Why a Student Code of Non-Academic Conduct is Wrong

Any university-implemented and administered code of student non-academic conduct,even one that is not as overtly nonsensical as the one recently put forth by the Universityof Ottawa, is wrong for the following reasons.

(1) It discriminates on the basis of age, social status, financial status, and academiccredentials.

Where are the equivalent codes of conduct and associated extra-legal sanctions for university executives and for professors?There is discrimination when rules that should apply universally are applied to only onegroup within a community or work environment. In this case, in an otherwise

a priori

equal environment where students are called upon to act on every governing committeeof the institution.

(2) It is paternalistic.

Professors and university executives are not told not to abuse alcohol on campus, not tocamp on the lawn of the central administration building, not to sell or distribute illegaldrugs, not to harass others, etc.Treating students this way infantilizes them and is disrespectful.

(3) It constrains behaviour instead of encouraging exploration and lively exchanges.

Such a code normalizes and stunts rather than allowing the limits of tolerance and mutualrespect to be explored and challenged. It is inspired by the same kind of administrativethinking that has lead to such famous idiocies as: “Campus community members have aright to not be disturbed by the opinions and expressed views of others.” This, in a so-called intellectual setting!

(4) It applies academic sanctions to non-academic alleged violations.

Many (most) of the code infractions are not illegal or would not hold up in anindependent court of law.The non-academic alleged violations are not judged by an independent body, nor are theysubjected to the rigours of the external judiciary, yet they can carry academic sanctions(such as expulsion and the withdrawing of degrees) that can significantly impede thestudent’s career development and employment prospects.

In cases of illegal violations, the code sanctions could be added to the legal sanctionsalready provided by society, and would be of an unfair nature based on impeding thestudent’s career development.It is a principle of natural justice that one does not harm livelihood as a punishment for behaviour that is social, personal, or political.The question of punishment versus reconciliation also arises: You don’t cut someone’shand off for stealing, you ask them to provide compensation.Academic sanctions impede students from contributing as fully as they can to society.That is no way to make better citizens and a better world. Therefore, such a code iscontrary to the mission of a university; contrary to the

University of Ottawa Act, 1965

(5) It stifles debate and discourages criticism.

The Ottawa draft text is clear in its intensions:“

No student shall on University premises, or in a University context […] Knowinglycreate a condition which […] threatens the damage or destruction of property or thereputation of the University

”.Let’s see… Does criticism of the university damage its reputation? U of Oadministrators have demonstrated that they believe so. Never mind that only criticismleads to improvements whereas congratulations enforce the status quo… Universityofficials have demonstrated time and time again that they believe criticism to be negative.They also have a wonderful operational definition of “constructive criticism”: Commentsthat do not criticize the foundations but rather help to find an optimized route to what theadministration wants.

(6) It disallows agency and political expression.

From the Ottawa draft:“

No student shall, by action, threat or otherwise, disrupt, obstruct or adversely affect anyactivity organized by the University or by any of its faculties, schools or departments, or the right of other persons to carry on their legitimate activities, to speak or associate withothers.

”“

The President of the University, or a designate, may impose an interim suspension of the student from the University prior to the hearing before the Hearing Committee:[…] iii. if the student poses a threat of disruption or of interference with the operationsof the University or the activities of its members.

”