

dismissed from school, unless the counseling approach

could not improve the student's behavior.

geese

Forty-Six per cent of the institutions had pre-
scribed dress codes for at least some occasions. The
most restrictive schools were the religious ones and
small state ones. The least restrictive were the large
state and private universities. In all comparisons, the
large institutions, whether state, private, or religious,
had the least interest in dress regulations.

A number of schools designated as not having some
regulations did express a desire for students to dress
appropriately, but no specific guidelines were established
and no penalties were affixed. Those that did maintain
regulations prescribed them most generally for the living

and eating units and the classroom. The policies on dress

278

were usually developed by student committees and were
designed to create a desirable campus atmosphere. Vio-
lations of dress standards were usually handled by
minor judiciaries and penalties were in the lower ranges

of severity and did not include dismissal.

Recognition of Student Organizations

 

Seventy-two per cent of the institutions had }

policies regarding student organizations, and most of A

 

these required some form of official approval of all
student organizations. The religious schools (85 per
cent) were the most likely to require recognition.
Very little percentage difference existed between the
large and small institutions, with both groups nearing
70 per cent.

Most policies required the organization to have a
faculty adviser and to provide a list of officers and a
constitution. Very few schools requested a list of
members. In some cases the student government had the
sole responsibility to recognize groups, and in almost
all cases it had partial authority. Generally, however,
a recommendation for approval moved from the student
government to the personnel dean and then to the president.
Occasionally a faculty body would give its approval.
Another method that appears to be gaining in importance
is the establishment of a student—faculty committee on

student affairs, which is often given the responsibility

279

to approve campus organizations. Policy violations seemed
to be of little concern, with the most popular penalty
including some type of sanction or denial of a privi-

lege accorded to recognized organizations.

Conclusions

 

. ‘r‘m‘

A main objective of this study was to describe
in some detail the substantive or content elements of

the various codes as they were detailed in student hand-

‘n .o -u mun!- x’u‘?

books. This description was attempted as an aid to school
administrators in the development of codes of conduct

(see Chapter IUJ). A further objective was to provide

a historical document for future reference. Another

goal was to summarize the percentage of institutions
systematically communicating their rules and regulations
in the student handbook. On the basis of the findings

of this study, the following conclusions are drawn:

1. Most student codes of conduct justify their
existence by setting forth a need to create
and maintain a living, social and campus
environment which allows the greatest poss-
ible freedom to learn.

2. Despite the stated attempt by students and

administrators to eliminate in loco parentis,

 

especially on the part of larger institutions,
there is still considerable control over the

student's non-academic life. Colleges and

280

universities are relaxing controls in such
areas as women's hours, alcohol, room visi-
tation, class attendance, and required dress
standards; but the move to eliminate complete
control of these traditional parental regula-
tions is far from complete, especially in
religious and small private and state insti-
tutions.

Student handbooks generally do not contain
Specific procedures used to revise and develop
student codes. The handbooks that do describe

the process involve students, faculty, and

administration in the majority of institutions.

There are at least five trends in the develop-

ment of student codes of conduct.

a. Student "rights," as well as responsibili-
ties, are more clearly identified by code
developers.

b. There is a concerted effort to move away
from parental rules.

c. Institutions are defining and writing
rules more clearly and completely.

d. Better processes are being developed to
deal with rule violators and to guarantee

fairness.

4-.. 3.59;”an

281

e. Students are more often invited to par-
ticipate in the code formulation as mem-
bers of student, faculty, and adminis-
trative committees on student life.

Student handbooks will be more likely to

contain regulations governing these behav-

iors: (a) Use and Possession of Alcoholic

r." . ‘MP-smm’m
I

Beverages, (b) Drugs, (c) Procedural Due
Process, (d) Academic Irregularity, (e) I
Disruptive Activities, (f) Recognition of

Student Organizations, (g) Student "Rights"

in Procedural Due Process, (h) Women's Hours.

Student handbooks will be least likely to

contain regulations governing these behaviors:

(a) Deviant Sexual Behavior, (b) Hazing,

(0) Confidentiality of Student Records,

(d) Room Entrance and Inspection, (e) Off-

Campus Speakers, (f) Dress Standards, and

(g) Student Demonstrations.

Religious institutions, schools with less than

10,000 students, and small private colleges

will enforce stricter regulations concerning

alcohol, women's hours, room visitation,

class attendance, and dress standards.

10.

11.

282

Large universities of all types with more
than 10,000 students provide students with
a more liberal code of conduct in their
handbooks.

State institutions with more than 10,000
students and private schools with more than
5,000 students have more detailed codes for
the majority of the variables listed for
this study.

Small private institutions with less than
5,000 students are the most likely not to
list policies in their handbooks for the
variables identified for this study.

An analysis of the findings of the nineteen
variables allow these conclusions to be drawn:

a. Academic Irregularity--The majority of

 

institutions communicate this policy in
their handbooks, with little percentage
difference between the various categories.
Penalties for violating this policy may
be very severe, including suspension.

b. Use and Possession of Alcoholic Beverages--

 

The majority of institutions communicate
this policy in their handbooks, with the
majority prohibiting any use of alcohol on

campus. Religious schools are the most

““11.

a' auLAt3~

283

strict, and large state and private uni-
versities the most liberal. Penalties
for violating this policy generally do
not include suspension.

Drugs--A majority of the handbooks contain

fifimflf

policies prohibiting drugs. Large state
and private institutions are the most y

likely to have rules. Punitive measures

 

taken against violators often include A
suspension and prosecution by civil
authorities.

Hazing--Very few institutions communicate
hazing policies in student handbooks.
Religious and small state schools do so
most often. Penalties for violating this
rule may include social probation or
exclusion of a group from official uni-
versity recognition, in addition to

civil prosecution in severe cases.

Women's Hours--Most institutions list
regulations in their handbooks concerning
this variable. The majority of the insti-
tutions allow for unlimited hours for at
least some women students. Large state
schools are the most liberal and small
private colleges the most strict. Vio-

lators are usually given minor penalties.

28A

Room Inspection and Entrance--Very few

 

institutions list policies outlining pro—
cedures for room inspection and entrance.
Religious schools are the most likely to
do so, and small private ones the least
likely. Generally no penalties are out- fl

lined for those who may violate the pro-

 

cedures outlined for room entrance.

 

Room Visitation--Less than half of the ,
institutions outline in the handbooks
policies allowing for the entertainment

of members of the opposite sex in residence
hall bedrooms. Large state schools are

the most liberal, and religious ones the
most restrictive. Violators are given
penalties according to individual cases.
Severe problems may receive suspension.
Tppfpf-The majority of institutions outline
policies on theft in their handbooks. Large
state schools do so most often and small
private ones least often. Penalties do

not often include suspension but may in-
clude prosecution by civil authorities.
Confidentiality of Student Records--Very

few of the institutions communicate poli-

cies pertaining to the confidentiality of

285

student records. Large state schools are
the most inclined to do so. Punitive
measures are not normally enforced when
this policy is violated, since violators
are usually faculty and staff.

Compulsory Class Attendance--Most institu-

 

tions provide some type of policy concern-
ing mandatory class attendance. Religious
schools require attendance most often,
while none of the large state schools

list required attendance, except as

stated by the professor in a few schools.
Penalties are usually not severe and often
include a grade reduction.

Student Demonstrations—-Less than half of

 

the institutions outline procedures for
students to follow in demonstrating for
political and social issues. Large state
schools are the most inclined to list
policies, and the small private ones in-
dicate the least interest. Violations
are usually reviewed on an individual
basis, and penalties can be severe if
disruption takes place.

Disrpptive Activities-—Nearly all of the

 

institutions have policies prohibiting

286

the disruption of the peaceful functioning
of the university. Violators are usu-
ally given severe penalties including
possible civil prosecution.

Off-Campus Speakers—-Less than half of the

 

institutions include a policy in their
handbook outlining procedures for in-
viting speakers to campus. Large pri-
vate schools do so most often, and small
private ones least often. Most policies
do not include statements outlining pen-
alties for violating this regulation.

Unacceptable Off-Campus Behavior--More

 

than half of the institutions communicate
a concern for student off-campus mis-
behavior. Small private schools Show

the least interest, which is probably

more a result of not stating the policy
than not having an interest in this be-
havior. Religious schools list the policy
most often. Penalties for off-campus mis-
behavior are generally the same as campus
violations, even if civil authorities

take action also.

Student Rights in Procedural Due Process--

 

The majority of the institutions include

L v4
.4. .

may 5"! - ....

287

statements in their handbooks outlining
student rights in procedural due process.
Large state and private schools are the
most inclined to list these rights,

while the small private and religious

 

institutions do so least often. :1
Procedural Due Process-—Near1y all of the a
institutions have policies outlining the :
practices and procedures used to process ’

student misconduct problems. These pol—
icies vary greatly in detail and fairness,
but the majority provide students with
specific steps to follow when a regula-
tion has been violated.

Deviant Sexual Behavior--Very few of the

 

institutions list policies prohibiting
deviant sexual behavior. Private schools
are least likely to do so. Penalties

are affixed on an individual basis and
often include some form of counseling.
Dismissal from school is not usually
mentioned as a penalty, unless the coun-
seling approach cannot improve the stu-
dent's behavior.

ngppf-Less than half of the institutions

prescribe dress codes for at least some

288

occaions. Religious schools and small
state colleges are most inclined to do
so. Very few of the large schools list
policies. Penalties are usually in the
lower range of severity.

s. Recognition of Student Organizations---

 

The majority of institutions have policies

 

requiring some form of official approval 5
of all student organizations. The i
methods used to provide approval vary

greatly but usually include some co-

operative effort of students, faculty

and administration. Very little per-

centage difference exists between the

various institutions that include this

policy in their handbooks. Policy vio-

lations are of little concern, with the

offending group having privileges or

recognition withdrawn.

Implications for Further Study

 

One of the aims of this investigation was to iden-
tify topics for more intensive research. The study has
generated a number of research areas.

Since the handbooks do not contain all policies
that attempt to regulate student behavior, it would be

particularly helpful to question school officials by use

289

of a questionnaire concerning additional variables. A
comparison could be drawn between the per cent of hand-
books containing a policy and the number of schools
communicating the regulation in some other way. It
would be important also to ask administrators to list
the purposes of the policies, the degree to which they
were formally adopted and systematically communicated,
the individuals or groups responsible for policy formu-
lation, the individuals or groups responsible for the
implementation of the policy and the type of action
taken in case of violation.

It would be helpful also to learn the extent of
general support for the various policies contained in a
student code, and what effect these policies tend to
have on student morale and attitudes.

Using a similar approach as in this study, further
research might investigate these additional variables:
(1) Loud speaker policies, (2) Membership in political
organizations, (3) Distribution of written materials on
campus, (A) Student publications, (5) Gambling, (6) So-
licitations on campus, (7) Financial responsibility,
(8) Automobiles on campus, (9) Chaperones for social
functions.

Finally, to replicate the present study within a
few years would provide some interesting comparisons and
changes that might be helpful in improving this area of

American higher education.

'3: .|'-‘.1\r.“'
: I

 

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

. {1'0 vJ

L- _-__I__— ‘

‘1;_.- ..-.

 

 

fl

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books b

Brubacher, John S. and Rudy, Willis. Higher Education in
Transition (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1958).

 

 

 

Eddy, Edward D. The College Influence on Student Char- '
acter (Washington, D.C.: American Council on ’
Education, 1959).

Foote, C. and Mayer, H. The Culture of the University:

Governance and Education (San Francisco:
Josey-Bass, Inc., 1968).

 

 

Goldbold, Albea. The Academic Community (New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1962).

 

Hand, H. C. Campus Activities (New York: McGraw-Hill
Co., 1938).

 

Henderson, Algo D. Policies and Practices in Higher
Education (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1960).

 

 

Huehnemann, Eugene. Charles W. Eliot (New York, 1909).

 

Klopf, Gordon. College Student Government (New York:
Harper and Brothers, 1960).

 

Lee, W. Storrs. God Bless Our Queer Old Dean (New York:
G. P. Putman's Son, 1959).

 

Millett, John D. The Academic Community (New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1962).

 

Morphet, Elgar, Johns, R. L. and Reller, Theodore. pg-
ucational Administration (New Jersey: Prentice-
Hall, Incorporated, 1959).

 

Muller, Kate H. StudentAPersonnel Work in Higher Educa—
tion (Boston, New York: Houghton Mifflin Com-
pany, 1961).

 

290

291

Rudolph, Frederick. The American College and University
(New York: Alfred A. Knoph Company, 1962).

Williamson, E. G. Student Personnel Services in Colleges
and Universities (New York: McGraw-Hill Book
Company, 1961).

 

Woodburn, Lloyd S. Principles of College and University
Administration (California: Stanford Uni-
versity Press, 1958).

 

Wrenn, C. Gilbert. "The Development of Student Personnel
Work in the United States and Some Guidelines
for the Future," in The Student and the System,
ed. by M. John Mentor (Boulder, Colorado:
Viche, 1968).

Wrenn, Gilbert C. Student Personnel Work in College
(New York: The Ronald Press Company, 1951).

College Bulletins

 

Colorado State University, The Rights and Responsibilities
of Students and Student Groups at Colorado
State Universipy. (1969-70).

 

Cornell University, Policy Notebook for Students,
(August, 1969).

 

Ohio University, Student Handbook, (1969-70).

 

Report of the Study Commission on University Governance
Berkeley, "The Culture of the University:
Governance and Education," The Daily California,
January 15, 1968.

"Report of the University Commission on the Independence
of University Regulations and Local, State
and Federal Law," The Cornell Daily Sun,
October A, 1967).

University of California Policies Relating to Students
and Student Organizations, Use of Universipy
Facilities, and Nondiscrimination, (March 17,

1969).
University of Iowa, Code of Student Life, (1969-70).

 

 

292

University of Wisconsin, Report of the Ad Hoc Committee
on Mode of Response to Obstruction,~Interview
Policy, and Related Matters; Part One: Place-
ment Interview Policy, (March 13, 1968), Part
Two: University Discipline as a Mode of Re-
sponse to Obstruction, (April 25, 1968).

 

 

 

 

 

 

University of Wisconsin, Repprt of the Non Curricular
Life of Students Committee, (August 12, 1965).

 

LN]. J

University of Wisconsin, Rule Book, (Madison, Wisconsin,
1969-70).

Utah State University, The Student Code, (1969—70).

 

 

 

 

Faculty, Student Power Report, (Madison,
Wisconsin, October 12, 1967).

 

Wisconsin Student Association, Recommendations to the i

Periodical Articles

 

Black, Bernard R. "Student Needs and Orientation Di-
rectors' Aspirations," The Journal of College

Student Personnel, Vol. 6, No. 2 (December,
l96A).

 

 

Brewster, Kingman Jr. "The Politics of Academia,"
Boston Sunday Globe, October 5, 1969.

 

The Chronicle of Higheprducation, Vol. III, No. 22,
September 15, 1969.

 

Cowley, W. H. "Reflections of a Troublesome but Hope-
ful Rip Van Winkle, The Journal of College
Student Personnel, Vol. 6, No. 2 (December,
l96A).

 

 

Editorial Projects for Education, Inc., "Who's in
Charge?" (paper, 1969).

Gifford, Lowell D. "Orientation for What?" Proceedings
of the Canadian Association of University
Student Personnel Services (Vancouver,
October, 1966).

 

 

 

Golden, M. P. and Rosen, N. A. "Student Attitudes Toward
Participation in University Administration: An
Emperical Study Related to Managerial Preroga-
tives," The Journal of College Student Personnel,
7 (November, 1966).

 

293

Greenlead, Elizabeth A. "How Others See Us," The
Journal of College Student Personnel, (July,
1968).

 

Heffner, Ray S. "The Student Voice in Institutional
Policy," AGB Reports, Vol. 10, No. 5 (Febru—
ary, 1968).

 

Hodgetts, J. E. "Some Hints on De-coding 'Student
Power'" University Affairs, 9 (December, 1967).

 

Horner, J. T. and Horner, R. L. "Student Involvement in
Governance and Administration of Higher Ed-
ucation," NASPA, A (October, 1966).

"How Much Should Students HAVE to Say?" College Man-
agement (May, 1969).

 

Katz, Joseph. "The Role of the Student Dean in Educa-
tional Innovation" (Paper read at College
Personnel Institute, Claremont, November, 1965).

Kerlinger, Fred N. "Student Participation in University
Educational Decision Making," The Record,
70 (October, 1968).

 

Keyes, Ralph. "Student Involvement: The Why and How,"
NASPA, 6 (October, 1968).

Kronovet, Esther. "Current Practices in Freshman Orien—
tation Throughout the United States (paper
read at American Personnel and Guidance Asso-
ciation, Washington, April, 1966).

Martin, Warren E. "Should Students Rule?" Motive Mag-
azine (1967).

 

Spolyar, Ludwig J. "Student Power: Threat or Challenge
of Student Personnel?" NASPA, 6 (October, 1968).

The Student Personnel Point of View: A Report of a
Conference, Series 1, Vol. 1, No. 3 (Washington:
American Council on Education, 1937).

 

 

The Student Personnel Point of View, (revised ed.;
Washington: American Council on Education,

l9A9).

 

Tripp, Philip A. "The Dean--Leader, Teacher and Learner"
(Paper prepared for the NASPA 52nd Annual
Conference, April, 1970).

tawny

 

29A

University of California Berkeley, "The Campus Confron—
tation," The Research Reporter, Vol. IV,
No. 1 (19691-

Monographs and Booklets

 

Bakken, Clarence J. The Legal Basis for College Student
Personnel Work, Student Personnel Series No. 2
(Washington, D. C.: American College Personnel 1?
Administration, 1961). '

 

 

Brady, Thomas A. and Snoxel, Leverne F. Student Disci-
pline in Higher Education, Student Personnel
Series No. 5 (Washington, D. C.: American ,
College Personnel Association, 1965). '

 

 

 

Dutton, T. B., Smith, F. W. and Zarle, T. "Institutional
Approaches to the Adjudication of Student Mis-
conduct," The Journal of the Association of
Deans and Administrators of Student Affairs,
Monograph No. 2 (January, 1969).

 

Dutton, T. B., Appleton, J. R. and Smith, F. W. "Insti—
tutional Policies on Controversial Topics,"
The Journal of the Association of Deans and
Administrators of Student Affairs, Monograph
No. 1 (January, 1968).

Education DirectOEyyAl968-69---Part 3, Higher Education.
Published by the U. S. Government Printing
Office, Washington, D. C., 1968.

 

Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students, under
the auspices of the American Association of
University Professors (Washington, D. C.:
American College Personnel Association, 1961).

 

Office of Institutional Research, National Association
of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges,

Constructive Changes to Ease Campus Tensions,
(January, 1970).

 

Unpublished Materials

 

Johnson, Dudley Jr. "College Orientation Procedures,"
(unpublished Master's thesis, University of
Southern California, Los Angeles, 1961).

Levison, Betty M. "Summary of Findings of Trends in Stu-
dent Personnel Practices, 1938-1968," (unpub-
lished reports, State University of New York
at Albany, February 21, 1969).

295

Malm, Ivan C. "Written Policies and Rules Governing
Junior College Student Conduct and Disci-
pline," (unpublished Ph. D. dissertation,
University of Southern California, 1963).

Nelson, Henry W. "A Descriptive Analysis of the Policies
and Practices Governing the Standards of Con-
duct at a Group of Selected Church-Related
Colleges" (unpublished Ph. D. dissertation,
Indiana University, 1960).

Spolyar, Ludwig J. "Summary of Orientation Programs as
Reported by Thirteen Selected Universities"
(unpublished report to Ad-hoc Committee to
Study Orientation and Registration at the
University of Washington, May, 1963).

Court Cases

 

Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Education, 29A F. 2d.
150 (5th Cu. 1961) cert. denied, 368 U. S.
930, 82, Sup. Ct. 358 (1961).

 

Koblitz v. Western Reserve University, 21 Ohio, CCR
(1AA) 1901.

 

Lanton v. McKenney, 226 Mich. 2A5, 197 N. W. 510 (192A).

 

Pratt v. Wheaton College, A0 I11. 186, 187 (1996).

 

Woods v. Simpson, 1A6 Md. 5A7, 126 Atl. 882 (192A).

 

College Bulletins (100) Used For Study

 

Albion College, Albion, Michigan. Student Life, 1969-70.

 

Alliance College, Cambridge Springs, Pennsylvania.
Student Handbook, 1969-70.

 

Alma College, Alma, Michigan. Student Handbook, 1969-70.

 

Amherst College, Amherst, Massachusetts. Student Hand-~
book, 1969-70.

 

Antioch College, Yellow Springs, Ohio. Antioch Community

 

Handbook, 1969-70.

 

Arkansas State University, Beebe, Arkansas. Student
Handbook, 1969-70.

Pflmlbmty
_ . I

w.— ;:.-‘-

296

Bates College, Lewiston, Maine. Bates Blue Book, 1969.

 

Bloomsburg State College, Bloomsburg, Pennsylvania.
Pilot, 1969-70.

Boston College, Boston, Massachusetts. University
Student Guide, 1969-70.

 

 

Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts. The Rights,
Freedoms; and Responsibilities of Students,
1969-70.

 

 

Bowie State College, Bowie, Maryland. Student Handbook,
1969-70.

 

Brandeis University, Waltham, Massachusetts. Student
Handbook, 1969-70.

 

Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island. Student
Handbook, 1969-70.

 

Bucknell University, Lewisburg, Pennsylvania. Student
Handbook, 1969-70.

 

Butler University, Indianapolis, Indiana. Student Hand-
book, 1969-70.

 

California State College, California, Pennsylvania.
College Disciplinary Authority, 1969.

 

California State College, Long Beach, California. Regu-
lations and Information, 1969.

 

Central Michigan University, Mt. Pleasant, Michigan.
Student Handbook, 1969.

 

Central State University, Wilberforce, Ohio. Student
Handbook, 1969-70.i

 

Colby College, Waterville, Maine. Student Handbook,
1969-70.

 

College of Wooster, Wooster, Ohio. The Scot's Key,
1969-70.

 

Cornell University, Ithaca, New York. Policnyotebook
For Students, and Desk Book, 1969-70.

 

 

 

Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. The
Rights and Responsibilities of Students and
Student Groups, 1969.

 

 

 

297

Drake University, Des Moines, Iowa. Residence Hall Hand--
book, 1969-70.

Duke University, Durham, North Carolina. Information and
Regulations, 1969.-

 

Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Student
Handbook, 1969-70.

 

East Central State College, Ada, Oklahoma. The Student
Handbook, 1969-70.

 

Alli? '
.

East Texas State University, Commerce, Texas. Student
Handbook, 1969-70.

.-:."iil". 'y“

 

Eastern Montana College, Billings, Montana. Student '-
Handbook, 1969-70.

 

Framingham State College, Framingham, Massachusetts.
Student Handbook, 1969—70, and Helpful Hints
on Understanding Rules, 1969.

 

 

 

Illinois State University, Normal, Illinois. Student
Life. . . ISU, 1969.4

 

Indiana State University, Terre Haute, Indiana. Student
Handbook, 1969-70.

 

Kansas State College of Pittsburg, Pittsburg, Kansas.
Student Handbook, 1969-70.

 

Kentucky State College, Frankfort, Kentucky. The K-Book,
1968 and Supplement, 1969.

 

 

Knox College, Galesburg, Illinois. Student Handbook,
1969-70.

Lafayette College, Easton, Pennsylvania. Student Hand-
book, 1969.

 

Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. A

Handbook for Students, 1968, and Academic
Freedom for Students, 1969.

 

 

 

Moorhead State College, Moorhead, Minnesota. Handbook,
1969-70.

 

Morgan State College, Baltimore, Maryland. Student
Handbook, 1969-70.

 

Niagara University, Niagara, New York. Information Hand-
book for Undergraduate Students, 1969-70.

 

 

298

North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Student Handbook Edition, 1969.

 

Northeastern University, Boston and Burlington, Massachu-
setts. Student Handbook, 1969-70.

 

Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Arizona. Stu-
dent Handbook, 1969—70.-

 

Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, Illinois. Student 5?
Conduct and Discipline Regulations, 1969.-

 

Northern Michigan University, Marquette, Michigan.
Student Code of Conduct, 1969."

 

 

Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois. Student -'
Handbook, 1969-70. I

Notre Dame University, Notre Dame, Indiana. Student
Handbook, 1969—70.

Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan. Handbook for
Students, 1969-70.

 

Oberlin College, Oberlin, Ohio. Student Regulations, 1969.

 

Ohio University, Athens, Ohio. Student Handbook, 1969-70.

 

Oklahoma Baptist University, Shawnee, Oklahoma. The
Green Book, 1969-70.

 

Reed College, Portland, Oregon. Regulations Governing
the Reed Community, 1969.-

 

 

Richer College, Houlton, Maine. Student Handbook,
1969-70.

 

St. Anselm's College, Manchester, New Hampshire.
Student Handbook, 1969-70.

 

Saint Francis College, Fort Wayne, Indiana. Student
Handbook, 1968-69.

Southeast Missouri State College, Cape Gerardeau,
Missouri. Student Handbook, 1969.

 

Southeastern Louisiana College, Hammond, Louisiana.
The Student Handbook, 1969, and Living Stan-
dards for Women Students, 1969.

 

 

 

Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas. The SMU
Encheridion, 1969-70.

 

299

Stanford University, Stanford, California. Stanford
Universipy Bulletin, Series 21, No. 10,
January 2, 1970.

 

State College of Arkansas, Conway, Arkansas. Handbook,
1969-70.

Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York. Dates and
Data, 1969-70.

 

Texas Christian University, Fort Worth, Texas. Frog
Horn, 1969-70.

Thomas More College, Fort Mitchell, Kentucky. Student
Handbook, 1969-70.

 

Tulane University, New Orleans, Louisiana. Student
Leaders' Handbook, 1969—70.

 

Tuskegee Institute, Tuskegee Institute, Alabama. Stu-
dent Handbook, 1969-70, and Student Guidelines
and Discipline Proceedings, 1969.

 

University of Bridgeport, Bridgeport, Connecticut. Key
to U B, 1969-70.

University of California, Berkeley, California. Up;—
versity of California Policies Relating to
Students 8 Student Organizations, Use of
UnéversityFacilities, and Nondiscrimination,
l9 9.

University of California, San Diego, California. Student
Handbook, 1969-70.

University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois. Report of the
Subcommittee on Disciplinary Procedures at
the University of Chicago, 1969.

University 0% Detroit, Detroit, Michigan. Handbook,
19 9-70.

University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia. Student Hand-
book, 1969-70.

University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa. Student Guide,
1969-70.

University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts.
Student Handbook, l969-70.-

 

 

300

University of Miami, Coral Gables, Florida. Student
Handbook, 1969-70.

 

University of Montana, Missoula, Montana. Standards of
Student Conduct, l969.~

 

 

University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
The Honor Code, 1969, and Statement of Policy,
1969.

 

 

University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon. Student Handbook;
1969-70.

 

University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Student Handbook, 1969-70.

 

University of Rochester, Rochester, New York. Official
Bulletin, 1969-70c

 

 

University of Santa Clara, Santa Clara, California.
Student Handbook, 1969-70.

 

University of Scranton, Scranton, Pennsylvania. The
Student Handbook, 1969-70:

 

University of Southern California. S Campus, 1969-70.

 

University of Tampa, Tampa, Florida. Student Handbook,
1969-70.

 

University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee. Hill
Topics, 1969-70.

 

University g Texas, Austin, Texas. General Information,
18 9-70.

The University of Tulsa, Tulsa, Oklahoma. Student Hand-
book, 1969-70.

 

University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin. Rule Book,
1969-70.

 

Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee. Undergraduate

 

Student Affairs Handbook, 1969-70.

 

Weber State College, Ogden, Utah. Academic Freedoms,
Rights and Responsibilities of Students, 1969-70.

 

 

Wesleyan University, Middletown, Connecticut. University
Code, 1969-70.

 

w~ "r" 'AL'JMJHlluu' an...
' ‘ v

301

West Texas State University, Cayon, Texas. General
Policy Statements of Student Life, 1969-70.

 

Western Washington State College, Bellingham, Washington.
Navigator, l969-70;-

 

Wheaton College, Wheaton, Illinois. Student Handbook,
1969—70.

 

 

Whittier College, Whittier, California. Residence
Living, 1969-70. .

Wilkes College, Wilkes-Berre, Pennsylvania. Student
Handbook, 1969-70.

 

Winona State College, Winona, Minnesota. Student Hand- [7
book, 1969-70.

 

 

Wisconsin State University, Stevens Point, Wisconsin.
Student Handbook, 1968.

 

Wisconsin State University, Whitewater, Wisconsin.
Student Handbook, 1969-70.

 

Xavier University of Louisiana, New Orleans, Louisiana.
Student Handbook, 1968—69."

 

Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut. Undergraduate
Regulations, 1969a>