2008 Woodie Awards
Letter: Some Students' Rights and Responsibilities Committee members have conflict of interest
Issue date: 2/29/08 Section: Editorial/Opinion
02/29/08 - To the Cigar, We would like to introduce ourselves as the student delegation of the Students' Rights and Responsibilities Committee (SR&R). It is our job to represent the student body on the committee that decides what rules students have to follow and what happens to them when those rules are broken.
Since this work affects all of you in substantial ways, we felt it was a good idea to keep you all informed about the committee's work, both to give you an idea of where we are coming from and also to solicit ideas and opinions from you. The issue that we would like to talk with you about today is one of how the committee works.
The committee, which usually congregates every other year, is composed of two staff members, four faculty, four undergraduate students, a graduate student and an administrator. We normally meet once per week to discuss proposals for changes to the university rules.
These proposals come from many different sources, including the administration, the staff and the student government. These meetings are open to the public and are held in the Memorial Union in room 301 on Fridays at 3 p.m., so if you ever read anything that interests you, please feel free to show up and participate.
Normally for a committee of this importance, it would go without saying that the members appointed would be individuals who have no compromising personal or professional stake in what is decided. However, this year on SR&R, we have reason to believe that several members of the committee are not acting impartially. This has happened because the university has ignored a very simple, yet important principle.
A fair system has two separate groups of people: those who write the rules and those that enforce the rules. These people are traditionally separate because the people who enforce the rules are always faced with the temptation to take shortcuts and loosen oversight in order to make their jobs easier.
The problem in systems like a disciplinary system is that there are more important values in play than efficiency or ease of use; ideas like "innocent until proven guilty," "due process" and "impartial judgment."
Since this work affects all of you in substantial ways, we felt it was a good idea to keep you all informed about the committee's work, both to give you an idea of where we are coming from and also to solicit ideas and opinions from you. The issue that we would like to talk with you about today is one of how the committee works.
The committee, which usually congregates every other year, is composed of two staff members, four faculty, four undergraduate students, a graduate student and an administrator. We normally meet once per week to discuss proposals for changes to the university rules.
These proposals come from many different sources, including the administration, the staff and the student government. These meetings are open to the public and are held in the Memorial Union in room 301 on Fridays at 3 p.m., so if you ever read anything that interests you, please feel free to show up and participate.
Normally for a committee of this importance, it would go without saying that the members appointed would be individuals who have no compromising personal or professional stake in what is decided. However, this year on SR&R, we have reason to believe that several members of the committee are not acting impartially. This has happened because the university has ignored a very simple, yet important principle.
A fair system has two separate groups of people: those who write the rules and those that enforce the rules. These people are traditionally separate because the people who enforce the rules are always faced with the temptation to take shortcuts and loosen oversight in order to make their jobs easier.
The problem in systems like a disciplinary system is that there are more important values in play than efficiency or ease of use; ideas like "innocent until proven guilty," "due process" and "impartial judgment."