Proposed Code of Conduct amendment creates conflict
In the past few weeks, the university has proposed an amendment to the current Student Code of Contact. It is a proposed alteration to be both praised and decried.
Shane Wade
Opinion Editor
In the past few weeks, the university has proposed an amendment to the current Student Code of Contact. It is a proposed alteration to be both praised and decried.
The first part of the amendment would give the university the power to formally discipline students charged with a crime “without regard to the pendency of civil or criminal litigation in court or criminal arrest and prosecution.”
At first glance, one may view this act as a blatant violation of our society’s belief in “innocent until proven guilty.”
But the university has a right to distance itself and publically condemn students that do not accurately uphold the standards of what it means to be a student at VCU. This position might upset those who believe that because we pay to come here, we ought to be the master and commander – that we, the customer, should be in control.
But being a part of something and investing in the university does not give you free reign to do disservice to the standing of a vested establishment.
Students brought about this change through their outcry after it became public knowledge that Varinder “Vick” Chahal, the accused driver of a car that ended the life of Carolina Perez in a drunken driving accident, wished to return to VCU and complete his degree. Our response and actions contributed to the policy change.
Unfortunately, the secondary part to that proposed code of conduct change is less agreeable. It expressly prohibits “participating in an on-campus or offcampus demonstration, riot or activity that disrupts the normal operations of the university and/or infringes on the rights of others; leading or inciting others to disrupt scheduled and/or normal activities within any campus building or area.”
It’s more than the vague wording that makes no discernable distinction between a riot and demonstrations. It’s the lording feeling that momentary spontaneity, without a charitable warning via university officials or police officers, could result in permanent damage to an otherwise unblemished record. It’s the feeling that the university constructed a policy meant to amend a single flaw, but instead built a policy bomb, untested and thoroughly capable of causing unintended harm.
We live in a society which prides itself on the freedom to engage in spontaneity. It’s that freedom that inspires a movement and defines our collective character. The danger the amendment poses to our freedom of speech is a valid concern, but the real danger here is that the university has undermined and failed to understand a component essential to the student body at VCU.
The administration stated they will revise the section on riots and demonstrations, but the issue is deeper than that. An in-depth, articulate dialogue has begun and must be sustained if the student body and the administration wish to come to a coherent and reasonable consensus, and I look forward to the ensuing results.
