DIY History | Transcribe | Campus Culture | University of Iowa anti-war protests, 1970 | 1970-06-03 Report: ""Campus Tensions -- A Report on Iowa and Elsewhere"" Page 14

Transcribe
Translate

University of Iowa anti-war protests, 1970

1970-06-03 Report: ""Campus Tensions -- A Report on Iowa and Elsewhere"" Page 14

- 14 - 

At UNI, the first hearing in two years resulted in mass disruptions. Part of the reason hearings had not been held during the two-year period was doubt whether the student members named by Student Senate would really act in a judicious manner. Also, these changes were made in the process which might have added to the disruption which occurred:

1. Each student charged could be accompanied by three advisors. 

2. Hearing were always to be open unless closed hearing requested. 

3, Committee makeup altered to 4 students  3 faculty. 

4. Students (7 in all) were heard as a group. 

Worthy of exploration is whether the long-held concept that students judging other students would be as fair and as detached in such hearings as would non-student hearing bodies has now been replaced by the concept of peer-pressure. If students, generally, don't hold in high regard the philosophy that order must be maintained, then student senates naming committee members might use this power to name students who are reflective of the general student mood and who view the judicial process as simply an extension of the student legislative or political process. Institutions have little alternative in such cases but to abort present systems of student self governance. 

Are present institutional judicial structures adequate? Are new structures needed? Should new structures be set up around a hearing officer? Should there be one hearing officer for all Regent universities? Would such an officer handle only civil disobedience cases or would he also handle other areas such as violations of residence halls regulations? Where should cases be heard - on or off campus? What legal mechanisms are needed to keep order in courtroom? What rights does a student hold as regards such hearings ? Are present sanctions adequate as deterrents to offenses? What appeal procedures would be set up if a Regent Hearing Officer were employed? If we assume that institutional rules are clear as to what is punishable conduct, are present methods of identifying violators of these rules adequate? Is there a need for a new usage for the student identification card?

Without question, the absence of a fair and workable judicial structure which can effectively act to rid campuses of those individuals who operate outside the boundaries of legitimate dissent can cause the entire notion of institutional self-governance and governance without outside interference to rather quickly become an outmoded concept. 

OTHER AREAS WHICH NEED DISCUSSION

We have discussed institutional rules, remedies, and judicial systems. Other areas of concern are the handling of the problems of off campus offenses, both institutional and civil punishment for a given offense, non-students on campus, the concept of the campus being a sanctuary, contingency plans for coping with disorders, relationships with civil authorities and external law enforcement bodies and use of injunctions. 

The issue of institutional responsibility for action toward students who commit offenses off-campus should be explored in detail and a workable solution

Saving...

- 14 - At UNI, the first hearing in two years resulted in mass disruptions. Part of the reason hearings had not been held during the two-year period was doubt whether the student members named by Student Senate would really act in a judicious manner. Also, these changes were made in the process which might have added to the disruption which occurred: 1. Each student charged could be accompanied by three advisors. 2. Hearing were always to be open unless closed hearing requested. 3, Committee makeup altered to 4 students 3 faculty. 4. Students (7 in all) were heard as a group. Worthy of exploration is whether the long-held concept that students judging other students would be as fair and as detached in such hearings as would non-student hearing bodies has now been replaced by the concept of peer-pressure. If students, generally, don't hold in high regard the philosophy that order must be maintained, then student senates naming committee members might use this power to name students who are reflective of the general student mood and who view the judicial process as simply an extension of the student legislative or political process. Institutions have little alternative in such cases but to abort present systems of student self governance. Are present institutional judicial structures adequate? Are new structures needed? Should new structures be set up around a hearing officer? Should there be one hearing officer for all Regent universities? Would such an officer handle only civil disobedience cases or would he also handle other areas such as violations of residence halls regulations? Where should cases be heard - on or off campus? What legal mechanisms are needed to keep order in courtroom? What rights does a student hold as regards such hearings ? Are present sanctions adequate as deterrents to offenses? What appeal procedures would be set up if a Regent Hearing Officer were employed? If we assume that institutional rules are clear as to what is punishable conduct, are present methods of identifying violators of these rules adequate? Is there a need for a new usage for the student identification card? Without question, the absence of a fair and workable judicial structure which can effectively act to rid campuses of those individuals who operate outside the boundaries of legitimate dissent can cause the entire notion of institutional self-governance and governance without outside interference to rather quickly become an outmoded concept. OTHER AREAS WHICH NEED DISCUSSION We have discussed institutional rules, remedies, and judicial systems. Other areas of concern are the handling of the problems of off campus offenses, both institutional and civil punishment for a given offense, non-students on campus, the concept of the campus being a sanctuary, contingency plans for coping with disorders, relationships with civil authorities and external law enforcement bodies and use of injunctions. The issue of institutional responsibility for action toward students who commit offenses off-campus should be explored in detail and a workable solution