Special of the week; 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.