|
|
1. Harassment and Bullying
The Committee noted the
University’s Policy Statement on Harassment and Bullying. As with major offences under Ordinance XVII,
the list of examples given was not exclusive,
a fact welcomed by the Committee.
The Secretary REPORTED that he
had recently attended a meeting of the Harassment Panel to give an overview of
student disciplinary issues.
Members
who had been involved in a recent Disciplinary Panel expressed the view that
the Policy and many of its concepts were clearly unfamiliar to many
students. The Secretary was asked to
ensure that it was more widely disseminated.
Another member noted
that the composition of the Harassment Panel was grossly imbalanced, with
twelve women and one man. This might
discourage some members of the University from raising issues. It was AGREED to enquire how membership of
the Panel was determined.
2. Relationship with the Police
The
Committee was disappointed to learn that no meeting had as yet taken place
between University Officers and senior members of the Leicestershire
Constabulary, and asked that such a meeting be convened as a matter of urgency.
3. Policy and Guidelines on the Use of
Illicit Substances
The Committee received
and considered a proposed new policy as recommended by Student Services
Committee, which it had been asked to recommend to Senate for adoption. The Secretary reported that unfortunately
none of the officers of the Student Services Committee had been available to
present the proposals.
A number of concerns
were identified:-
·
There
was confusion throughout between the use of the words “drugs” and “substances”
which needed to be addressed.
Furthermore some references to the use of illicit substances should in
fact refer to the illicit use of [legal] substances.
·
It
was unclear at what audience the policy was meant to be addressed: in some
cases it was aimed at students, in others at persons in positions of
responsibility.
·
In
some sections, for example those dealing with solvent abuse, more explicit
reference to the legal framework would be welcome.
·
The
paragraph on First Aid measures was dated.
·
It
was not clear whether the resource implications of the Policy, particularly in
regard to training, had been addressed.
·
The
document comprised both Policy and Guidelines, which might more usefully be
separate items.
The
Committee had no feel for whether or not drug abuse was a major problem on the
campus, but knew from its own collective experience that alcohol abuse was a
major issue, and felt that the Student Services Committee should give urgent
consideration to enhancing awareness of the problem and providing appropriate
counselling. The Security Manager
indicated that he had encountered some four or five instances of drug-dealing
on campus – all by non-students – and a small number of minor offences
involving cannabis for personal use had been dealt with by Wardens. It was of course possible that some of the
incidents involving alcohol had also involved drug abuse.
It was
RESOLVED to invite the Student Services Committee to reconsider its paper in
light of the Committee’s comments.
4. Analysis of Disciplinary Offences
The Committee received
and noted an analysis of Minor and Major offences committed during the current
year.
A number of issues were raised in
regard to traffic:-
·
It
was important to ensure that all vehicle users were properly insured
·
The
increase in the size of the University had led to a congested road system,
which now needed urgent review. (see item 10 below)
5. LSU Disciplinary Procedures
The Committee
received:-
·
An
analysis of penalties imposed by LSU
·
A
schedule of minimum fines and sanctions as adopted by LSU
A
number of points were raised including:-
·
The
need for criteria in determining levels of
unacceptable behaviour
·
The
need for a clearer definition of “banning”
·
The
need for an agreed procedure between the University and the Union on when
misdemeanours should be referred to the Registrar.
The
President confirmed that any student subject to Union discipline was entitled
to access the Student Advice Centre.
On
behalf of the Committee, the Chair thanked the LSU Officers for their constructive
response to the issues raised, and praised their contribution both to the
Committee and to the Disciplinary Panels.
6. Recent Major Hearings
The Committee discussed
a number of issues arising from recent major hearings.
.1 Duty of Care
The issue of the duty of care of
Hall Committees and similar bodies organising social functions was a complex
one on which further legal guidance was necessary. A member indicated that such
guidance was given on the University of Nottingham’s website and might be a useful
model. The Committee was pleased to
learn that LSU and the Registrar were working together on this issue, and that
incoming Hall Chairs and Hall Committees would receive appropriate training as
a matter of urgency so as to influence the organisation of freshers’ induction
activities in the Autumn. In the longer
term Hall Committees needed clearer enumeration of their constitutional
position and lines of accountability.
.2 Excessive Drinking
The Committee felt that not only
Hall Committees but also the University itself carried some responsibility for
the promotion of heavy drinking of alcohol amongst students. All parties recognised that the drink
culture was a national issue, and welcomed initiatives to encourage responsible
drinking. Hall Committees had a crucial
role in this regard, and should be offered all necessary support to promote the
message.
.3 Pastoral Care
The Committee felt that one Major
Hearing had arisen in part from the failure of an academic department to
recognise signs of stress in a student.
The erosion of personal and academic tutoring systems because of
deteriorating Staff-Student Ratios was having consequences for the discipline
and good order of the University. Driving down the unit of resource for
students was beginning to reap serious consequences. It
was suggested that the University needed a senior appointment such as “Dean of
Students” to manage the personal and pastoral care of students, and to keep
under review the impact of developments such as modularisation, semesterisation
and increased student numbers.
It was AGREED to refer
this issue to the Student Services Committee for its consideration.
7. Appeals
The Deputy Chair of the Appeals
Committee indicated that only a small number of appeals were lodged, 90% of them
in regard to traffic offences.
Sometimes it was difficult for the Committee to assess the full context
of a particular situation, as it had the benefit of the appellant’s view, but
only limited information from the University Officer imposing a penalty.
One issue was that of a
suggestion from some quarters of the University that the Appeals Committee
should treat appeals from international students more sympathetically than
those from home students, particularly in the context of cycling without lights. The Committee felt it would be wholly
improper to behave in such a way.
Nonetheless it appreciated that, notwithstanding the sterling efforts of
LSU, Security and the International Office, the issue of some ethnic groups
riding cycles without lights, contrary to UK law and creating a safety hazard
for themselves and others, was a perennial one. All concerned would continue to make determined efforts to get
the message across in the Autumn.
8. Membership of the Committee
It was AGREED to recommend that paragraph I(v) of Ordinance XVII be
amended to increase the number appointees from each of the three groups to
five, in order to provide a greater pool from which members of Disciplinary
Panels could be drawn.
9. Student Safety
The
Committee noted a recent article in the THES regarding campus safety in the
UK. The Security Manager reported that
the rate of crime on the campus in 2003 was at its lowest level since 1983, and
less than one-third that of the University of Nottingham. The Chair welcomed
the relatively safe and peaceful environment at Loughborough but counselled
against complacency.
10. Vehicles on Campus
In noting the larger number of traffic
fines, the Committee felt that the campus road systems were now so congested
that a major review was necessary. It
might be appropriate to restrict student vehicle access to much of the campus,
to increase charges for vehicle registration, or to consider other methods of
traffic control. It was felt that the
case for moving vehicles across campus during the working day had
substantially diminished since the introduction of a reliable bus service. If the Security Organisation were able to
spend less time dealing with unauthorised student car parking, it would be able
to devote more time to crime prevention, to the benefit of the whole University
community.
It was AGREED to convey
the Committee’s views to Estates Management Committee.
11. Vandalism
The Committee supported the President of the
LSU in the view that individuals responsible for vandalism should be
disciplined and, where appropriate, should meet the costs of their
actions. It was inappropriate to seek
to recoup the costs of vandalism from LSU as a representative body.
Author
– D L Wolfe
Date – May 2004
Copyright © Loughborough University. All rights reserved.