AARON SKUBBY, Editor-in-Chief—
The Code of Student Conduct is built around three main objectives: to support student engagement and skill building, community impact and restoration, and to have clarity of process. But there remains a portion of the code which contradicts these values. Namely, preventing students on disciplinary probation from holding leadership in organizations or representing the university reduces students to their worst actions, and represents a form of justice that is strictly punitive, not restorative.
Disciplinary probation is a form of status sanction that can be imposed on students as a result of a formal resolution process by the Office of Community Values and Student Conduct (OCVSC). The portion I would like to focus on is found on page 25 of the code:
“While the student/organization may continue to participate in team practices, group meetings, etc., the student/organization is prohibited from holding office in a campus organization, joining a fraternity or sorority, and representing the University, including through varsity athletic, club sport, or other competition.”
This type of sanctioning reduces students to their worst acts on campus, and it stands in opposition to both the principles of the student code, as well as the university as a whole.
One of the core values of the code of student conduct is a commitment to community impact and restoration. The current disciplinary probation process prevents students from participating in things that actually contribute to campus life. How does it make sense to penalize students for wrongdoing by preventing them from taking part in extracurriculars that do good on campus?
In many cases, these sorts of penalties have nothing to do with the wrongdoing. There may be specific cases where a conduct violation somehow is connected to involvement in an organization, but these are definitely not universal. In all other cases, this sanctioning is an arbitrary punishment.
People who have committed some wrong act do not sacrifice all rights to which they are entitled. But it is common in the American justice system to treat wrongdoing as a justification to take away unrelated rights. For example, the commitment of a crime is wholly unrelated to a person’s right to vote. And yet, only two states and Washington D.C. permit incarcerated people to vote. This is wrong.
Obviously the stakes at Denison are not as high, but we should not fall into similar practices with our standards of justice on campus. I would argue that under Denison’s values as a liberal arts institution, taking part in extracurricular activities is a fundamental part of the student experience that should not be taken away.
Written in Denison’s guiding principles is a sentence that says “students engage in a wide range of co-curricular activities that address the multidimensional character of their intellectual and personal journey.” We should recognize that a multidimensional journey includes making mistakes, and sometimes intentionally bad choices. Taking away someone’s other involvements while on probation threatens this multidimensionality, and reduces the student to being defined wholly by their conduct violation.
This past summer, the Office of Community Values underwent the process of revising the code of conduct. With this revision comes an opportunity for greater reflection on what can be done to improve the code. I do believe that the staff in the OCVSC and Denison administration hold students’ best interests at heart. For this reason, I strongly encourage staff and other stakeholders to reconsider this part of the code.
There are other types of outcomes that make sense when looking at restorative justice practices on campus. As a school that seeks to inspire students to become discerning moral agents, we should understand that students can recognize their own wrongs without needing this counterproductive form of punishment. We should look to solutions that encourage students to add to campus life, not remove them from it.