Over The Edge Page 4 Confusion Over Code Leaves McGill Students’ 1 2002 Records Unwittingly Blemished By Chris Flavelle, The McGill Daily MONTREAL (CUP) — Bureaucratic snafus caused McGill University _ faculty responsible for enforcing the university's disciplinary code to unknowingly tarnish the per- manent record of dozens of students, potentially crippling those students’ chances of acceptance into graduate schools, an investigation by the McGill Daily has learned. An anonymous tip to the Daily revealed that an undis- closed number of disciplinary officers, typically the associate deans of each faculty, were unclear on the appropriate dis- ciplinary procedure for “admonishing” students, one of the categories of punitive action taken against students caught cheating or plagiariz- _ ing. “At times | may not have been 100 per cent clear [about the results of admonishing a student],” admitted one associ- ate dean. Other disciplinary officers were more defensive. “| don’t feel comfortable answering that question,” said another. A student is admonished when the disciplinary officer believes that a student com- mitted an offense, but the pun- ishment’s severity is limited either by a shortage of evi- dence or by mitigating circum- stances. Aside from being admonished, students may be “exonerated” of the charge, or face a “reprimand” if found guilty. Under the disciplinary code, receiving an admonishment should result in no permanent disciplinary record. But if the disciplinary officer admon- ished a student, and imposed additional penalties, such as giving the paper the student was accused of plagiarizing a failing mark, then the offense would be noted on their per- manent record. It was the implications of imposing addi- tional penalties on students that led disciplinary officers to unwittingly tarnish the records of dozens of McGill students. Rosalie Jukier, McGill’s dean of students until last summer, admitted the discipli- nary code was implemented without being fully understood by disciplinary officers. “Certainly there may have been disciplinary officers who were confused or who did not understand or who were not aware [of the ramifications of the punishments they pre- scribed].” Jennifer Bilec, vice-presi- dent of university affairs for McGill's student association, also acknowledged that disci- plinary officers may have unwittingly blemished dozens of students’ permanent records. “It's entirely possible that this happened,” said Bilec. The university’s legal infor- mation office, whose staff are often called upon to represent students undergoing discipli- nary procedures, acknowl- edged being aware of the problem. Daniel Iny, director of stu- dent advocacy and university affairs for the office, believes some students did in fact receive blemishes on their per- manent records “where disci- plinary officers did not realize that would be the case.” Bruce Shore, McGill’s cur- rent dean of students, denied that disciplinary officers mis- understand the code they enforce. He said that if such a misunderstanding had occurred, the appropriate tesponse would have been for the student in question to appeal the decision. Under the current code, stu- dents have the right to launch an appeal within seven days of receiving written notice of the disciplinary officer's decision. But some feel this failsafe mechanism may be flawed. Carol. Cumming Speirs, McGill's ombudsperson, said that many students remain unclear on the results of disci- plinary proceedings against them. Asked whether the stu- dents she encounters appear to understand the - details of the process, Speirs replied, “not at all.” Speirs said that a number of students have sought her help in determining whether their permanent record was sullied. “They say to me, ‘there was {a_ disciplinary proceeding] when | was a student; do you think | have a permanent [dis- ciplinary] record?” said Speirs. “They are not clear on whether they have a_ permanent record.” Speirs said students who are unaware of whether they have a permanent record are unlikely to appeal that record. In order to rectify the prob- lem in time for the coming exam period, the university's senate scurried last week to pass a series of reforms to the Green Book, the document that sets out McGill students’ rights and _ responsibilities. Under the changes, the ramifi- cations of various degrees of punishment are laid out in explicit detail. Notably, the con- sequences of an admonish- ment, the source of confusion among some disciplinary offi- cers in the past, are presented no fewer than seven times in the revised document. The changes represent a considerable reform of McGill’s disciplinary code. According to the authors of the changes, they aim to give disciplinary officers greater leeway in deal- ing with academic and non- academic offenses. The reforms clearly outline the options for disciplinary officers when dealing with students charged with academic or non- academic offenses. But the changes may come too late for students who may have been denied acceptance to graduate schools because of an unwarranted stain on their academic record. Short of suspending or expelling a stu- dent, the creation of a perma- nent disciplinary record is per- haps the most significant obstacle the university can erect against a student’s acad- emic future. Graduate schools, when considering applica- tions, routinely contact a stu- dent’s previous university to inquire about the existence of such a record. While privacy laws prohibit McGill from releasing disciplinary records without that student’s permis- sion, the failure to respond to such a request is often viewed by graduate schools as confir- mation that a_ disciplinary record exists. Administrative Officials responded coolly when asked whether the university would revisit the cases of studenis whose permanent records had been blemished unintentional- ly. One disciplinary officer referred to the amount of work such a project would entail as reason not to proceed. “I don’t think it's appropriate to ask disciplinary officers to check all their files for possible instances [wrongly blemished permanent records],” said one. Jennifer Bilec made _ similar comments, citing the enor- mous effort that such an inves- tigation would require. In the absence of a wide- . scale investigation, students unknowingly tarred by discipli- nary officers may be on their own in cleansing their perma- nent records. The seven-day time limit for appeals restricts the ability of students to con- test decisions made against them. Without the involvement of the disciplinary officers con- cerned, students will be unable to know whether the permanent disciplinary record they received was given inten- tionally or not. The final recourse for McGill students who believe they received a disciplinary record improperly is an appeal to the president's office, which alone has the power to expunge such records from a student's file. But according to Shore, the dean of students, whose office processes such requests, the number of times students have made such requests is “practi- cally nil.” Still, others such as Morton J. Mendelson, associate dean of science, say an investiga- tion should remain a possibili- ty. “I think its something that could be looked into,” he said. SFU Students Halt Board Meeting By Stephen Thomson BURNABY, B.C. (CUP) — Simon Fraser University stu- dents interrupted a meeting of the university's board of gover- nors Thursday, banging pots and pans and shouting”Out! Out! Out!” About 25 students took part in the demonstration to draw attention to concerns over tuition fees. The students accused the university of giv- ing students little input into shaping policy. “They are not acting in accordance with the best inter- ests of this institution,’ protest- er Craig Meadows said of the board, “so we came here to disrupt. “How else are we sup- posed to address our issues if no one is listening?” The board responded to the clamour by relocating its meet- ing to another building. However, the students fol- lowed and once again disrupt- ed the meeting. Although their protesting was loud enough to force the board to finish its business elsewhere, board members said the students’ message was not entirely clear. “These people have not indicated even what they are objecting to,” said board mem- ber Greg Macdonald, who spent a few minutes verbally Sparring with students. “There is no freedom of discussion in a disturbance of this kind,” he said. Jonathan Silveira, a student representative on the board, said the protesters were cer- tainly noticed but “failed to get a message across.” After the board vacated its original meeting site, the stu- dents mockingly passed six motions of their own. Among the first five were calls for the reinstatement of both the work-study program and tuition freeze, dissolved recently by the province’s Gordon Campbell govern- ment.