Your Sept. 8 editorial, “Check your rights at the door” and Greg Jerrett’s column “You have no rights, just give up!” on the new Student Disciplinary Regulations were deeply disappointing for their incorrect facts and unfounded opinions. First the factual errors: The editorial and column state that under the new rules students can’t have counsel present. False. The rules allow two advisors, both of whom may be attorneys, to be present at all university judiciary hearings. The rules continue to prohibit advisors from speaking for the student or from questioning the witnesses. The editorial and column imply that the new rules are a change from the prior conduct code. False. The approach is very much as it was under the prior conduct code except the new rules are actually more liberal toward students than the prior code. The new rules allow students to bring two advisors instead of one and to petition for one of the advisors to present the case if a student has disability preventing them from doing so. The editorial says that students must represent themselves against the university’s counsel. False. Student discipline cases are handled by the staff of the Office of Judicial Affairs (OJA) who are not attorneys. University Legal Services has never been present during hearings to present the case or question witnesses. The most disappointing aspect of the editorial and column is the allegation that the rules were “sneaked through” and “slipped . into” the code, suggesting attempts to hide changes from student scrutiny. I told your reporter Sarah Tennessen (who wrote the September 7 article, “ACLU disputes new conduct code”) that we went to over 20 meetings with student groups, including the Graduate Student Senate, IRHA, residence associations, Inter-Fraternity Council, Panhellenic and Off Campus Government. In early February, the proposed rules were sent to the campus community, including the Daily and GSB. We invited the Daily to discuss the proposal. On Feb. 29, a story appeared on page one. We met three times with the GSB Rules Committee. We met with the full GSB. There was a show on ISU9 on the proposed changes. Two Daily-advertised public forums were held. We had a special meeting with the ACLU at its request. On April 10, when Alex Olson, Chair of the GSB Rules Committee, requested I come to a meeting to work out final details, I asked whether anyone from ACLU had been invited. He said, “No.” I then asked that they try to have ACLU represented. It was. I gave Ms. Tennessen a copy of the ACLU’s proposed changes to the regulations. If you had compared the initial proposal to the final rules, you would have seen that many changes were made because the ACLU, the Rules Committee and other students raised legitimate concerns. I don’t know how the editors could allege “sneakiness” given the information the Daily had available to it. Paul Tanaka

Director

University Legal Services