PAGE 6A
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2012
J
STUDENT SENATE
THE UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
Amendment regarding off-campus jurisdiction fails
VIKAAS SHANKER
vshanker@kansan.com
An amendment to the Student Code of Rights and Responsibilities that would have broadened the University's ability to discipline students off campus failed in the Student Senate Student Rights Committee last week. But the issue may come up again during the full Senate meeting this Wednesday.
Article 20 of the code currently states that the University can't institute disciplinary actions against students who violate the code unless it occurs on University-owned property or at University-sponsored or supervised events. The change would grant the University the ability to do so if an alleged violation "has had or may have an adverse affect on the health, safety, or security of any member of the University community." Either way, the article would still allow the University to take disciplinary action as required by federal, state or local law.
Supporters of the amendment say that it would allow the University to better follow federal Title IX requirements in protecting
students from sexual harassment and violence. According to an open letter by the US Department of Education, "Schools may have an obligation to respond to student-on-student sexual harassment that initially occurred off school grounds, outside a school's education program or activity"
Last year, the article was changed to require the University to expand their jurisdiction in accordance to the law Jane Tuttle, the assistant vice provost for student success, said this year the University wanted to broaden the language to help it fulfill its obligations to student safety.
"The Office of Civil Rights made it clear to universities that we had responsibilities for off-campus incidents of sexual violence that ultimately impact the student on campus," Tuttle said.
Tuttle also noted that Kansas is a part of only a handful of higher education institutions that don't have some form of off-campus jurisdiction. The University is currently the only Big 12 institution that doesn't have this. Tuttle said the goal is to shape the code after the model code prescribed by
Edward Stoner and John Wesley Lowery, experts in the field of higher education policy.
"It's best practice in higher education," Tuttle said. "The intention is to have community standards and that students are treated consistently."
But while broadening the University's jurisdiction to off-campus violations could allow it to better serve students, according to the language of the amendment, it could also allow the University to discipline students for non-campus related issues.
During the rights committee meeting last Wednesday, committee chair Aaron Harris expressed deep concern over this change, saying that because the University already has the authority to take disciplinary action to fulfill its obligations, the amendment is unnecessary.
"To tell us that you cannot do your job because our code keeps you from it although federal law is telling you that you need to do this, is asinine," Harris said. "KU students have a unique position on this campus. We are an integrated
Amendments to clarify and update the Code of Student Rights and Responsibilities will grant students expanded protections from University disciplinary action pending approval by the full Student Senate on Wednesday. The code provides guidelines to students' rights on campus and specifies under what conditions the University can discipline students who violate it.
Here is how the four amendments will affect students' rights.
Amendment 1: Introduction
the situation. It also clarifies that only students living in University-owned and operated housing units are subject to the Department of Student Housing's regulations.
Amendment I: Introduction
Students who fail to comply with University policies and regulations may be subject to disciplinary action based on
Amendment 2: Article 8 (Campus Expression)
This will expand students' freedom of speech to "views that are communicated through, but not limited to, oral, written, and/or electronic means of communication."
Amendment 3: Article 16 (Publications)
According to the Senate's student rights committee, this article contained redundant language about the freedom
part of this university. However, when we step off campus, we don't always represent the university in everything we do. If I do something stupid out of town, I don't think it should reflect on me as a student, it should reflect on me as a person."
Harris also believes that conforming to other institutions' poli-
of expression through student media that can be taken out. The statewide Kansas Student Publications Act provides much of the same protection to student media.
Amendment 4. Article 19 (Privacy)
Instead of stating that students have "the same rights of privacy as any other person, and surrender none of these rights by becoming members of the academic community," the amendment clarifies this, assuring students their "rights of privacy against unreasonable entry, searches and seizures." It also makes sure the University gives 24 hours notice before entering a student's University-managed living quarters even during academic breaks.
The Senate will be voting on the four amendments that did pass the student rights committee. According to Harris, the amendment to Article 20 of the code can still be brought up and passed. Any changes to the code passed by the Senate must be approved
cies shouldn't be a reason to amend the code.
by Chancellor Bernadette Gray-Little. Students can attend the meeting at 6:30 p.m. Wednesday at the Alderson Auditorium in the Kansas Union.
ENVIRONMENT
Actual cost of the 2010 BP oil spill to be determined in trial
— Edited by Max Lush
ASSOCIATED PRESS
NEW ORLEANS — On the cusp of trial over the catastrophic 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, phalanxes of lawyers, executives and public officials have spent the waning days in settlement talks. Holed up in small groups inside law offices, war rooms and hotel suites in New Orleans and Washington, they are trying to put a number on what BP and its partners in the doomed Macondo well project should pay to make up
for the worst offshore spill in U.S. history.
It is a complex equation, and the answer is proving elusive.
The federal government, Gulf states, plaintiffs' attorneys, BPPLC, rig owner Transocean Ltd. and cementer Halliburton Energy Services Inc. have been in simultaneous and separate negotiations in New Orleans, according to a person with direct knowledge of the talks and others who had been briefed on them.
Trial is set for Monday, and by
Friday, no deal had been reached, several people familiar with the negotiations told The Associated Press on condition of anonymity. The biggest stumbling block appeared to be the sheer size and sprawling uncertainty over the unprecedented dollar amounts at stake.
Financial analysts estimate BP's potential settlement payout at $15 billion to roughly $30 billion. The company itself estimated it would cost about $41 billion in the weeks after the explosion to account for
all of its costs, including cleanup compensating businesses, and paying fines and ecological damage.
"This one is off the charts in terms of size and significance," said Eric Schaeffer, the director of the Environmental Integrity Project in Washington and former head of the Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Regulatory Enforcement.
ASSOCIATED PRESS
Fireboats attempt to put out the fire on BP's Deepwater Horizon oil rig in 2010. BP will have to decide whether or not to take the case to court or to settle to determine how much they owe for their soil in the Gulf of Mexico.
DINNER WITH A DOZEN ENGINEERING HAWKS
6-8 p.m. Wednesday, February 29 Adams Alumni Center
Students, you are invited! At the dinner, a dozen KU engineering alumni will network and share words of wisdom with you. This is a special opportunity to learn from successful engineering alumni! And the dinner is free! RSVP required. Space is limited, so RSVP by Feb. 27 at www.kualumni.org/saa_engineering.
BP has to weigh its chances of getting off cheaper by piecing together a sweeping settlement or put its fate in the hands of one man, a federal judge who will hear testimony in lieu of a jury. If the judge sides with plaintiffs on the amount of oil spilled and determines BP was grossly negligent, the company conceivably could face up to $52 billion in environmental fines and compensation alone, according to an AP analysis.
While such a scenario is unlikely, it illustrates the broad range and staggering sums at play.
No matter what, the case is all but guaranteed to set records as the most expensive environmental disaster in history, far surpassing the Exxon Valdez disaster in 1989. Exxon ultimately settled with the U.S. government for $1 billion, which would be about $1.8 billion today.
If BP settles, it's almost certain to dwarf previous deals the U.S. has reached with corporate offenders in any industry. That record now stands at $2.3 billion against Pfizer Inc. in 2009 to settle claims over the painkiller Bextra, according to the Justice Department.
And once the civil case is resolved, depending on the scope of any settlement, BP still could face criminal fines; penalties for violations of oil pollution, clean water and wildlife protection laws;
and still-pending economic losses due to the partial shutdown of the Gulf, Morgan Stanley analysts estimated criminal fines would come in between $5 billion and $15 billion in any eventual settlement.
Robert Wiygul, an environmental lawyer in New Orleans who represents spill plaintiffs but is not involved in the settlement talks, said putting a dollar figure on what is the right sum for BP to pay is extremely difficult.
"There is going to be a lot of voodoo there," he said.
The bill will be commensurate to the magnitude of the disaster: An epic engineering failure that highlighted the dangers of drilling in extreme conditions miles from shore and miles under water.
The April 20, 2010, blowout of BP's deepwater Macondo well killed 11 workers and injured 17. The burning drilling rig Deepwater Horizon toppled and sank to the Gulf floor, where it sits today.
KEEPING THE HAWKS ROLLING SINCE 1974
Don's Auto Center Inc.
Auto Repair and Machine Shop
785.841.4833 11th & Haskell
It took engineers 85 days to permanently cap the well. By then, more than 200 million gallons of oil leaked from the well and had covered much of the northern half of the Gulf of Mexico — endangering fisheries, killing marine life and shutting down offshore oil drilling operations.
About 900 miles of shoreline were fouled and beaches were closed for months. The spill forced President Barack Obama in June 2010 to make his first Oval Office speech, in which he called the BP spill "the worst environmental disaster the nation has ever faced."
Under the Clean Water Act, which is designed to punish companies and prevent future spills, a polluter pays a minimum of $1,100 per barrel of spilled oil; the fines nearly quadruple for companies found guilty of grossly negligent behavior. Under this statute, BP could owe $5 billion to $21 billion. Transocean and Anadarko Petroleum Corp., a minority owner of the Macondo well, also face paying hefty fines.
One of the biggest questions facing U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier, a maritime law expert presiding over the trial, will be to determine if BP was guilty of gross negligence.
There are several arguments that BP is likely to make. The company could say the amount it pays should be much lower because it has spent billions on cleanup already and provided $1 billion for early ecosystem restoration. BP may say the spill's effects were minimized by the Gulf's warm waters, oil-eating bacteria and other factors.
The Gulf has been soiled by past pills and natural oil seeps, so the oil giant could say it's too hard to pinpoint what is BP damage and what isn't, said Mark Davis, a Tulane University law professor who specializes in water resources.
At trial, BP will try to spread blame to the other companies and try to convince the judge that what happened at the Macondo well was an accident, not an act of gross negligence or willful misconduct.