The Consultations: Students Have Their Say on the Code of Student Conduct

2009 VOL 20 NO 2

WRITTEN BY TERESA SALUD-BAUTISTA

EDITOR’S NOTE: Salud-Bautista’s report documents the consultations for the draft of the 2009 Code of Student Conduct. The Code has received an overwhelming disapproval for its anti-student rules and the exclusion of student representatives in the drafting committee. The draft shows how a legal document is brought up in order to impose power on students, but it also shows that students are not ignorant and will resist documents that oppress them. Today, the spotlight is not on the Code, but on a new, stirring document — the UP Diliman Students’ Magna Carta. Unlike the Code, the Magna Carta might not be something as devious — if we judge based on student votes. Ninety-four percent of student participants said yes to the Magna Carta in a petition handled by the university student councils. And the College of Science Student Council has also approved the document. How ever, the Magna Carta does have some anti-student stratagems as some critics have pointed out, such as leaving the final interpretation of the document to the Board of Regents (§5, Article X of the 2015 Draft) which is absolutely ridiculous considering that the document is about our rights. In any case, documentation of student rights is not at all bad. It must not be seen as something automatically oppressive and must be pursued. But what we must recognize is that what document we approve of is crucial and the collective mobilization of students is still the strongest assertion of our calls.

THE 2009 DRAFT Code of Student Conduct (CSC) is being proposed as the set of rules that will govern matters of student discipline and student organizations in UP Diliman and its satellite campus in Pampanga. Should it be implemented, it will replace all the current rules, which consist of a number of separate documents.

The story of the draft code began in 2006 when Chancellor Sergio Cao commissioned the formation of a committee to review the existing rules, a move deemed necessary because of their inefficiency, their inability to address the concerns of the times, and the falling standards of UP honor No student sits on the review committee, in spite of requests for student representation having been passed ever since it was formed. Among the reasons given for this was that the committee was created to represent the University Council (UC), the body that approves guidelines on discipline before they can be implemented, and no student is a member of the UC, which is composed of all faculty with a rank of assistant professor and higher To include a non-member of the UC in the drafting committee has been described as an “abuse of discretion” on the part of the Chancellor, should he happen to make that decision.

Despite exclusion from the drafting committee, however, students are not being left out of the drafting process — their participation took place in the form of consultations held in the different colleges from July to September of this year.

The College of Science consultation was held on the 21st of August in the CS Auditorium. The attendees included representatives of 11 of the 20 recognized student organizations of the college, as well as members of the College of Science Student Council (CSSC) and the University Student Council (USC).

During this consultation, several revisions to the draft code were unveiled: recognized organizations should have 20 members including officers instead of 0.5% of the eligible population; the one year residency necessary before a student can join an org was reduced to one semester; and the terms “recognized” and “university-based” pertaining to student organizations were replaced with “registered” for more clarity. The difference between college and university rules was addressed, as were the operationalization of some terms found to be vague (e.g. “breach of peace”), and the consideration of using students as resource persons in disciplinary hearings in the drafting committee (it came out that there is no specific provision in the UP Charter that says a student cannot help write up new guidelines on discipline), as well as the primarily academic nature of most CS organizations, which, members of the orgs described as having helped in their adjustment to the UP environment instead of being detrimental to a member’s performance in school.

On September 17, 2009, the last of the series of consultations was held at the National Engineering Center, with representatives of student organizations, alliances, and student councils filling the building’s AVR. Dr. Elizabeth Enriquez, Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs and chair of the drafting committee, shared that they were already going over the draft code in the light of the input from consultations with the faculty and both graduate and undergraduate students, with revisions being made as deemed necessary. The issue of student representation was repeatedly raised by the attendees, as were the concerns and stands of the individual organizations and alliances concerning the draft code.

Some students have purportedly expressed their appreciation for the job the drafting committee is doing. The opinion more strongly voiced by the UP student body, however, is that of disapproval. Throughout the consultations, and even prior to them, demands were made for the scrapping of the 2009 draft CSC, on the basis of both the manner of its conception and its content. This made for some tension during the consultations. The last one actually ended with chants of “Junk the Code.”

A second draft of the Code of Student Conduct was released to the USC and to the local student councils in October, no copy of which was made available online. This new document consists of each page of the first draft accompanied by the comments and suggestions received by the drafting committee in the course of the consultations, along with revisions made to the contents of the first draft. The CSSC submitted its comments on the second draft in the last week of October; in general, the document is still seen as having vague provisions, and it is recommended that better policing be instituted instead of imposing more stringent rules. It is also asked that all studies conducted that justify the creation of the CSC be presented to the students.

Following the review of the draft CSC by the drafting committee, the document will be presented to the UC’s Committee on Student Organizations, Activities and Welfare, UP’s Executive Committee, the entire University Council, and finally the Board of Regents (BOR) for approval. Should the 2009 draft CSC be approved by the BOR, it will take effect 15 days after its being posted on the UP Diliman website. ●

Some mistakes in spelling were corrected from the original printed article.