Letters
Pasted below are some open letters written to the Senate and other bodies regarding the draft Code of Conduct:
***
To SONAD, Principal Hitchcock, and Patrick Deane:
I hope that my comments do not come too late in the process, but having only recently been made aware of the terms of the draft Code of Conduct being discussed by SONAD I wished to make my concerns known.
I understand the desire to encourage students to respect others and avoid hooliganism. However, it seems to me that the wording in this proposed code could be used to limit legitimate political expression, and this disturbs me greatly.
If, as I believe, a dynamic university is a place of intellectual and political ferment, Queen’s is already pretty low in the rankings. In fact, I would say that Queen’s is known as much for being what my neighbour calls a “hotbed of social rest” as it is for being a party school or a school for very smart kids. It would be harmful to both the university and its students and faculty if Queen’s were to institute this code of conduct, which could deter students from exercising their constitutional freedoms, and further confirm Queen’s reputation as a conservative, passive environment.
Article 9, for example, that “students shall refrain from engaging in disorderly or disruptive conduct that interferes with the lawful activity of others, including but not limited to, studying, teaching, research, and University administration” could be used to prevent any of the following activities:
•peaceful demonstrations
•student strikes
•frosh week and practices of the Queen’s bands (!)
•leafleting
Article 11 too seems especially egregious, requiring bystanders to report those they believe to be violating the code, and in fact implicating them by virtue of their presence at the event.
I would urge SONAD to rewrite the policy so it addresses more directly the behaviours it most needs to control. Some might say that the policy is only there “in case we need it.” But I feel that a policy so written, however enforced, would create an atmosphere of intimidation not consonant with the spirit of free thought I consider essential to university life.
Laura J. Murray
Associate Professor
and Undergraduate Chair
Department of English
Queen’s University
Kingston, Canada
K7L 3N6
phone: 613-533-6000 x74438
email: laura.murray@queensu.ca
websites: http://queensu.ca/english/murray.html
***
To whom it may concern:
I have serious reservations about the following language in the draft code of conduct:
“7. Students shall refrain from theft, knowingly possessing stolen property, trespassing, vandalism, and willfully or negligently damaging private or University property. Likewise, students shall refrain from any other unauthorized conduct likely to limit the lawful rights of others to possess, use, or enjoy private or University property;” While the first sentence is fairly specific and clear, the second sentence is extremely vague — so vague, in fact, that it must surely fail the legal test of vagueness before the courts. Of foremost concern is that vague language such as “enjoy…University property” could be stretched to allow University officials to restrict the lawful exercise of the rights of free speech and assembly. If you are worried about drunken mobs destroying property, then say so. But do not include vague language which could be used to prevent lawful activities, up to and including peaceful protests and demonstrations.
…
“9. Students shall refrain from engaging in disorderly or disruptive conduct that interferes with the lawful activity of others, including but not limited to, studying, teaching, research, and University administration;” Again, if specific types of activities are feared, the language must be more specific. Such vague language could be used to interfere with the legal exercise of the rights of free speech and assembly, up to and including peaceful protests and demonstrations.
…
“11. Students shall, as soon as it is reasonably possible, report misconduct (behaviour in contravention of rules 1 through 10, inclusive) to the appropriate authority or remove themselves from situations where misconduct is occurring;” Aside from concerns about who ought to be policing behaviour, private individuals are not required to report on the activities of others. They are encouraged to by the police, but no court will create a duty to report — especially one so broad and vague. They have been struck down before. Furthermore, courts have struck down anything which could punish innocent bystanders. To suggest that innocent bystanders could be expelled or otherwise punished for the behaviour of others is monstrously unjust — and probably illegal.
…
And in ‘Considerations,’ bullet 2:
“The above rules apply with equal force to individual students and student groups or organizations. Where an organization is the subject of a complaint, the registered officers of the organization may be held accountable.” Individuals who violate the rules of conduct may be held accountable. This would ordinarily include evidence of organizing to violate rules of conduct. However, student groups and organizations are not legal corporations, and their officers are not subject to the same kinds of legal liabilities. Therefore, if there is no evidence that individual officers of student organizations have violated the rules of conduct or broken the law, the University has no basis for disciplining them. Expelling students for something in which they played no part would only open the University to lawsuits — and justifiably so. Remember, Queen’s University is also subject to the laws and legal norms of Ontario and Canada.
Sincerely,
Jeff Welsh
PhD candidate, History
***
No one wants to interfere with learning at Queens - surely not Students for Accessible Education! Learning has flourished at Queens since it’s inception without such policies; why should we believe interference will begin now if they are removed from the proposed Queens Patriot Act?
Inference in our classes is a non-issue, inference with student protesting, is however, the issue with the proposed Queens Patriot Act. The proposed wording has been crafted to allow the Administration to crack-down on many forms of student disobedience. Consider, for example, how you would feel about students being expelled from Queens for organizing or participating in a rally outside the JDUC to protest a large tuition hike? The Administration could deem such a demonstration disruptive to students moving between classes or studying in the JDUC (according to the proposed wording). So what is the right of expression if one cannot be heard?, or the right of assembly, if only behind closed walls? And what if students demonstrated with a sit-down to protest a large tuition fee raise in the offices of the Administration - a disruption far away from any learning environment? Ought they to be expelled for this as well? By stating:
Students shall refrain from engaging in disorderly or disruptive conduct that interferes with the lawful activity of…the University Administration
this policy extremely limits student action and protest against any policy, any action, any initiative the Administration decides to pursue. Also, isn’t it ironic the Administration is so hard-set on restricting student protesting to prevent “studying, teaching and research” as we are forced to navigate the always shifting construction walkways and put-up with the sounds of machinery, warning sirens and explosives while in class? (not to mention force us to pay for it?).
just a few thoughts, Dan Wong.
***
These arguments only reflect Queen’s Students for Accessible Education, one organization involved in the grassroots campaign currently forming.
Rules 7 and 9 are basically the same thing: They are redundant given the Criminal Code of Canada and as far as we can see, serve no other purpose other than to criminalize civil disobedience, particularly that which falls into a legal gray area (e.g. office occupations, ‘disruptive’ protests, pickets, etc.). These tactics are essential to putting pressure on administrators at this university, as history has shown; divestment in apartheid South Africa, open masochism on campus coupled with incidents of violence against women, and unilateral deregulation in spite of overwhelming (98%) opposition are the three major occupations we’ve seen in the past. All had major effects on this campus, and all involved were let go without any criminal or academic consequences (not to say that they weren’t treated with hostility, especially in the latter case). Rule 9 was the first point to set off alarms, given that as an abbreviated version of the same rule at SUNY Albany’s ‘Community
Rights and Responsibilities’, which is the same thing but more honest:
13. Obstruction or Disruption
Obstructing or disrupting University activities, including but not
limited to, teaching, research, administration, disciplinary
procedures, or other authorized activities including public service
functions. It can include participation in campus
demonstrations which disrupt the normal operations of the University
and infringes on the rights of other members of the
University community by leading or inciting others to disrupt
scheduled and/or normal activities within any campus building
or area; intentional obstruction which unreasonably interferes with
freedom of movement, either pedestrian or vehicular, on
campus.
Rule 11 forces students to rat on their fellow students if they bear witness to a violation of the code of conduct. This puts students in the mandatory ’snitch’ role and we don’t think it’s appropriate or even lawful.
Considerations, Bullet 2 is obvious guilt by association, and is way too vague. Easy example: If undergraduate students break the code of conduct, can they pin it on the AMS? More likely, this will be tacked to activist groups with less sway. Not only is it easily open to sabotage, but it forces organizations to strengthen regulation of their members not to mention the complications this presents for organizations that operate without a formal hierarchy, other than perhaps submitting to the necessity of having ‘registered officers’).
No Comments
No comments yet.
Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI
Leave a comment
