As the university conducts its ongoing review of the UCLA Student Conduct Code, this board encourages the Office of the Dean of Students to clarify the university’s policies regarding interim suspension.
The current code, which largely mirrors policies set by the University of California Office of the President, should be updated so that its language is more accessible and thorough.
The confusion that might result from the code of conduct was brought up when an injunction was filed in May against the UC Board of Regents by Hakop Kaplanyan – a redshirt freshman water polo player arrested for the alleged rape of a student – and his attorneys. The injunction, which disputed Kaplanyan’s interim suspension, was dismissed by a Los Angeles Superior Court judge.
The code – last updated in 2011 – states that a student will be placed on interim suspension if the university judges the student’s presence on campus and involvement with the university to have the potential to lead to violence, threats or any conduct that would compromise the safety of “any person on University property or at official University functions.”
In addition to this definition, the code briefly describes the process by which a student is notified of suspension, the various bodies that review a suspension case and how hearings are scheduled for committee review.
Several measures can be taken to improve the presentation of these policies.
First, the UCLA Student Conduct Code should clearly describe the situations in which interim suspension is used, specifically that an interim suspension is put in place when a student faces pending disciplinary proceedings from the university. In the same vein, the code must lay out the differences between a university investigation and a criminal one – charges in criminal proceedings have no bearing on the instating of an interim suspension by the university.
Second, mention of interim suspension should be included in the section of the code outlining “Conduct that Threatens Health or Safety.” By placing this information in the context of descriptions of the actions that would lead to a suspension, the university can ensure students will understand the repercussions of behavior that violates this policy.
Finally, UCLA should establish a more concrete time frame for the internal progress of a case of interim suspension to help cases come to a timely resolution. For example, Occidental College states in its student conduct code that a hearing will be scheduled for the suspended student within 10 days of the status being put in place.
Just as students are bound to follow the policies outlined by the code, the university should ensure the codes are presented in a manner optimized for students unfamiliar with the university’s bureaucracy to understand.