SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

MEMORANDUM

5

3 (h)

...............Senate

R. N.

..

d

...........................................

. .................................................................................

Discussion Paper on Student

April 4, 1966.

subject

.......................................... .Discipline .............................................. .

Date

:

......................................................................................................................

Faculty Council exercises disciplinary jurisdicti.n over students subject to the approval

of Senate, and any person aggrieved by a decision of the Faculty Council has the right of

appeal to Senate. It is therefore in the interests of both Faculty Council and Senate that

there should be a meeting of minds on the general principles to be applied in student

discipline.

The following points are proposed as a basis for initiating an exchange of views between

Faculty Council and Senate:

P1 T1'.T T nM1ThTTcZ

The concept of punishment as the appropriate and effective response to an offence against

society is becoming outmoded. Alleviation of the cause of the offense and rehabilitation

of the offender are usually considered preferable responses. Hence, although the Univer-

sity has the power to fine students, such "fines" should not normally go beyond the actual

cost of repairing damage or replacing misappropriated property; fines should not be used

as threats in an attempt to coerce students into orderly behaviour. And, although the

niversity has the right to expel or suspend students, such a right should be exercised

•

nly in the most extreme circumstances of repeated offenses; the University cannot educate

difficult students by expelling them.

ADJUDICATION

The treatment of a student offender would customarily involve (a) a gathering of the facts,

(b) an understanding of the motive, (c) an attempt to rectify the situation by means of an

apology

,

by the student, or a monetary levy (a "fine" as defined above), or by other resti-

tution befitting the offense. This procedure naturally involves a full and sympathetic

hearing of the student's side of the case, and skill on the part of the adjudicating body in

persuading all parties involved to take a reasonable attitude. There may be cases in which

the student "offender" will be judged morally correct, while the University regulation is

judged in need of correction or reinterpretation. If, in the end, a student is asked to

make retribution, etc., against his will, or is otherwise aggrieved, he should be informed

of his right of appeal to Senate.

CIVIL OFFENSES

Students should be under no illusion that the University can, or intends to, protect them

from the normal consequences of violating the laws of the land. Hence, the University

should not attempt to take on cases that are properly a matter for the civil courts.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH. PUBLICATION. & ASSEMBLY

'lo rule should be written, and no judgment should be made, that tends to inhibit peaceful

.ssemb1y, orderly protest, or any legal speech, writing, or other form of expression on

the part of students.