Issue 26-69

NDE are the national educational radio network presents

special of the week. We are continuing with the sessions of the

today some NRA held in Ann Arbor in mid-May on student protest

and the law. Attorneys from throughout the United States were in attendance to hear

appraisals of the present situations in colleges and high schools. The

conference was sponsored by the Institute of continuing legal education operated

jointly by the law schools of Wayne State University and at the University of Michigan.

On this special of the week the subject continues to be the dimensions of

legitimate student dissent. The speaker is Robert now

professor of law at Michigan chairman of the University of Michigan student affairs committee

and an active participant in student affairs and problems at Michigan.

Professor canals in a preliminary way I would like to state that

with the pictures that we saw at the start of this program we probably should

not forget. That On the other hand that

tranquility itself is not necessarily a virtue and that day you just

cannot have a university in existence an academic community without controversy.

I think the quotation that I have in the first part of my outline from the AUP

of meeting of two weeks ago is an important one I think that in

looking at responses internal responses to disruption

it's important to identify and I quote that destructive and negative

from those that quote are manifestations of deep and sometimes profoundly moral

discontent arising out of social injustice dubious public policy and in some cases

unreasonable less unresponsiveness within the educational institutions

themselves. As an additional plenary remark

let me state that I think we're going to be spending almost

all of the rest of the program looking at both internal and

external judicial approaches to student disruption.

My own feeling is that this is in most

instances in adequate approach.

Academic communities do not lend themselves very well to judicial proceedings said

students and faculty members do not make particularly good judges or

jurors.

I think the confidentiality problems of psychiatric reports

things of this nature are even more serious in the academic setting of judicial proceedings than they are in

the general civil and criminal setting.

The nature of sanctions obviously limited and

the principal sanction that of suspension or expulsion carries such a

threat real or imaginary of potential

draft that I think the whole judicial process gets out of

focus when the attempt is to use it in the academic community.

The approach if possible is to channel

the energies the efforts of the students in the some positive

programs. This is not to say that you don't have to make the

initial identification that I was talking about

but you can take some examples.

One we had on this campus two years ago were a potential serious strike

was basically channeled into what became the first teach in on Vietnam. Within

the last two weeks there have been instances both at Amherst and MIT where faculty

student administrators took time off to try to delve into some of the deep underlying

problems of discontent within the community.

In both of those instances this was not something I had been forced on the faculty or the

administration. This was something that they did on their own initiative

not waiting until the building was taken over not waiting until the

disruptive protest took place but took the initiative to try to

delve in and channel some of these energies into a positive

program.

It has become a massive cliche to talk about student

involvement in decision making within the university community.

When the administration spokesman a couple of weeks ago we're talking about the need for faculty administrators to

have more backbone. They generally prefaced their remarks about the need for

student involvement that some of you last week might have seen the New York Times magazine section.

I don't know when if ever should you call the cops and a series of

short statements from such diverse persons as the president of Everett Board of

Overseers a Inspector of New York police force Norman Mailer. Some

student members of STDs violent disagreement on the

basic question of when if ever do you call the cops in almost

every one of those statements however was the proposition that students should be

involved in decision making.

All right what do we mean by this.

And what's the function. I suppose the broadest concept.

It may be a bit cynical but the broadest is to compare it

to the current phenomena we're seeing in community control.

The model studies program the potential community development

corporations where built into these

programs in order for them to be accepted in the community.

We're providing that the poor are I represented the black

community is represented. And I think that the same pressures

for this sort of thing present within a university community that the students

themselves must be represented and the stations that are controlling

them that influence them. This doesn't mean the stations are going to be any better

that they may not be as good but it means that the decisions are going to be respected if they're going to have

any influence.

They must be involved now in a more positive front.

I think the argument can be made that in many instances you

do in fact improve the quality of the stations that the feedback from the

consumer and almost everyone this is probably the one

aspect of they have the cliche of student involvement that is generally accepted that of course

we should have input. We should have advice from the students on particular issues.

I think there are those who argue that for the students who are in fact

involved this is an educational

matter for them. Back I think we have some students and university who seem to be

majoring in university decision making. They spend more time or

effort in this problem than they do in any other. It may have some faculty doing the

same thing for that matter.

Two other areas however I think that that and these this gets

into a little more specifically into the kinds of student

involvement that we want. It has been said that as a

tactical matter no administration no faculty can afford

not to have made contact with the vast majority of their student population.

And the real reason for having student involvement is that when you have a dispute you are in

a position because you have acted in good faith with the vast

majority of students to isolate the minority. Now it may be

somewhat of a contrary argument to say at the same time one of the real advantages of

student involvement is that you are in fact getting the most active students

to be part of the system instead of operating outside of the system.

I'm not sure these two things are really that far apart. I credit that

in some respects that the relative success that we've had at Michigan is

in that many of the most active students members

of the voice political party STDs for many years have been members of the student government.

They have been involved in the system. They have been working within the system rather than

feeling that they were frustrated and not allowed to

communicate in the normal channels and so had to work outside a current

phenomenon that I know is occurring on many campuses I was talking to a vice president of student affairs at a

Big 10 school just last week. He was very concerned because the black students had

not taken any role in the normal channels of student government.

They had not been elected.

They were in the process of putting pressure on their student government

to in effect appoint an ex officina vice president student government for

human relations to try to bring the black student community

into the system.

Just one other general statement on student involvement and this

came out of a discussion yesterday we had our law school commencement in this

room by Mr. Spader who is president of American Airlines was commenting on the role of the

corporation in one of the things he mentioned.

Many of you may be familiar with this the so-called Hawthorne effect as far as employee

productivity is concerned. This reference stems from a

series of studies were done many years

ago at The Hawthorns center where and in working with employees on a

production line they first sent in a team to make an investigation

and improve the lighting productivity increase

in a similar violent situation they sent in a team of investigators and

after working for a period of time reduced the light productivity increase.

After mulling over these results for a period of time they came to the conclusion

that employees are people. The

principal interest was that the employee thought somebody cared about him

and it was that factor which increased the productivity.

I think that there is an analogy Herrick to that university

faculty administrators efforts.

As far as students are concerned that if you showed some

interest the productivity may be

increased by a little more

specifically. Where can the students be

plugged into the system.

Paul mentioned that he thought that it would be good if the academic communities could get out

of judging morals broadly speaking these to call them the

parietal rules visitation rights things of this nature in the dormitories

at this particular university.

This is a type of rule making a type of decision

that we have given completely to the

students.

There is no faculty administration control at all. There

is input. We attempt to con..

We give the kind of advice that a little later will be talking about in the

academic areas. We expect students to give us but within the

residence halls for example this is an university residence halls. The

students make their own rules as to visitation rights these are voted upon

by the students in the particular dormitory involved.

They are then enforced by all student judiciaries and those residents office

again with no faculty control faculty input

counseling but no direct control.

The I'm not saying that in every institution that's

represented here that this is a policy that should be put into effect.

I think that that when you're trying to make a decision as to what should be the

role of the students you've got to look at your own institution who are the students where

they come from that what is the relative majority. We're talking at the

University of Michigan have a have a population 45 percent live in private

apartments outside the dormitory system that the majority of our

students are over 21. And given this kind of situation

where a student merely because he happens to be in a dormitory rather than an apartment

should the university be imposing more rules on. On the other

hand because we are a state university and also I think just because of sound policy

we have attempted to give notice to the parents

of particularly of incoming freshman about what the rules

are in the various residence halls and we've got some residence halls that have very rigorous

rules that particularly the girls have decided for

themselves. The parent being given notice and so if there is a

desire for the daughter to go to that particular residence hall the opportunity is there.

Now I don't think that it is as cut and dried as it is that I wish

that it could be because there's some problem here about designating a Puritan

house or something of this nature but that it does

put the burden back upon the parents to make a decision if they want to be

their daughter to be in a residence hall that where there are certain

standards or in one where traditionally there have been a relatively

few rules and regulations. This is

one kind of behavior. But you might call the students individual private

behavior. I would add to what such things

as that violation of rules against

drinking violation of rules against narcotic use.

Basically the university's approach has been that on these

personal living habits rules that

the students make their own all are and obviously in addition the

students are subject to the rules of the community. No

outside rules enforced by the administration or

the faculty in this area. Now when you move over to rules of

conduct that directly concern the operation of the university they

run into a different kind of problem. Here would be rules against disruption rules against

interference with teaching rules against seizure of buildings

things of this nature.

I think the the basic philosophy that we've tried to

pay here too is that again these are conduct rules.

They are different from the earlier group that I mentioned because there is clearly

an interest of faculty and administration in these groups.

At the same time.

There is much greater likelihood that they're going to be enforced if the students play a role

themselves in making that I'd go even further

if there is consent on the part of those to be governing

students in these rules.

You're in that your best possible position. We've currently been working with an ad

hoc committee for about the last 14 months to try to develop develop some new

original bylaws and to set up a university consul

to make rules of conduct that would apply to all members of the university

community not just students all members of the university community.

This console be made up of faculty of administration of students.

The consulate would only propose rules for passage. These rules would

then have to be adopted by the student government consul ratified as a

governing council ratified by the faculty assembly and

at least not vetoed by the Board of Regents.

There is implied. The faculty interest the administration interest is there because they're

involved in making the rules. At the same time the attempt will be to get general

consent. Now the kind of rules we're talking about will be at the

first instance I suppose fairly general in the sense

of approach prohibiting violent interference or

intentional interference with individuals that with

property they may in fact become more specific. Setting up ground rules

for demonstrations things of this nature the structure of the organisation is quite flexible.

One of the most difficult things that we've we've had to overcome in trying to do drafting in this

area and this is not really unique to a

large university although it becomes a more difficult problem is a question of

autonomy of the schools and colleges.

Visa V the administration and we found that some of our most difficult

discussions were really not student faculty disputes but they were disputes between

faculty in a school and college being concerned that

their rights were going to be taken away by an all university rulemaking group.

Now one of the things that we've attempted to do is to spell out in more detail than it's been

done before. What you might call the academic areas

under the control of the governing faculty of a school or college.

These have included not only grating control of

the course requirements for

graduation. Also we did include that

it is the responsibility of the governing faculty when the

behavior is directly tied to the academic program.

And after a great deal of debate in fact tied this specifically

to where the degree is involved in a later licensing function. Now this

came up meticulously in connection with a medical school the dental school the

educator education school that look upon themselves as being licensing units

pr. Fleming mentioned that the attitude being that what happens off the campus

or various kinds of conduct should normally does not concern the university.

The same time you get somebody who is a child molester does

the education school feel that this closely is tied to their academic the

licensing function. If the school in fact exercises it and so this would

be a basis to withhold agree something outside of

student made rules for any student judiciaries or what have you. Purely an academic concern

and we did spend a fair amount of time trying to draft.

Delegation that would leave to the governing faculty of the school or

college control over behavior of this type

that could be directly related to the academic needs.

When you move from what might be called a general rule making in

to the academic area itself this may be this is the spot where

there is the most controversy. It's been a place where there's been the

greatest movement. Literally every revolution on this campus and I would guess on many campuses

one that has not been publicized one that does not get the news real accounts but

that the situation now compared to three years ago

in the in the realm of student involvement in academic decision making

is a complete change. We now have been many of our schools and

colleges students sitting on. Almost

every faculty committee in the School of Social Work there are students

on the curriculum committee on the admissions committee

Finance Committee and the law school we just recently made new

changes which put students on every one of our committees every one of the faculty committees

with the exception of the personnel the hiring committee where.

We set up a dual Committee. This was a relatively close vote and I would be surprised if

a change would be made there would sight of your.

Students are voting members of these committees.

Now the question has come up you know are you giving away control of

the academic life by this kind of maneuver.

Clearly there is no giving up of control in every instance the students say can

be substantially out voted. I think there is a great deal of confusion when you talk

about numbers. We debated this should be one student two students three students

four students etc. My own feeling and I argue very

strongly for that if you're going to put any students on a committee should probably put at least three.

If you put one he's apt to be a nasty ass member be put to the second one will be a black student

union member. You need at least the third so you can get the moderate student view

expressed. Now this may depend a little bit

on the appointing grow and I'll talk about this in a sec. But what you're really

trying to do by putting students on these committees is not expect that they are going to

be representative students. If you really want to get a representative view it's like

getting a represented view of faculty opinion. You really need to use survey techniques so you need to use some other

kind of techniques. And I think there's been a great deal of time wasted

because of an inability of fact a layer of

ministration to be willing to admit that. All right. That's good

government pencil may not be representative. They do in fact have a

legitimacy and if they have that that's probably the most that you can expect.

The other thing that we have been finding that when the

appointing group assuming that it is the student government consul or within the school

or college the government within that school or college or department is the

appointing group. It may have been an organization that the bulk of

the students paid little attention to but by giving them more powers and more

authority this suddenly becomes a much more important organization

that we had the most heavily fought election that the law school history this

last year in large part because our lawyers club government

was finally in a position to do something. The students became aware of

this and they did work for particular candidates. We

found even on the university level a third year medical student was running for student government

president they shared that this has been an organization that in the past has been largely

dominated by the undergraduate school isn't particularly the late school

but as it has grown in stature because it has been

given more responsibility particularly in the appointing capacity the

general interest of the students has increased.

Now let me just say another thing about the appointing problem.

There is a need in many instances to

designate the kind of student you want to take leave it's a very large university. Now this isn't to

say that the faculty should appoint them. I basically think that's a mistake. I think

you should allow whatever student organization is legitimate and is in existence. Do they

appoint perfectly proper however to designate you want

students from various departments you want to graduates to undergraduates.

We pointed students to our Health Service Committee and we designated We want married

students with dependents at least one appointed to that committee.

Students with some particular background some particular interest.

Let me just mention again in this connection there is also a problem of

autonomy here

and a great deal of conflict between the students themselves.

When you get say a student organization at the college level

the engineering console in the school is a very active student group. The

relationship between that group and the student government council which is the all university student group

is not particularly close and has not been. How do you designate

between the two which one has authority in various areas.

I think the approach that we have taken basically is that on matters that do concern

the department or college and this is basically the academic concern.

The appointing power the decision making belongs within the school or God. After all

this is a place where if student voices are going to have any influence we're going to have the most influence

when you're talking then on all university problems university wide

problems. The decision must be made perforce by your

central student government. As I say one way of getting around this problem is to designate that you

specifically want them to appoint students from various schools in colleges.

Students with particular kinds of background.

A process that has been growing I know at other universities a way to kind

of cut through the problem of communications of some 20 to 30 universities

now have what they call an academic ombudsman. These

range greatly. The one at Chicago is a student

that the one at Columbia I understand had was an assistant dean at administrators or one of

Stony Brook or actually there are three faculty members who play the role there. What

we're getting to here is is a little broader than that on this campus we're now proposing

a conciliation committee or a Communications Committee which will be made up of

students and faculty.

A small committee only five individuals that will

have as its primary responsibility to in effect

look ahead to problems that might lead to disruption.

It doesn't take any crystal ball to look around and see what is going to be a problem next fall

and I think any university that is not currently and has great

university that has an ROTC that doesn't have a student faculty committee studying the problem

is itself negligent.

At this point law professor Robert canals of Michigan chairman

of the University of Michigan student affairs committee speaking at the recent two day

conference studying student protest and the law sponsored in an

Alberta by the law schools of Wayne State University and Michigan the

Institute of continuing legal education. More next week on special

of the week over n the e r. of the national educational radio network.