UO protesters charged with violations of student conduct code for protesting Schill’s speech
On Monday, members of the UO Student Collective, a group of student activists, were notified by university officials that members are being charged with violating the UO student conduct code after they protested UO President Michael Schill’s state of the university address on Oct. 6.
The members were charged with two violations: “disruption of university,” and “failure to comply,” according to an email that the group received from the Katy Larkin, associate director of Student Conduct and Community Standards.
The email stated that members of the collective were “engaging in behavior that could be reasonably foreseen to cause disruption of, obstruction of, or interference with the process of instruction, research, administration, student discipline or any other service or activity provide or sponsored by the University.”
The “failure to comply” charge stated that students disobeyed “reasonable directions of public officials acting in performance of their duties on University Premises or at a University Sponsored Activity when such conduct poses a danger to personal safety or property or obstructs or impairs educational or other institutional activities.”
Members of the collective were given two options from the University on how to resolve the violations: accept responsibility for their actions and meet with Officers of Administration, which will result in no sanctions; or they can contest the charges and have an administrative conference in which members will meet with a student conduct “decision-maker” to present information regarding the incident and determine if members are responsible for committing the alleged violations.
The first option was labeled a “special option,” in which students would “participate in small group dialogue with a variety of Officers of Administration who have expressed interest in meeting with you to hear your concerns and work with you to try to address them,” according to the email.
It is not clear what specific actions would be brought upon the Student Collective if members chose option two, but students would be assigned an “action plan.”
The email stated that the members of the collective have seven days to choose an option.
Additionally, members were informed that if they did not choose one of the two options, then the decision will be made for them.