Why say no to the code
We Oppose the Non-Academic Code of Conduct
The Code of Non-Academic conduct is the new proposed regulation at the University of Ottawa which “sets out the means to address and remedy any misconduct.”
This code applies to students only. Administrators, support staff and Faculty members continue to be unsanctioned for these exact same behaviors. At the University of Ottawa there is no policy against the discrimination or intimidation of undergraduate students and no ombudsperson (who works to ensure the fair and equitable treatment of the University Community.)
Offences under the Code include:
- Theft, sexual harassment, fraud, etc. All of these are already punishable by Federal law.
- The disruption or obstruction of any University activity, according to the administration.
- Damaging the reputation of the University, according to the administration.
- Using a weapon, which is defined at any “thing” used to intimidate a person.
- Camping, sleeping or constructing a shelter on University premises.
- Causing disturbance on University premises due to alcohol or drug consumption. Etc.
Sanctions include:
- Expulsion or suspension from University with mention on your academic record.
- “Discretionary sanctions.” This means that the administration will be free to make-up sanctions on a case by case basis.
- Revocation of University awards or financial assistance.
- Written warnings, probation etc.
Other Ontario Codes
We have compared the U of O Code with other Ontario Universities’ codes.
The U of O Code stands out as:
- Being the only Code to grant interim suspension rights to the President if a student poses a threat of interference with University activities.
This means that you can get suspended before you get a hearing. Other Universities only plan for interim suspension when a student causes a “serious physical threat.”
- Allowing a vast amount of time for the University to file a complaint against a student. Ottawa’s Code allows for one year after the fact whereas other universities call for three days to three months.
- Failing to mention on whom falls the burden of proof. Other codes clearly state that it is the University who must prove that a student committed an offence.
The Code Does Not:
- Allow for a real appeal process. Appeals are only granted under condition.
- Reveal the identity of the panel of judges.
- Plan for public hearings.
The Code is not a solution to the issues faced by students at U of O.
For all the reasons above and more;
For attempting to silence students and breach their civil and political rights;
We Oppose the Non-Academic Code of Conduct
Gary Newman said
this must not pass. It gives the administration far too much power.
Cynthia Kendell said
As a student, I expect to attend univeristy and leanr in a safe, non-threatening environment. The proposed document is not part of some sinister plot to opress students…it’s meant to protect us.
There are definitely some problems with certain aspects of “The Code” as outlined above, but instead of boycotting the entire thing, I think we should be supporting an open dialogue between all parties involved to work toward creating a more fair and balanced document.
Thomas said
This is ridiculous, why are we going backward in human freedoms. I hope people do not just stand by and let this happen.
Derek said
I donno, but doesn’t some of this, outside of the sexual and weapon offences, go against the charter?
Maria said
This is simply unjust. Freedom of expression is a major part of university. If we cannot freely express ourselves here, where else can we?
DogBert said
Totalitarian! Why would the freedom of speech not be allowed for the reputations, that’s exactly how it is built. Who made these silly rules?
Maggie said
… “sleeping or constructing a shelter on University premises”… uh oh looks like everyone who falls asleep in the library better keep one eye open.
James Douglas said
Wow, this would be a huge mistake all around if this passes. Why must students constantly have to ward off ridiculous things like this? Certainly not all universities are like this.
Lisez le Code de conduite / Read the Code of conduct « Non au code uOttawa / No to the uOttawa code said
[...] Why say no to the code [...]
josie said
as a new graduate student to U of O this is very disturbing, and one of the reasons I am taking my education/research elsewhere. this is absolutely ridiculous
Lisa Crandall said
Item 30B seems to imply the student has to prove their innocence. doesn’t that run counter to normal Canadian legal practice? Item 34 is pretty vague about who and what determines the make up of an appeal committee.
Melissa said
I think that this document should not be adopted because I feel it seriously infringes on my right to protest. There are other problems with it as well that I think require more thought. Having a safe non-threatening environment is a good thing BUT this document is not the way to ensure this. More time. More consultation.
Erin said
Honestly, you’re blowing things out of proportion and reading things the wrong way. Although there are definitely a few small portions that should be reworded, the on the whole the document is not bad. It seems to be way more about vandalism and physical threats than “limiting your right to free speech”.
Rather than focusing your efforts on completely defeating it, try focusing your efforts on getting those few portions reworded. You guys have no idea how easy you have it.
Derek said
I don’t like the no sleeping part and the appeal process restrictions.
Navidson said
I’d have to agree with Erin. “Totalitarian!” is being a bit dense/simplistic about it. Completely overreacting. Its not ALL bad. It just needs a rewrite of the specific sections that impede freedom of speech, right to assemble etc. on campus. But I guess “WE DEMAND A REVISION OF SECTIONS X, Y AND Z IN PROPOSED UNIVERSITY POLICY DOCUMENT Q TO PROTECT DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS A, B AND C!” doesn’t look very good on a protest sign. Maybe signs that say “REVISE THE NEW CODE OF CONDUCT!” and “CAMPUS FREE SPEECH IN DANGER!” along with short handout essays that elaborate? *sigh* I hate the limitations of protest signs. The slogans have to be kinda dumbed down or they won’t fit. Can be pretty misleading or misrepresenting. Makes me cringe when I’m on Parliament Hill and I see it, regardless if I’m for or against the issue.
As for the code not applying to staff, that’s just a question of probability. I mean lets face it. We, the students, are far more likely to engage in that sort of rowdy shit than the staff. The policy would protect students from the judicial system by dealing with the offenses internally. Not to say I don’t think the staff should be equally accountable. I wholeheartedly agree there needs to be more student empowerment when confronting university staff about any perceived wrong done to them by said staff.
Francis said
Who cares? If you are doing that stuff you are probably a lameass anyway. Not my problem, I’m graduating in June.
The Little hater said
… I don’t get how this code impeads on free speach? Is it the “damaging the reputation part”?
This is what I think:
Haters want to hate, lovers want to love, I don’t really want none of the above. I want to pis on youuuuuuuuuuuuuuu!
Daniel said
^^ exactly!
May said
well , it does not seem to provide anything more than what we already have if it is meant to protect us and the university.
but it does restrict our freedom, and even our right to take a nap! see you all on Friday !
John said
I think this code would only make sense if an equal code was drafted in regards to the conduct of the Ottawa U staff, especially regarding professors. I’m here to learn and don’t intend to be causing any trouble at the University, but none the less, I ran into some issues with my professor last semester. Not only did my professor arbitrarily lower my grade, once he found out that I had gotten more than he expected me to get, but he actually tried to intimidate me by threatening to lower my grade even more if I did anything about it. What code did I have to fall back on in this case? Could I use the definition of a “weapon” for his computer, since he used it to intimidate me through e-mail? I can’t do anything about this, since professors can go back on there word and do whatever they like. Oh that’s right, we can appeal,but, what’s stopping him from taking off marks he had originally agreed to give? Think about it, if I’m a professor, and I don’t like someone. What’s stopping me from grading them extremely harshly, or intimidating them? There are allot of instances that occur in an academic setting which leaves student’s vulnerable to unjust treatments, with very little rights defending them. Although most professors are not out to get you, the fact that this code has been drafted for students, giving the school even more liberties than they already have is outrageous. I don’t remember anyone disrupting my studies the whole time I’ve been here, and I don’t remember anyone attacking someone while the school just stood by with no options to punish the student. This code is useless, other than to give the University more rights to screw over paying students if they deem it necessary. Until a code is drafted for University staff, I will forever see this type of behavior as that of an oppressive regime trying to maintain it’s power over it’s people.
Adam said
“This is here to protect us”? “Who cares”? “It seems to be way more about vandalism and physical threats than ‘limiting your right to free speech’”? These replies speak volumes about the level of education in Canada regarding civil liberties.
Limiting freedom of expression is against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which applies EVERYWHERE in Canada (even on private property). The Code, effectively, limits our freedom of expression when it prohibits us from disrupting University ‘activity’. Should we, as responsible students and adults, who wish to point out the moral deviations of our University–such as the Burmese blood money donated by Paul Desmarais to build his building–be forced to suffer sanctions for doing so? If this Code is allowed to be enacted, ‘damaging the reputation of the University’ will be more of a grave offence on campus than any of the institutional pathologies which currently flourish.
Many of the ‘offenses’ that are included in this Code may seem reasonable to most: i.e. harassing or threatening others, defacing, stealing or damaging books etc. However, these are already covered by existing regulations. The inclusion of these ‘offenses’ is a mere legitimizing device used by the drafters of the Code to encourage us to accept it. After all, who would want to go against a piece of legislation wholesale if it includes reasonable clauses, such as sanctioning those that threaten to physically harm others?
The fact that clarification of the MANY vagaries in the Disruption clause is left to the University should be even more disturbing. This unilateralism should not be tolerated. This is an institution of learning, not a prison or garrison. What guarantee am I given that I will not be sanctioned if my research ‘damages the reputation of the University?’ If this is the case, then the University will succeed at subverting academic freedom, long cherished in academia for promoting free thinking and inquiry for students and teachers alike. This will be quashed, first through discipline deriving from fear of sanction, then through internalization of the norms embedded in the Code. Normation through the Code will lead to normalization of the students.
dave said
you guys are up shit creek.
Dan said
I’m in favour of a code of conduct for the university. Lots of students use the line “we’re the customer, so we should make the rules”. That’s bs. the Provincial Government pays 5 times what we do to make the University available, and so IT should and does make the rules. Also, I’m sick and tired of the SFUO that thinks its job is to go and protest anything and everything that happens on campus. I couldn’t believe that they gave a “free” barbecue to people that protested the code, because that was actually my money. There was a miserable turnout of about 30 people, all there for the food. The SFUO shouldn’t be allowed to use my money to support their own sytematic protests of anything said or done by the university administration.
There’s been plenty of scandals on campus in the past few years, ranging from financial scams where student societies pocketed money they were responsible for, to absolutely disgusting and degrading newspaper columns. The university right now has no power to moderate these crimes short of filing a costly lawsuit against the (broke) students involved in these scandals. Introducing a code of conduct will hopefully slightly decrease the amount of irresponsible students on campus, and increase the amount of mature adults, because it gives the university the right to kick students out for tarnishing the reputation of the university, be it through financial crimes, or literary ones.
Leon said
It’s amazing that a group of greasy hippies from Social Sciences think they speak for all students.
Meanwhile those at in Science, Law, Medicine, Engineering, and Telfer shrug and realize that we’ll all be paying for you for the next 30 years.
“The students, united. We’ll not be divived….” except when only 2% of us show up for a protest. Then I guess we’ll be divided. Sort of. You know, the majority doesn’t care. But we have the magaphones.
Law said
Shouldn’t university students know that freedoms under the charter are only in relation to citizen-government interaction. Certainly you can’t imagine that such things exist in the private sector, which includes universities. Keep the arguments relevant.