S
SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
•
•.
:
S
•
.
:•
•
To
From
.
R.
N. Naud
Discussion Paper on Student
April
4, 1966.
Subject.........................................
...
.
iitin
................................................
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 tIe right of
appeal to Senate. It is therefore in the interests of both Faculty Ccuncil and Senate that
there should be a meeting of minds on the general principles to be applied in student
discipline.
S
The
followin
g
points are proposed as a basis fr
,
initiating an exchange of views between
Faculty Council and Senate:
PUNISHMENTS
The concept of punishment as the appropri.te 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
W
threats in an attempt to coerce students into orderly behaviour. And, although the
hiversity has the right to expel or suspend students, such a right should be exercised
only in the most extreme circumstances of repeated offenses; the University cannot educate
difficult students by expelling them.
S
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 thie 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 takea 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 reinterpreta.on. 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.
S
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
S
i rule should be written, and no judgment should be made, that tends td inhibit peaceful
assembly,
the part of
orderly
students.
protest,
S
or any legal speech, writing, or other form of expression
on
S
j
S