As part of a conversation about student conduct, Associate Dean of Student Conduct and Community Standards, Nicole Gore, presented a new iteration of the Student Code of Conduct at the last Student Union (SU) joint session of the semester, April 9. 

Gore asked for input from senators, treasurers, and SU executive officers on how to make the document more transparent, readable, and up-to-date with current student experiences and Washington University values, which were the main aims of the revision. SU members voiced concerns about policies governing student disruption off-campus and whether the code effectively addressed cyberbullying. 

SU members will provide their comments and feedback on the new code by April 30 so that the document can be released by the Office of Student Conduct next fall.

According to Gore, the contents of the code are similar to the previous iteration, which was released in July 2017, but the language used in the document has changed.

“We used words that we use more in daily life — less legal terms,” Gore said. “In the current code, there are only four to five defined terms. Now we’re defining terms like complainant, respondent, hearing, and a preponderance of the evidence.”

Gore said this revision specifies different offenses in the new code so that students are aware of the exact violation they are charged with. This new code also makes unauthorized recordings, as in recordings in spaces with an underlying assumption of privacy, a code-of-conduct violation.

Senators and treasurers specifically took note of Section 3 Subsection 2B, a new addition to the code of conduct that made off-campus “disruptive conduct” a violation. This subsection applies to off-campus parties, which treasurer and junior Saish Satyal said could dissuade students from organizing mixers and gatherings for their clubs.

“[Students] are making that decision as a member of a community and as a legal adult who may face legal implications,” Satyal said. “But I think the addition of a University sanction on top of that is an entirely new realm.” 

Treasurer and first-year Varun Vadhera questioned whether the University should use its power to enforce the rule. 

“Why do you think this is not an overreach of the University?” Vadhera said to Gore. “Because to me, it seems that it sort of is.”

Dean of Student Affairs Rob Wild responded to SU’s comments about the “disruptive conduct” section of the code, stating that it only applies to private residences and not to Washington University-owned properties.

“It’s [focused on] disturbing the peace that happens off-campus in a private residence, so we’re not talking about the Lofts, or Greenway, or something that’s run by the University,” Wild said.

Harry Campbell, a senior studying political science, was concerned that noise complaints are described as “disruptive conduct” in the new iteration of the code.

“I’m not sure that ‘disruptive conduct’ is necessarily as [clear as it] should be used,” Campbell said. “When I read ‘disruptive conduct,’ I thought it was referring to protests.”

Senator Ella Scott noted that the term “disruptive” was defined within the Demonstrations and Disruptions Policy, but that it was not defined in the new code of conduct, which she said could make it unclear as to whether or not the definitions of “disruptive” in those two documents are related.

Bre Hardy, Assistant Director of the Office of Student Conduct and Community Standards, said the language was left vague to account for multiple behaviors that would be considered code-of-conduct violations.

“We had to choose a language that would encompass a couple of different options,” Hardy said. “But I agree [that] that’s some good feedback for us to try to shore that up.” 

Speaker Sonal Churiwal expressed concerns that cyberbullying and doxxing were not mentioned specifically in the new code of conduct.

According to Gore, online bullying is covered in the new code of conduct as it is written, since the code uses bullying as a general term for all forms of bullying. Wild added that the addition of bullying to the code of conduct was from student feedback.

“I want to just make sure you heard what Dean Gore is saying. The term ‘bullying’ is intended to be an umbrella term that would cover doxxing and cyberbullying,” Wild said. “This is a change that came directly from student feedback about our policies.”

Gore said the new iteration of the code will also be presented to the faculty council as well as other community councils. She said she wants the code to be dispersed not only among student leaders in SU, but also among community members.

Gore declined to have the new version of the Student Code of Conduct attached to this article. The finalized code of conduct will be available in the fall. 

Churiwal said she didn’t feel that administrators were going to enact the changes SU suggested during the joint session.

“I’m just curious as to why we’re having this time to give feedback, because roughly every student in this room is in consensus that cyberbullying and harassment need to be added, and the immediate response is ‘I’m not sure that we can,’” Chuirwal said. “It just seems that maybe this is a bit performative and not as productive as we would have hoped.”