UDB may set pattern
(Continued from page 1)
(Continued from page 17)
Alderson suggested the Kansan ask Chancellor W. Clarke Wescoe for the administration's policy on campus demonstrations.
Wescoe's reply: "With the kind of government we have in the University, the responsibility for student discipline rests with the students and faculty. No peremptory decisions were made."
Wescoe said that when government or University officials talk about a "get tough" policy, they are talking about violence, not the right of people to dissent peacefully. He added that as far as he knew, there had been no violence on this campus.
Asked to comment on past policy, Alderson said, "I think the University's posture of late has been to recognize that students must have different ways of expressing themselves and that there will be dissent.
"But it has been assumed that it would be a responsible presentation. The University has always been concerned with vandalism, damage to property. And I'm sure you will find many people concerned with disruption."
Few infractions encountered
"As far as my turning to a page of the student handbook and saying here's the policy or here's a statement on disruption I can't."
"I would not be surprised though, that one would be written so that it would be better understood what the University's posture is on this."
Alderson then pointed out that the Kansan ought to let its readers know what the students' feelings were on campus disruptions.
He said that very few infractions came to the attention of the disciplinary board, and that only infrequently does he hear about infractions handled in the judicial councils of residence halls or in classrooms.
Alderson said, "The disciplinary board has hearings about twice a month and only the more serious cases reach the disciplinary board in the form of appeals by students or a request for the board to decide what ought to be done.
Faculty member added
Membership of the disciplinary board has changed
20 KANSAN May 7
1969
since 1949 when the All-Student Council (ASC) Bill No.8 was passed, said Russell N. Bradt, associate professor of mathematics and board member.
"The basic difference is that a third faculty member has been added and the academic dean of the student concerned no longer is a voting member." Bradt said.
The 11 voting members are: Donald K. Alderson, dean of men; Emily Taylor, dean of women; Russell N. Bradt, associate professor of mathematics; Martin Dickinson, assistant professor of law; Gordon Wiseman, professor of physics.
J. Dennis Biggs, Lyons junior; Kathleen Crownhart, Kansas City, Mo., junior; Michael B. Hall, Oak Park, Ill., sophomore; John W. Lungstrum, Salina second year law; Thomas W. McLaughlin, Manhattan senior, and Kathryn A. Prewitt, Wichita senior.
Three students come on the board each semester, Alderson said, so that there is not a completely new group each time.
Explains student appeals
The most common example that members of the discipline board gave is that of a student appealing a grade of F in an examination or in a course. If the student feels he has been treated unfairly or capriciously then he would have an opportunity to appeal to the University Disciplinary Board, Alderson said.
Alderson said that other questions, such as those concerning the smoking of marijuana or drinking in the residence halls, for instance, were difficult to respond to.
Students do not get an automatic suspension if they are caught smoking marijuana, he said.
"It would be a case where we would have to deal with the individual and the problem as it affects him. Previous contacts with our office would very likely influence what would be done," Alderson said.
Both the dean of women and the dean of men repeatedly referred the reporter to the student handbook for information.
Yet, the student handbook, while it spells out disciplinary procedures, is inaccurate, vague and lacking in much information.
Mrs. Donna L. Shavlik, assistant dean of women, explained that the reason they
referred persons to the student handbook for their information is that every word in it was very carefully formulated. She also said they preferred students to see the dean of women's office personally for information.
But when asked if a student were warned and still continued to smoke marijuana, Alderson replied, "For you to ask me what would happen a third time this is a question that is difficult to respond to. We do not wish to act capriciously, we want to act as if we are responsive to the needs of students. And therefore we have to make some decisions as to what will be done, if anything is done, after the thing occurs and we talk to the student. I would think you would believe that's the best way to approach the problem.
'Judgments are made'
"Or if I handed you a book and said, 'Here's a rule book and this will tell you exactly what is going to happen,' you're sure this will take some of the personal involvement out of this, I guess you wouldn't need a dean. And in the case of a court I guess you wouldn't need a judge. Judgments are made. I'm not saying that I'm making judgments like a judge in the courts but there are extenuating circumstances."
Alderson said in some cases the student's health had to be considered and referrals are made to the health service, the Guidance Bureau, or to someone on the campus who might be able to offer the student some assistance.
Smoking marijuana is a violation against the law and having alcohol on the premises is against University policy, he said.
"If we know someone has it or is using it, he will not go unchallenged," he added.
Not many hearings
Alderson said the number of UDB hearings have gone down in recent times. Penalties also seem to have been softened.
In the clip files of the Kansan in 1926, two women were penalized credit hours for violation of University library rules. One was given failing grades in two five-hour courses, and the other was failed five hours and required to present an additional five hours for graduation. They have not used the correct names in checking out books.
Alderson said that such penalties had not been given for
at least a decade but Charles Oldfather, professor of law laughed when reminded of the old penalty and thought it was a much longer time.
Four types of disciplinary action can now be imposed on the student. Mrs. Shavlik said.
The student can (1) be fined for theft or destruction of property. (2) be put on disciplinary probation (3) be failed in an exam or a course and (4) be suspended for a semester or an indefinite length of time.
Mrs. Shavlik said that a student was never expelled from KU. He could always return if he wished to after suspension, she added.
Although the Student Handbook says on page 104 that the judgement of the BDA is final, the same page also states that the University Disciplinary Board is the highest judicial group in the University. A bewildered student reader would be at a loss to know which judiciary board actually has the final authority in disciplinary cases.
Board of appeals
The Disciplinary Board of Appeals was established in November, 1967, by revision of the University Senate Code. When the DBA board was established there were five members: the associate dean of the Law School; another Law School representative (appointed by the dean of the school); the chief justice of the Student Court; the student body president, and the chairman of the Senate Council Committee on Student Affairs.
The new Senate Code only
lists three members: a member of the faculty of the School of Law, appointed by the dean of that school as chairman; a member of the faculty of the Law School appointed by the Committee of the School of Law (representatives to the Senate from the Law School), and the Chief Justice of the Student Court.
Neither the dean of the Law School, Lawrence E. Blades, nor the chief justice, Joe E. Henderson, third year law student from Wichita, knew who the members of the Disciplinary Board of Appeals were.
Oldfather said the Board of Disciplinary Appeals (BDA) is a limited review appellate court. It does not retry a case.
BDA never invoked
It also states that the BDA shall have original jurisdiction over UDB cases when a quorum of the Disciplinary Board cannot be assembled for a disciplinary hearing within a reasonable time after the occasion for a hearing shall have arisen.
The new Senate Code states: The judgment of the Disciplinary Board of Appeals shall be limited to the consideration of whether the Disciplinary Board (1) acted within its powers, (2) afforded the student concerned a fair hearing, and (3) made findings and reached a decision which have adequate support in the record of its hearing.
Oldfather said that the jurisdiction of the Board of Disciplinary Appeals has never been invoked in the $1\frac{1}{2}$ years of its existence.