Student Bill of Rights questioned for necessity, clarity by administration

Austin Baragary- Beyond the Hill Editor

2/3/12

In August 2011, a group of William Jewell College students discovered that the Student Bill of Rights had no legal sway over the conduct of College officials in regards to students’ rights. This fact challenged the common belief that the Student Bill of Rights was legally binding. What followed the discovery is best described as a case study in grass-roots democratic government. These students approached Student Senate, who, after working with the students to devise a document, approached the Office of Student Affairs. From Student Affairs, the group wished to take the document to the Board of Trustees for approval. Since then, however, the Bill has run into a few snags.

After pushing for a timeline which would have brought the Bill to the Trustees for approval in December, Senate has had to postpone the presentation in order to make some clarifications to the Bill of Rights. It is projected that the Bill will be ready to present to the Board in May.

Senate President Tori Odell, senior, said that the administration, particularly Dr. David Sallee, president of the College and Dr. Rick Winslow, vice president for Student Affairs, had a few questions regarding the relevancy of the document.

“We [the Student Senate Cabinet] met with some of the President’s Cabinet and they had some questions about why it was relevant,” Odell said. “Their argument, as I understand it, is that there have been no violations of the principles laid out in the Bill, therefore, the Bill is not necessary.”

Odell said, however, that just because no violations have occurred currently does not mean that violations of students’ rights cannot occur in the future. She also cited other benefits of the Bill, such as student satisfaction and better relationships with the administration, as reasons to ratify the document.

Besides concerns about the relevancy of the document, Odell said that some of the administration have concerns about the Bill’s clarity.

“I can understand some of those concerns,” Odell said. “There are some parts of the Bill of Rights that are a little bit unclear. That’s why we want to focus the document before taking it to the Trustees.”

One such instance of unclear language can be found in Section Three of the Bill of Rights, which outlines Residential Rights. Clause One, part A of the document states that, “Officers of the college exercising their right to enter student rooms shall do so only when the student is present, except in case of an emergency.” The document, though, does not define “emergency,” leaving many circumstances open.

The document currently is being revised by Student Senate and a group of interested students.

While Kristin Moore, senior, does not serve on this task force, she does believe in principle of the Bill of Rights.
“There should be no debate over the Bill of Rights. If this is something the College is already doing, then there should be no objections,” Moore said.

Moore was also supportive of the statement made by the Bill of Rights.

“I think it’s great to put out there that these things, like equality and respect for students, are things that we, as a college, value,” Moore.

Trustee Ollie Malone, Ph. D., said that he too likes the ideas put forth by the Bill. After briefly reviewing the document, though, he is concerned with its practicality.

“The question that I have is, ‘What problem is this document designed to solve?’” Malone said, reflecting a personal opinion and not an official position of the Board of Trustees. The Trustees have not officially seen the document. “I look at documents all the time and a document like this needs a purpose. I don’t know what’s going on that makes this necessary.”

Malone said that there had been some mention of the Bill of Rights by Sallee, president at the fall Board meeting. However, what Sallee stated was that Senate was preparing a document for them to review, according to Malone. Prior to being interviewed, he had not seen the document.

Dr. Anne Dema, provost of the College, also says that she has not seen the document. Dema indicated that discussion with the President’s Cabinet and Senate had not been extensive.

“My only knowledge of the Bill of Rights is that it’s something being worked on by Student Senate. I have heard nothing other than that,” Dema said.

Odell said that the Senate was under the impression that the Bill would be presented to the wider Presidential Cabinet soon, but that there is some uncertainty about when that would be happening and what steps Senate needs to be taking.

“We submitted a version of the Bill to Rick [Winslow], who is going to submit it to the Dr. Sallee’s full Cabinet,” Odell said. “But there are some things that are a little unclear. We’re not sure if the ball is in our court, if it’s in their court. We actually don’t even know if it’s been proposed to the Cabinet.”
Odell did say that she and her Cabinet were working to meet with Student Affairs very soon in order to have a clearer picture of where things stand.
Regardless of whether or not the full administration is fully aware of the nature and extent of the Bill of Rights, Student Senate does plan on moving forward. The task force meets after Student Senate meetings, which take place Tuesdays at 5:30 p.m. in Union 221/222.