Beginning with their matriculation at the University, every student tacitly agrees to abide by the tenets of the Student Code of Conduct (now renamed the Statement of Students Rights and Responsibilities). In the 2000-2001 academic year, the Office of Student Conflict Resolution, which administers the Code, received 671 alleged violations ranging from illegal possession of alcohol to physical assault. At the center of the Code is an unconstitutional arbitration process that tramples the right to fair disciplinary hearings. Every other academic year the Code can be amended and with next year eligible for amendments students should gear up to aggressively challenge the Code.

The Code forbids students from having an advocate speak on their behalf at their hearing. Nervous students confronting serious punishments such as suspension or expulsion should not be required to defend themselves during the procedure. This requirement is a direct refutation of the right to council. Hearsay evidence is permitted in the procedures and students can face double jeopardy. The hearings are closed to the public and the opportunity to appeal the board's verdict is restricted. As a public university, the University has the responsibility to uphold constitutional protections in its internal justice system. The Code's complete failure to uphold these protections should initiate student-led efforts to obliterate the Code in the approaching academic year.

While the Code has usually provoked the ire and opposition of students it has persisted. The main reason for the document's stubborn endurance is that the President has the sole authority to approve final amendments to the Code. Only the Michigan Student Assembly, the Senate Assembly or the Executive Officers of the University can offer amendments to the Code. After these proposed amendments are issued, they are reviewed by SACUA's Students Relations Committee, which forwards them to the President who has final authority over any changes. Last February, University Vice President for Student Affairs E. Royster Harper sent an e-mail to the student body saying former President Lee Bollinger had accepted 85 percent of the proposed changes. In actuality these changes were superficial and insignificant.

Grammatical and spelling changes to the Code made up a substantial portion of Harper's figure. At the time, OSCR director Keith Elkin argued the changes were "not superfluous window-dressing." However, Elkin now admits that Bollinger's changes have had a negligible effect on the resolution process. In reality the changes have not addressed the most serious problems with the Code.

MSA and its new executive slate of Sara Boot and Dana Glassel should start working on Code revisions at the beginning of the coming academic year. A primary goal of the Students First administration must be permanent reforms to the Code philosophy The student body and campus leaders should not allow the incoming University President to follow in the steps of former President Bollinger. A coordinated effort of pressure on the Office of the President and University administration and active dissemination of information about the Code's gross shortcomings throughout campus is needed for fruitful challenges to the dubious Code.