Question by Jaybird: How to exclude Violent-Based and Harassment Campus Discipline offenders from leadership roles on campus?
My roommate was sexually harassed by a male student and his roommate. The male student was already expelled and was warned to stay off campus and cease contact. His roommate was involved indirectly in knowing what was going on but not stopping it and not preventing further harm to my roommate. The roommate faced alternative action in the judicial system to have some mediation.
So now my roommate applies to be a student congress rep, thinking it will help her heal and feel better. Then after announcing her consideration, the male roommate alternatively disciplined all of a sudden applies. She then withdraws her candidacy for the position appointment. I think this is unacceptable. Our administrators don’t seem to have brains to have a period where some folks can’t be involved in student activities. Not even giving victims time to heal seems unreal.
After discussing with the President and Secretary of the Student Congress, they suggested to write a resolution to change the rules, because we have no policy limiting who can serve in student congress. Other representatives that I sent it to help have said that because student discipline is confidential that students don’t have the right to receive information on discipline, which would prevent the student congress from enforcing it. My understanding is that FERPA regulations changed to allow more information to be shared in effect this Jan 2009, because of Virginia Tech and the presumption that information could not be shared, which would have or could have saved lives. Here, if someone is physically aggressive, or sexually harassing another person, having them lead all other organizations seems ridiculous.
Assuming our fantastic administrators just aren’t so fantastically exercising their responsibilities to minimize risks (which could be emphasized in their failures to fire RAs harassing women victims or threatening sexual assault or punishing them by mediation and non-recording of discipline but re-hiring them next year). This seems ridiculous to me and because the student congress has some authority and discretionary duties, who we put there should be subject to some ethical standard, in my opinion. Is there any administrator out there that has a good idea about how to deal with this? It seems these folks leading the university just aren’t the wisest.
Whereas, student leadership on campus is a privilege and an honor and STUDENT CONGRESS is no exception;
Whereas, STUDENT CONGRESS represents other student organizations and allocates fees and has greater powers and discretionary duties than regular organizations;
Whereas, the judicial system allows mediation and non-recording of offenses to help victims heal in alternative ways, but still can be disciplinary nonetheless;
Whereas, when perpetrators and others involved in perpetration of offenses can otherwise become student leaders and supervise or represent their victims can further trivialize prior incidents or disciplinary action;
Whereas, drug and alcohol offenses are not uncommon on college campuses and this resolution does not concern excluding or further penalizing on those grounds;
Whereas, this resolution also does not exclude from STUDENT CONGRESS candidates and leadership simply for being unsuccessfully accused of violent-based or harassment-based offenses, unless such action or remedies have been taken successfully in the University Judicial System;
Whereas, being suspended or expelled or having faced disciplinary charges from any school is a disqualifying factor that employers are allowed and usually do take into consideration as reflection of the candidate or their character;
Whereas, character in STUDENT CONGRESS leadership is highly important since trust is essential to meet constituents and engage in resolution of their issues;
Whereas, if a STUDENT CONGRESS Leader has physical aggression or other harassment-based issues, like sexual harassment or assault, we otherwise subject constituents to an aggressor or harasser;
Whereas, requiring special permission for violent-based or harassment-based discipline provides opportunity and time for agreement with the University and STUDENT CONGRESS before taking up a STUDENT CONGRESS leadership role;
Whereas, it is insensitive of STUDENT CONGRESS to subject victims to situations where they have to come to STUDENT CONGRESS and speak out against private situations where someone hurt them;
Whereas, when administrators don’t exert responsibility effectively, we also have authority independent of them over who we allow to serve and should articulate standards on discipline;
Whereas, STUDENT CONGRESS may not be a “job” but still involves substantial responsibility and interaction with people, and having leadership that has engaged in violent-based and harassment-based offenses with record of discipline or alternative discipline at University sets a bad precedent for the kind of leadership that we want to see and rew
Best answer:
Answer by maria
not sure
Give your answer to this question below!
Clicking advertisements helps keep this site running. thank you!
