“I am, and A.S. as a whole is, very concerned about a number of things in the newest draft [of the code],” Associate Vice President of Student Advocacy Bryce Farrington said in an email. “The vagueness [allows] the ability [for administration] to suspend someone in the interim, without trial or due process, for simply ‘disruptive activity with the orderly operation of the campus.’”

According to Farrington, the newest draft of the code allows student organizations to be suspended by administration without going through the lengthy process that the current code requires. It leaves the interpretation of “disorderly or lewd conduct” open, which would allow administration to generalize anything it considered disorderly as a violation under that jurisdiction. 

The existing code has the advantage of being specific and concise compared to the new code, Farrington said. The existing code defines disorderly conduct as “unauthorized gambling, loud and unreasonable noise that serves no legitimate purpose…or conduct that creates a hazardous condition.” 

“[The new code] is meant to be easier to read, but there are a lot of advantages with the specificity and complication of the current code,” Farrington said. “It might be more legalese, but that can actually protect students more. Student organizations can be suspended by administration without going through the whole process.”

Parts of the code breach student organizations’ right to the First Amendment, Public Education Coalition member Sean Estelle claimed.

“I think [the code has] extremely vague, problematic language.” Estelle said in a Facebook message. “It basically gives the administration carte blanche to arrest folks, especially those engaged in civil disobedience.”

Under the existing disciplinary process, students who receive a violation report first meet with their college dean to discuss the charges. During this meeting, they can either accept or challenge the charges. 

Those who choose to challenge the charge will attend a formal hearing in front of their college’s judicial board or an administrator not involved in the case, who will then decide if they are responsible for the violation. 

The new code, however, will create a campuswide community standards board and peer review boards for each of the six colleges. Thse boards will decide whether a student is guilty of misconduct. The community standards board will consist of undergraduates, graduate students and staff, while the peer board will consist of members from its respective college.

“This is a huge process that took years,” Farrington said. “It’s a completely new code.”

Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs Penny Rue first began the three-year process to change the code in 2009. Farrington said that administrators and staff will release a third draft of the code next week that will clarify the definition of a ‘disruption’ sometime next week. 

Afterwards, the draft will be sent to Chancellor Marye Anne Fox for approval. 

Director of Student Conduct Ben White could not be reached for comment as of press time.