Page 2
University Daily Kansan Thursday. May 18, 1961
The Seating Plan
A student referendum to veto the ASC's approval of a seniority seating plan would be nothing more than an attempt to delay the inevitable. A reserved seating plan is needed and will probably be provided by the administration if students defeat the plan of their representatives.
THE LONG LINES AS WELL AS THE OFten disgraceful behavior of students waiting to be admitted to Memorial Stadium give testimony to a need for a change from the present mob seating confusion. These are problems that will be enlarged with an ever increasing student body. Increasing enrollment and KU's rocketing football fortunes will require a more and more accurate count of seats. Under the present plan, where a seat is saved for every student, several hundred seats often go unused. The administration wants a plan that eliminates this waste so extra seats can be sold for the general admission seat price of $4.50.
So, regardless of action taken now, students will be sitting in reserved seats eventually under
either an ASC plan or a proposal drafted by the administration. The plan already approved by the ASC provides more possibility of student improvement and change than a proposal of the administration which would probably exist above the level of student opinion.
THE ASC APPROVED PLAN IS NOT PERfect in its construction. There are several loopholes that have cropped up and more will appear. The important thing is that the council has approved a plan and the council can change it and improve it in response to student needs and opinion.
KU is not the first school to approve such a program. Almost the same plan works well and the students are pleased in eight of the Big Ten schools. The seniority system was adopted as the only fair way to administer the program. Theoretically everyone will some day be eligible to sit in the senior section. This will eliminate saving seats, and other nuisances.
- Ron Gallagher
Discipline Is Severe Shock To Students
The young man pulled the door shut behind him and trudged as in a trance, down the hall. He had known that he wasn't doing the right thing when he did it . . . but to get kicked out of school...
The impact of the decision was shattering to this student, we'll call him Bill, as his well-laid plans at the University and his ambitions in life seemed to evaporate. Bill had planned to go to medical school next year, but who would accept a brief?
This is not typical of the cases which come before the University's disciplinary committee and personnel deans, but there are no typical cases. Each one has its own human element, depending on the infraction and the student.
BILL'S CASE does come close to being typical. He was caught stealing books from the Kansas Union Book Store. As it turned out, he had been under suspicion for a long time and when apprehended, admitted that these were not the first books he had taken from the store.
Bill felt that he had extenuating circumstances in his case and asked the dean of men if his case could be heard by the faculty-student disciplinary committee. (Each student, regardless of the penalty or the offense, has this right.) His request was granted.
HE TOLD THE committee that his parents were unable to give him any assistance. Bill said that the only reason he had taken the books was that he could not have remained in school otherwise.
The disciplinary committee hears what the accused has to say, calls in all parties involved for questioning before beginning to consider the consequences of the situation.
Bill's hearing took the course all such bearings, take.
The disciplinary committee holds two objectives in view when discussing individual cases. First, what will the consequences be to the student involved, and second, what will the consequences be to the University community?
When Bill was questioned by the committee, he said that he did not work and that he did drive a car.
THERE WAS NO question of Bill's guilt. The disciplinary committee did not agree with Bill that he needed to steal the books to remain in school.
Because Bill was a junior, quite mature in his manner and beliefs, and the fact that he had taken the books with the knowledge that it was wrong, the disciplinary committee decided that he should be suspended from school for a semester.
System Treats Men, Women Nearly Same
KU's disciplinary system is split down the middle-one side for men and the other for women. Both, however, are much the same with only one basic difference.
This is that women lead a more regimented life. They have closing hours, moral standards to abide by and their system has set up the Associated Women Students' Board of Standards to deal with infractions of these rules.
The Board of Standards decides cases which the organized house or dormitory does not feel capable of harling. It also hears the individual woman who prefers the Board to hear the case. Although these cases theoretically can be appealed to the disciplinary committee, Dean Emily Taylor says that women rarely consider it because the disciplinary committee has men on it and that bringing up morals cases would be too embarrassing and awkward.
IN ALL CASES OF INDIVIDUAL MISCONDUCT, THE CASE is usually heard at the lowest level by faculty and deans. This means that if a student is caught cheating, the instructor often just docks the student's grade. The student, of course, can appeal to the dean and from there to the disciplinary committee. If a student is in violation of his house's or dormitory's regulations, the living organization's judicial body first hears the case and decides punishment. Seldom are these decisions appealed to the deans or disciplinary committee, but they may be.
The courses of action are different for group violations. There are two divisions here—those connected with social functions and those which are not, but break the University's code of ethics.
Group social infractions come before the All Student Council's social committee. If the living organization is a fraternity or sorority, the case is handled in the Interfraternity Council's judicial council or the Panhellenic's council. The Men's Residence Association and Inter-Residence Council for women could, but do not handle disciplinary cases because of the nature of the groups they represent. Offenses by this group's members usually come on the individual basis.
GROUP INFRACTIONS OTHER THAN SOCIAL ARE AGAIN brought before the organization's judicial body such as the IFC's or Panhellenic's or before the disciplinary committee.
Three Objections to Disciplinary System
A hush-hush attitude toward student discipline at KU has made the system seem like a maze of meandering paths to most students and faculty members.
The critics of the system and its seemingly complex structure have three main objections:
1. No consistency in procedure.
2. No records available to students outlining the possible penalties and procedures for common-place violations such as cheating and theft.
3. A lack of student awareness of the disciplinary system and how it can be utilized.
THE COMPLEXITIES OF THE DISCIPLINARY SYSTEM come from the need to handle each case of student discipline on its own merits. Violations of the University's rules range from a freshman cheating on an English paper to a student stealing hundreds of dollars worth of books and supplies from the Kansas Union.
What is going to happen to the student in each disciplinary case?
If the freshman cheating on an English paper is lowered one grade but denies the accusation, he has the right to appeal to the chairman of the English department. His appeal can continue to the dean of the college, and if he is still not satisfied, he can ask that his case be brought before the disciplinary committee where all individuals involved are questioned before a decision is reached.
This question cannot be answered, and only an outline of disciplinary procedure is available. There is one general rule: regardless of the infraction, a student can appeal the decision through channels ranging from the lowest student-instructor relationship to a decision by the chancellor.
NEARLY ALL DISCIPLINARY CASES ORIGINATE WITHIN a classroom or at the office of the dean of men or women. This means the deans decide if any disciplinary action should be considered: Whether a student should be reprimanded, punished, dismissed or referred to the disciplinary committee or the judicial body of the student's living organization.
It is here the controversy over the disciplinary system arises.
The administration says that each case has its own set of facts as a different individual is always involved. Because of this, the deans weigh each case independently to decide where it should be heard—in the dean's office or before a student discipline group.
Once this decision is made, the individual involved in the disciplinary action is told what course of action will be taken. Personnel deans says that standard procedure is also to tell each individual that he can appeal any decision.
JIM AUSTIN, FORMER STUDENT BODY PRESIDENT AND now a graduate student in business, has been one of the leaders of the move to get a better defined disciplinary system.
"We don't need specific rules and punishments for each offense, but when a case comes up. I think it should be clear what committee or dean it will be most likely to go through."
Austin said that students often called him when he was student body president to ask advice when they were in trouble.
"I could always tell them that there would be disciplinary action. But they already knew this.
"I could never tell them what to expect, who would hear their case or what might happen to them. I've never heard of such secrecy around a disciplinary system before."
THE STUDENT-FACULTY DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE IS the ultimate appellate body in the hierarchy of the disciplinary system. The committee consists of the dean of men, dean of women, the academic dean of the student appearing before the committee, and six students who are appointed by the student body president.
Every case of a disciplinary nature at the University may be appealed to this committee. The chancellor, however, may reverse or uphold any decision.