Word: added
(lookup in dictionary)
(lookup stats)
Dates: during 1990-1999
Sort By: most recent first
(reverse)
Recent events have brought to light a serious procedural defect in the internal policies of the Administrative Board's handling of disciplinary cases. The Administration has made it clear in the past that the Ad Board is not a judicial arm of the University, but should be considered educational in nature. To foster a sense of community and provide the proper scholarly atmosphere for a University, the Administrative Board has at its disposal an internal system of rules and punishments. As part of the Ad Board's standard policy, the nature and results of disciplinary cases arising based upon these...
...result of a recent case has shown that the practices of the Ad Board appear inconsistent with its stated purpose and endanger the possibility of just outcomes. Several weeks ago, a student was Ad Boarded for making 'prank' calls and placed on probation, a form of punishment which becomes part of the student's permanent record. The Ad Board used an elastic "improper conduct" clause to justify the disciplinary action...
Although the student's actions were legal according to Massachusetts State Law and not considered 'harassing' by the University, the Ad Board considered some form of discipline appropriate. The Ad Board, according to the Handbook for Students, only reviews those cases "for which there is precedent for interpreting and applying the rules and standards of conduct of the Colleges" (316). Assuming this is true in practice, a precedent existed that dealt with 'prank' calls. Yet, there is no way for a student to know about the precedent, due to the policy of concealing of previous Ad Board cases from...
However, the use of 'probation' does not coincide with the premise that the Ad Board is an educational arm of the University. A permanent mark on the student's record does not help the student learn that his/her behavior was improper, rather he or she is only conditioned against doing the same action again. Also, the rest of the University community remains oblivious to the results and has no way of learning not to participate in the improper actions...
This tack clearly did help many Democratic candidates. In Massachusetts, Republican Peter Blute tried to protect himself against the assault with a TV ad that showed the Congressman with his arms draped over pictures of Clinton and Gingrich. "When he wanted to fight crime, I voted with him," said Blute, pointing to Clinton's picture, which moved closer and closer to the candidate. Then "when he wanted to balance the budget, I voted with him"; Newt's picture moved toward Blute. "But when he wanted to increase taxes, I voted against him"; Clinton's picture faded into the distance...