The Rice Thresher (Houston, Tex.), Vol. 52, No. 22, Ed. 1 Tuesday, March 16, 1965 Page: 2 of 4
This newspaper is part of the collection entitled: Texas Digital Newspaper Program and was provided to The Portal to Texas History by the Rice University Woodson Research Center.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
The Rice Thresher
tX.lF.Nl7
John Durham, Acting Editor
Jim Zumwalt, News Editor
Penny Kitchen, Managing Editor
Susan Bridges, Copy Editor
"Di&cifrlitte; t&e need a &tutctu%e
The massive student presentation by
over 500 Rice students yesterday of a peti-
tion requesting a consideration of the
matter of university discipline is but the
latest manifestation of a continued con-
cern expressed by both students and fac-
ulty this year in the area of administration
control of student life. We need only point
out the publication in the Thresher in
October of the AAUP Committee "S"
"Statement on Faculty Responsibility for
the Academic Freedom of Students/' its
subsequent unanimous adoption by the
Rice AAUP chapter last month and the
recently published statement from a group
of student leaders regarding the nature
of rules in the residential colleges as spe-
cific examples.
It is within this framework of a demon-
strated concern over the administration-
student relationship within the Universtiy
that the matter of the Thresher editor's
disciplinary probation and its consequent
implications must be examined.
We do not pretend complete support or
defense of either the editorial policies or
the recent actions of Hugh Rice Kelly.
Neither are we prepared to charge that
the Dean of Students acted outside his
proper authority within the present uni-
versity structure in assigning the punish-
ment which he did.
We must, however, call into serious
question the administrative disciplinary
structure of any university which allows
any student to be assessed, by a sole rep-
resentative, any sort of severe punishment
without any recourse to an established due
j irncess.
if this university truly aspires to the
excellence which its officials so often pro-
claim, then it must dedicate itself solely
to the principle of intellectual integrity,
11utile search for truth wherever and how-
ever it can be found. It logically follows
then that this dedication cannot be re-
•■! rioted i11 any form solely to the so-called
areas of academic concern. Instead the
policy of searching out the truth must be
equally applicable to the other facets of
university which include cultural, intel-
lectual, and social activities outside the
formal curriculum.
The primary function of a university is
to provide an education for its students,
not only through its courses, lectures and
libraries, but also through a free atmos-
phere which allows the student to make
full use of his potential and his opportuni-
t les.
It is only with the intent of furthering
his education by best using the oppor-
tunities and atmosphere which the univer-
sity should provide that the student can
have--a legitimate interest in matters of
discipline and administration control of
student life.
These opportunities necessarily include
a wide range of activities from exercising
the power and responsibility of a residen-
tial college leader in providing the best pos-
sible intellectual, cultural, and social op-
portunities for the college members to
participation in student dramatic produc-
tions to editing the student newspaper.
The contribution of any of these activi-
ties to the university in which they occur
T II R ICE THRESHER, MARCH
and to students who participate in them
can be significantly increased by freeing
them from concern with either severe
discipline or administration control in all
but the most serious and carefully speci-
fied offenses.
We believe that concern for better car-
rying out the responsibilities of their
elected office was a large factor in the
college presidents' signing the statement
printed in last week's Thresher, of which
a major part was devoted to ''Regulation
of Student Conduct." Indeed, all the out-
going college presidents have said that
their job has been made much harder by
the fact that they are compelled to enforce
rules which are arbitrarily imposed from
above and which many of the college
members do not understand.
It was the same kind of concern which
prompted the unprecedented demonstra-
tion yesterday—a feeling that the discip-
linary power of the university was not
related to the student in a constructive
way and that much of the respect for the
university's authority had been lost be-
cause of hasty and ill-considered exercise
of that authority.
While the university must have the
power to discipline students for miscon-
duct, it must also assume the responsibil-
ity of exercising this power in a duly pre-
scribed manner. Th^ev must be a strict
enumeration of offenses with which the
university shall concern itself, and these
offenses must be adequately defined.
Furthermore there must be guarantees
that due process will be followed in the
consideration and assessment of any dis-
ciplinary measure.
The AAUP's Committee "S" has pro-
posed a'"Statement on Faculty Responsi-
bility for the Academic Freedom of
Students" which includes a section on
"Responsibility of Faculty for Procedural
Due Process in Cases of Alleged Miscon-
duct" (printed on this page). We strongly
urge that principles involved in this state-
ment be embodied by the university in a
reconsideration and reformulation of its
disciplinary policies.
It seems undeniable to us that such a
look by the university at its policies could
not fail to provide for a reconsideration of
the present individual case in question.
JWD
*7^0 feie&eHtatiattf cvetC done
We have witnessed in the past few days
a convincing demonstration by the stu-
dents and especially the student leaders
that students are%i(feed capable of carry-
ing out well and thoroughly a project with
which they are vitally concerned. The dem-
onstration yesterday was orderly and con-
trolled and responsibly organised. Those
who did the organizational work on the
presentation are to be congratulated on
their foresight,' concern, and thorough-
ness.
It is only regrettable that one of the
local television stations, in its coverage of
the event, in addition to reporting errors
in fact, chose to emphasize the conduct of
a small minority of frivolous students who
heckled rather than marched.
JWD
1 6, 1 9 6 5—P AGE 2
Faculty Role In Student Rights
The following statement, "Responsibility of Faculty
for Procedural Due Process in Cases of Alleged Mis-
conduct," is part of the "Statement on Faculty Re-
sponsibility for the Academic Freedom of Students,"
prepared by Committee "S" of the American Associa-
tion of University Professors. —Ed.
The faculty has an obligation to see that students
are not disciplined for alleged misconduct without ade-
quate procedural safeguards.
The following procedures are recommended to assure
reasonable protection of the student, a fair determination
of the facts, and the application of appropriate sanctions.
A. NOTICE OF CONDUCT SUBJECT TO DISCIP-
LINE. Disciplinary proceedings should be instituted only
for alleged violations of adequately defined standards of
conduct made known to the students in advance, e.g.,
through publication in the catalogue or student handbook.
Offenses and penalties should be made as clear as possible,
avoiding such vague phrases as "undesirable conduct" or
"conduct injurious to the best interests of the institu-
tion."
B. CONDUCT OF INVESTIGATION PRELIMINARY
TO FORMAL CHARGES. Except under emergency cir.
cumstances, premises occupied by students and the per-
sonal possessions of students should not be searched unless
appropriate authorization has been obtained. For premises
such as dormitories controlled by the institution, an ap-
propriate academic authority should be designated to
whom application must be made before a search can be
conducted.
The application should specify the reasons for the
search and the objects or information sought. The stu-
dent should be present, if possible, during the search. For
premises not controlled by the institution, the ordinary
requirements for lawful search should be followed.
Students detected or arrested in the course of serious
violations of institutional regulations, or infractions of
ordinary law, should be informed of their applicable
rights under institutional regulations and under general
law. No form of harrassment, including isolation from
counsel, should be used by institutional representatives
to coerce admission of guilt or information about conduct
of other suspected persons.
C. NOTICE OF CHARGES. The student should be
informed, in writing, of the reason for the proposed dis-
ciplinary action with sufficient particularity, and in suffi-
cient time, to ensure opportunity for a proper defense.
D. TREATMENT OF STUDENT PENDING FINAL
ACTION. Pending action on the charges, the status of a
student should not be altered or his right to be present
on the campus and to attend classes suspended except for
reasons relating to his physical or emotional safety and
well-being, or for reasons relating to the safety of stu-
dents, faculty, and university property.
E. HEARING. The formality of the procedure to
which a student is entitled should be proportioned to the
sanctions which may be imposed. Informal tribunals, such
as traffic bureaus or dormitory or residential councils,
may assess minor penalties and some cases may be closed
with a reprimand.
But if, after investigation, it appears that the alleged
offense may expose the student to serious sanctions, for
instance, expulsion, suspension, substantial fine, or nota-
tion on a permanent record, he should have the right to
appeal the initial judgment of his culpability to a Hear-
ing Board.
The Board should be composed of faculty members
selected by the faculty or, subject to request by the ac-
cused student, of faculty members and students, the latter
to be selected by the student council or another appropri-
ate agency of student government.
1. The Hearing Board proceeding should be de novo, that
is, without reference to any matters previously devel-
oped in informal proceedings. No member of the Hear-
ing Board who is otherwise interested in the particular
case should sit in judgment during that proceeding.
2. The student appearing before the Hearing Board should
have the right to be accompanied and represented by
an adviser of his choice, and by legal counsel if he so
requests.
3. The burden of proof should rest upon the officials in-
vestigating or responsible for establishing the charge.
4. The student should be given an opportunity to testify
and to present evidence and witnesses relevant to the
charge or the penalties involved. Whenever possible, he
should be given an opportunity to cross-examine ad-
verse witnesses. In no case should the Board consider
statements against him unless he has been advised of
their content and of the names of those who made
them, and unless he has been given an opportunity to
rebut unfavorable inferences whicj* might otherwise
be drawn.
5. The decision should be based solely upon matters placed
in evidence during the hearing. The failure of the ac-
cused student to testify (if such is the case) should
not be a factor in the decision and improperly acquired
evidence should not be permitted.
6. A transcript of the hearing should be made and, sub-
ject to the student's waiver, the proceeding before the
Hearing Board should be open.
F. FURTHER RECOURSE. Subject only to the stu-
dent's right to appeal to the highest institutional author-
ity or a designee, or to a court as provided by law, the
decision of the Hearing Board should be final.
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Newspaper.
Durham, John. The Rice Thresher (Houston, Tex.), Vol. 52, No. 22, Ed. 1 Tuesday, March 16, 1965, newspaper, March 16, 1965; Houston, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth244940/m1/2/: accessed June 18, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting Rice University Woodson Research Center.