On Monday, March 3, the faculty voted to approve changes to the student conduct system. The vote passed with 69 yes votes, 29 no votes and 28 abstentions, making it a relatively contested vote within the faculty legislating body. Over its past two readings in January and February, the legislation weathered criticism from the faculty and has gone through several iterations before its final reading in this month’s faculty meeting. 

Before the vote, the Student Conduct Committee (SCC) presented their revisions and answered questions to provide clarity to what is a significant reorganization of the system. The SCC’s stated goal was to streamline the student conduct process, taking it from a seven-option process down to three. Even in its final reading, the proposed change was divisive among faculty, citing that it still contained a significant amount of confusing and vague language. There were also repeated concerns about how the shift away from the live-hearing model removes community voices from the process.

The most controversial change to the process is for cases that could result in suspension or dismissal (Bates’ term for expulsion).  

In the old system, a student in this situation would be heard by a hearing panel of students, faculty and staff who would hear all sides of the situation and examine all evidence. Then, the panel would convene privately to make a determination of responsibility and appropriate sanctions.

The new system removes the live hearing and follows a process similar to Title IX Civil Rights hearings. In this process,  an independent investigator is appointed by the school (either from within or outside the college, depending on expertise relevant to the specific case) to gather facts about the incident. This file is then passed along to the “decision maker” who makes a recommendation on whether the facts of the incident violated the student code of conduct.  This recommendation is then sent to a committee of students, faculty and staff who determine sanctions. Read more about the details of the legislation along with student, staff and faculty perspectives here.

After the vote, President Garry Jenkins encouraged faculty to continue conversations to amend and improve the legislation. 

The Student will continue to cover this story as it develops.