Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

(1) The Code applies to:

(a) Prohibited conduct that occurs on College premises, property adjacent to the College, or at College-sponsored events or activities; and applies in all locations of the College, including locations other than Olympia, Washington; and

(b) Prohibited conduct that occurs off campus (i.e., behavior that does not occur on College premises or in the context of a college-sponsored event or activity) where it is reasonable to conclude that the presence of the Respondent at the College would constitute a danger to the health or personal safety of a member of the College community, or where harm has occurred to a member of the College community and the continued presence of the Respondent at the College may cause additional harm to that person or other members of the College community. The Vice President for Student Affairs shall determine whether the Code shall be applied to conduct occurring off campus on a case by case basis.

(2) Each student is responsible for his or her conduct from the time of acceptance for admission through the actual awarding of a degree, even though conduct may occur before or after a program or course begins or ends, as well as during the academic year and during periods between terms of actual enrollment, even if the person’s conduct is reported after a degree is awarded.

(3) The Code applies to a student’s conduct even if the student withdraws from the College while a complaint is pending.

(4) Alleged misconduct by a student organization will be addressed by Student Activities’ policies and procedures.

(5) Nothing herein shall be construed as being intended to create a legal obligation on the part of the College to protect any person or class of persons from injury or harm, or to deny students their legal and/or constitutionally protected rights.

6 Responses to Jurisdiction

  1. Polly says:

    Section (3) seems odd to me. If a student withdraws from the college, why would action against that student need to be continued?

  2. Wendy Endress says:

    The College is interested in addressing misconduct that occurs when someone is a student. If a complaint is filed and it’s not resolved before a student leaves the College then we still want to bring closure to the complaint. This is particularly important if the conduct a student is alleged to have done is serious enough to warrant suspension from the College.

  3. Bruce Wilkinson says:

    1b on off campus jurisdiction should be left out. Students should not face double trouble. I understand the argument for it but frankly that is weak. State and federal laws are already stringent enough and adding another layer to that mix will only create a situation where arbitrary enforcement becomes the norm and this rule inevitably will tend more towards use against activists than “insert scary stereotype here.” It will also have a prevention effect not against dastardly scary people but against those who may consider civil disobedience or engage in outside organizing who have the aims of doing good things. People intent on being creepy scary people off campus probably won’t care what the conduct code says and if they do act in an untoward way they probably won’t come to the attention of the campus authorities. Let’s remember this disappearing task force became engaged not because of an influx of students molesting children and raping people off campus but because activists began asserting themselves in defiant disobedience and the administration is looking for a way to keep them from acting in effective ways.

  4. Bruce Wilkinson says:

    2 and 3 are equally troublesome. It is so vague and is meant to stifle activism. It makes it sound like the threat of removal of degrees is a possibility. I think that crimes are already covered without this section being here. A law broken is broken.

  5. Nate says:

    The FAQ states that this will not be used to prosecute actions in civil disobedience. What specific language will be added to the code to make this clear? What will prevent a future VP of Student Affairs from applying this code to punish a student arrested between quarters for civil disobedience actions?

  6. Wendy Endress says:

    Three aspects of the recommended Code respond to this concern:
    1) Jurisdiction 1(b) “where it is reasonable to conclude that the presence of the Respondent at the College would constitute a danger to the health or personal safety of a member of the College community, or where harm has occurred to a member of the College community and the continued presence of the Respondent at the College may cause additional harm to that person or to other members of the College community.”
    2) Jurisdiction 5 “Nothing herein shall be construed as being intended … to deny students their legal and/or constitutionally protected rights.”
    3) Whether or not a complaint should have been addressed due to a judgement of jurisdication may be appealed to the Appeal Board.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *