April 28, 2006

 

MEMORANDUM

 

TO:                 University Senate Members

FROM:           Lisa Freinkel, Ad Hoc Senate Committee on Conduct Code Revisions

SUBJECT:     Feedback and Revisions on February 6 draft of Student Conduct Code

 

Revising our student code of conduct has involved the input and hard work of many students, staff and faculty over the past dozen years. It has been my honor to be involved in that process for three years from 1996-99 (when I was Faculty Chair of the Student Conduct Committee), and now again, over the past six months, as Chair of the Ad Hoc Senate Committee on Conduct Code Revisions. Our charge on the Ad Hoc committee has been threefold: 1) to review the language drafted by the Student Conduct Committee; 2) to solicit  feedback on all proposed revisions; and 3) to submit a final version of the Conduct Code for Senate approval before the end of this academic year.

 

As we reviewed the SCC's draft, our guiding principle was to leave their language unchanged unless we saw a compelling reason to revise. We submitted a proposed revised draft to the Senate in early February. We then began to seek input on our proposed revisions. Over the past eight weeks, the Ad Hoc Senate Committee has been actively soliciting feedback on the proposed Conduct Code from student leaders, faculty members, University senators, and other campus community members. We've met with the Undergraduate Council, with the Faculty Advisory Committee, with members of the ASUO exec, with students representing the Women's Center and SASS, and with students and faculty at large. We've held four small group meetings and one larger Town Hall meeting. Our conduct code revision process has been reported by KLCC, the Register-Guard and the Oregon Daily Emerald. Ads placed in the Emerald further spread the word, and encouraged interested parties to email their comments directly to us.

 

It is in very large measure on the basis of the feedback we received that we prepared this final version of the Conduct Code. We've changed some terminology, and added and deleted phrasing throughout. In total, over 30 provisions have been altered in some way. We could not have made these changes without the insight, input and active collaboration of concerned students and faculty. The Conduct Code we deliver to you today is a better and more consistent document thanks to this collective effort.

 

This memo presents a complete list of the substantive changes we've made since the February 6^th draft.  It also represents our efforts to collate all of the feedback we received, and to respond to each issue raised.

 

 

 

N.B. Merely formal changes -- i.e. deletions/additions because of typographical errors, lapses in grammar, mistakes in numbering (etc) -- are not recorded below.

 

 

 

Moving section by section through the Code, I discuss below all substantive changes made to the February 6 working draft of the Student Conduct Code. Where these changes reflect direct feedback from students, faculty (etc), I explain how we've met those concerns and where possible, I quote the feedback verbatim.

 

One important source of feedback deserves special mention: On April 17^th Hilary Berkman (director of the Office of Student Advocacy), the ASUO Executive and Student Members of the Student Conduct Code Committee drafted a memo to the Ad Hoc Committee which included much invaluable commentary. I've quoted extensively from that memo below, and refer to it throughout as "the April 17^th memo." 

 

Article II: Definitions & Usage

II.E.

Feedback: "This provision is very confusing and should be clarified.  It appears to allow the Director of Student Conduct to appoint someone to be the “sole member or one of the members of the Community Standards Hearing Board.”  The Hearing Board consists of more than one member and so the reference to a “sole member” is confusing.  To the extent that this provision allows someone other than the Office of Student Conduct to resolve informal hearings in cases of bias or conflict of interest, a process should be identified for selecting those individuals.  If the director is not hearing the case for these types of reasons, a person appointed by the director may raise similar concerns.  A possible solution would be to have a process to randomly select a formal hearing board member to decide the informal case." (April 17th memo: drafted by Hilary Berkman [OSA], ASUO Executive, Student Members of the Student Conduct Committee)

Our response: We removed the language about the "sole member" and added language explaining that, where bias is a concern, cases may be referred to the Vice President of Student Affairs. Language concerning this point was also added to VIII.D.d.

 

II.F. 

Feedback: "This provision refers to a single member formal hearing board, which is not provided for in the code." (April 17th memo)

Our response: We deleted the phrase "any person."

 

II.Q. 

Feedback: "If disputed, the definition of “Member of the University Community” should be determined by the hearings panel.  We request that the last sentence of the definition be deleted." (April 17th memo)

Our response: We deleted the last sentence.

 

II.V.

Feedback: During the feedback process, members of the ASUO Executive raised a concern about jurisdictional conflict between the Conduct Code and the ASUO. OAR 571-011-0015 delegates authority to the ASUO to (among other things) "grant recognition or registration to student groups, or to withdraw recognition or registration from them." The concern was to make sure that we define group organizations, and group sanctions, in such a way as not to conflict with this delegated power of the ASUO.

Our response: Language was changed here to avoid such a conflict.

 

Article III: Authority for Student Discipline

III.A.2.b.ii.c.

Feedback: "List of sanctions not approved for delegation should include eviction.  University Housing has the ability to summarily evict a student to ensure health and safety of the community.  A permanent eviction should avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest or actual conflict of interest if university housing is making that determination." (April 17th memo)

Our response: We added "eviction" to the list of sanctions.

 

Article IV. Jurisdiction

Feedback: This section yielded the greatest intensity and amount of feedback of all proposed revisions. On the one hand, we received widespread support for the general idea of extending jurisdiction in cases of egregious acts of violence off campus. The vast majority of those attending small group meetings and other feedback sessions affirmed the need for parity between instances of physical abuse and those of sexual misconduct (sexual misconduct is currently defined by our present code as an "act of violence," and it the university may currently extend jurisdiction for such misconduct off campus). However, many expressed concern about the "vagueness" of language like "conduct that threatens the health or safety of any person." Some worried that broad language like this signalled a return to an era of the University acting in loco parentis. Others worried that first amendment rights might be at risk; could a rally that ended with some small acts of vandalism provide the occasion for invoking the Conduct Code? Just how serious would misconduct have to be to warrant this extension of jurisdiction?

Our response: The Ad Hoc Committee still feels that the language we proposed contains adequate safeguards to meet all the concerns and objections above. However, this was the one place in the Code where we made significant changes to the draft presented to us by the Student Conduct Committee (SCC). In the face of serious opposition to the changes we proposed, we felt it was important to return to the language proposed by the SCC. We did, however, retain one small -- but very important change. This change addresses an issue that we discussed in every feedback session, and that we found widespread campus agreement concerning. The issue at stake is violence against a non University member.

In the conduct code draft forwarded by the SCC to the Senate, IV.A.6.b.iii reads as follows: "the alleged misconduct must have involved violence or produced a reasonable fear of physical harm and the alleged victim is a member of the campus community; or"

We removed the phrase "and the alleged victim is a member of the campus community": in our view, there may be occasions when the University has a material interest in a student's alleged violent acts off campus even if those acts are committed against a non University member.

 

 

Article V:  Violations of Community Standards

V.C.8.

Feedback: "The ad hoc committee’s proposed jurisdiction standard is vague, overbroad, and provides an insufficient nexus to the university community.  It states as a matter of principal that sexual misconduct “wherever that activity takes place” is the university’s business.  This language, that was inserted by the ad hoc committee, appears to reach beyond even the proposed over broad jurisdiction section.  This section should revert back to the version proposed by the Student Conduct Committee to the University Senate." (April 17th memo)

Our response: Our goal had simply been to reduce redundancy in the Code and to create a single, easily understood set of guidelines concerning jurisdiction under Article IV. However, we are happy to comply with this suggestion and have reverted to the SCC language.

 

V.D.

Feedback: "Student Organizations.  There should be some constraints on the university’s discretion to take immediate jurisdiction.  Also, the code omits the currently existing language that specifically identifies the individual responsible for a student organization’s behavior and also that student organizations are entitled to all procedural rights in the code.  We request that the ad hoc committee retain these items." (April 17th memo)

Our response: This language was very carefully crafted by the SCC and was the result of months of deliberations. We feel that it does a terrific job of balancing the importance of self-government for student organizations with the need for University oversight. We also believe that, when it comes to group behavior, the whole is often greater that the sum of the parts; it is important that we are able to hold groups and not just individuals responsible for their behavior.

At the same time, we also agreed that more could be done to encourage student organizations to govern themselves and to insure that cases aren't turned over prematurely to the Office of Student Conduct and Community Standards. We've written the final line of paragraph one.

 

 

Article VI: Sanctions

VI.A.2.b., VI.A.6., VI.A.9.    

Feedback: The April 17^th memo argues that all reference to student organizations should be removed from these sections (Group Suspension, Disciplinary Probation, Loss of Privileges). In other words, they have argued against the possibility of some of the most serious group sanctions overall.

A second, less far-reaching argument has been advanced by members of the ASUO Exec that  the ASUO and ASUO-recognized groups be excluded from these same provisions. The reasoning here is the same as that stated above, in II.V: because OAR 571-011-0015 specifically points out the ASUO's authority to register and recognize student groups. Suspension, disciplinary probation and loss of privileges are all sanctions that are tantamount to revoking either registration or recognition, hence these are sanctions that only the ASUO should be able to impose.

Our response: We agree with two key points here: 1) groups should be encourage in all ways possible to be self-governing. 2) We also agree that issues of recognition and registration for ASUO-recognized groups fall under the specific authority of the ASUO, as designated by OAR 571-011-0015. For this reason, we've crafted language here that makes it clear that -- in the case of ASUO-recognized groups -- these three sanctions would need to be approved by the Vice President of Student Affairs. Thus, in a situation where the ASUO failed to sanction one of its recognized groups in either a timely or sufficient manner, the Vice President of Student Affairs could refer the case to the Office of Student Conduct and Community Standards, and could approve any of these three sanctions.

In addition, we've slightly reworded the language of "disciplinary probation" (VI.A.6) to make the intention of the sanction clearer.

 

Article VII: Student Rights

VII.E.2. 

Feedback: "This provision is misleading.  It would be more valuable for it to state that all students are entitled to a formal hearing before the formal hearing board.  We propose that change: “To request a formal hearing before the formal hearing board.”" (April 17th memo)

Our response: We've added the phrase "or to request a panel hearing." (Note: a "panel hearing" is what was formerly called a "formal hearing." See )

 

VII.E.9. 

Feedback: "Should allow for a “reasonable” delay due to circumstances beyond an advisor’s control.  The Office of Student Judicial Affairs often delays student’s hearings when individuals are sick or because of other unavoidable conflicts, this should be true for a student’s chosen advisor.  Otherwise, this provision could prevent a student from having the advisor of their choice with them at a hearing.  Insert “provided that advisor’s schedule does not unreasonably delay the hearing.”" (April 17th memo)

Our response: We adopted the suggested phrasing, but felt it important to clarify that it is the hearings panel who determines what constitutes an "unreasonable" delay.

 

VIII: Conduct Procedures

VIII. B. 4. and VIII.C.2.

Feedback: Hilary Berkman, the ASUO Executive and Student Members of the Student Conduct Code Committee pointed out the ambiguity of this language (10 working days? 10 calendar days?) They also pointed out a discrepancy about timing in X.A.3 below.

Our response: Ten days has now been changed to "14 calendar days."

 

VIII.C.3.

Feedback: "Unclear what information is required to be provided to a student under these circumstances." (April 17^th memo)

Our response: Language has been clarified.

 

VIII.C.4. 

Feedback: "All references to “expulsion and suspension” should also include negative notation on transcript. This is a global change." (April 17^th memo)

Our response: We agree; this was an oversight -- and the changes have now been made.

 

VIII.C.4.b. 

Feedback: "The code should require that students in this circumstance specifically be notified that they should obtain advice before waiving this right." (April 17^th memo) 

Our response: We have affirmed the importance of seeking advice by adding the clause "that the student has had an opportunity to consult with an adviser of their choosing."

 

VIII.C.4.c.

Feedback: "Should add that proceedings may be deferred with the consent of the student." (April 17^th memo)

Our response: We've made the change.

 

VIII.D "Informal" hearings

Feedback: The April 17^th memo suggests that provision be made for "access to the hearing board in the informal setting, without the threat of expulsion suspension or negative notation on the transcript."

Our response: This suggestion seeks a middle ground between an administrative conference -- designed to be maximally efficient, geared toward quick resolution -- and a more intensive panel hearing process. We don't see the need for such a hybrid form, and instead see merely the possible erosion of the administrative conference option. One of our primary goals in revising the Conduct Code has been to make the panel hearings process more accessible, less intimidating, and more attuned with the culture of an educational environment overall. In order to further clarify to students that they need not feel "threatened" by the hearings process, we've changed the names of the two conduct processes:

Informal conference is now titled "administrative conference"; Formal hearing is now titled "panel hearing."

 

VIII.D.1.a.

 Feedback: "We are still unsure what this refers to.  Students have ten days to respond to a notice changing them with a code violation.  How does this notice fit into the process?" (April 17^th memo)

Our response: We agreed that this language was potentially confusing and in conflict with other language in the code. We deleted it.

 

VIII.D.1.b.

Feedback: "Students should have the right to obtain copies of their case file in advance of a hearing so as to provide them with a meaningful opportunity to prepare for a hearing.  They currently have that right."

Our response: The current conduct code says nothing about a right to copies of one's file, but current practice has been to provide that information. We have added the following statement: "To the extent allowed by FERPA, copies of the case file will be provided upon request."

 

VIII.D.1.c.

Feedback: "The right to all information obtained about the case, including the names of individuals and all verbal information, and the right to respond to all information obtained after the conference." (April 17^th memo)

Our response: We've replaced "the" with "all": "an opportunity to respond to all information...."

 

VIII.D.1.d. 

Feedback: "Add:  The right to be accompanied and assisted by an advisor."

Our response: Done.

 

VIII.D.9.d.

Feedback:

·      "We oppose all of the restrictions on legal representation for both accusing and accused students, and further, oppose the proposed process because it deviates substantially from established administrative law processes that exist to protect all participants and ensure fair results." (April 17^th memo)

·      "Limiting the role attorneys can play could create unfair hearings in several circumstances. Imagine the advantage a charismatic, well-spoken and articulate student will have when pitted against a soft-spoken, socially awkward and/or fearful student. The same situation could present itself if one party was a non-native English speaker or someone with a disability that affects her/his oral communication.  I believe that everyone should be given the option to have representation THROUGHOUT the hearing." (Casey Campbell, grad student, in an April 10^th email to the senate)

Our response: The "restrictions" on legal representation are at the absolute heart of this code revision; these changes have been under discussion since 1997 and have been debated by scores of faculty and students since then. At issue here is our vision of the conduct system in its entirety. This is a policy decision for us to make; there is no legal difficulty in making this change. We would in no way be violating administrative or any other kind of law to make these changes.

At the same time, we felt compelled by Campbell's point about the potential adverse impact on differently-abled speakers. In we added language to address that particular concern (see VIII.E.9.d.ix).

 

VIII.E.9.e.

Feedback: "Seven days is an inadequate amount of time to prepare for a formal hearing.  It is also an inadequate amount of time for a student to obtain an advisor.  Students should be able to have a copy of all information that will be used against them at a formal hearing, including all witnesses, statements etc. . .  and be provided with an adequate opportunity to provide a meaningful response." (April 17^th memo)

Our response: Timeframe has been changed to "14 calendar days" and we've added the same language about access as in VIII.D.1.b.

 

VIII.E.9.f. 

Feedback: "The chair should have the power to subpoena witnesses . . . that is, the power to require a needed witness’ attendance.... Further, excusing a needed witness should be the responsibility of the Hearings Board Chair, not the Director of Student Conduct." (April 17^th memo)

Our response: We've added language to address both of these issues.

 

VIII.E.9.j.

Feedback: "In the spirit of evenhandedness, this should specifically provide that an accusing student can be removed from a hearing also." (April 17^th memo)

Our response: We've added the phrase "or accusing student(s)."

 

VIII.E.9.l.

Feedback: "If necessary, the chair should be disqualified by the other panel members." (April 17^th memo)

Our response: Melinda Grier, the University's General Counsel, reviewed this provision for us and urged us to abandon the proposed notion of a vote by secret ballot. As she explains: "in general in Oregon, in administrative proceedings, bias or conflict of interest is not decided by a vote of the members of a body.  Instead issues of bias are raised and then the individual who is perceived to have a personal bias must decide whether to disqualify her or himself." - We have followed Melinda's suggestion, and have redrafted the entire provision. We feel that this change also addresses the spirit of the feedback we received (at issue seemed to be a concern about undue authority being granted to the Director).

 

VIII.E.9.m. 

Feedback: "This provision provides stated consequences for only student witnesses that provide false information.  All witnesses – faculty, staff, non-students, etc. . . – should be subject to the same consequences for providing false information.  The student specific provision should be removed." (April 17^th memo)

Our response: The student-specific provision has been removed.

The Student Conduct Code can and should articulate community standards shared by all members -- faculty, students and staff -- of our community. However the Code's primary function is to inculcate those standards in students specifically. We've managed nonetheless to revise the language of this provision to, at least, indicate the possible repercussions of untruthful testimony for any witness in a panel hearing.

 

VIII.E.9.o. 

Feedback: "Should be changed to clear and convincing for suspension and expulsion consistent with VII.E.8." (April 17^th memo)

Our response: This point addresses an inconsistency in the proposed code. The Ad Hoc committee reviewed this inconsistency, and ultimately decided to change VII.E.8 to make it consistent with VIII.E.9.o.

Our reasoning was as follows: preponderance of information (e.g. something is more likely to have occurred than not) is the general standard used in administrative law; as administrative proceedings, these hearings rightly (in our view) take that standard as the default starting point. Expulsion -- the most serious sanction available, and one that permanently removes a student from the University community -- should require a higher standard of proof. Our decision was to follow the current conduct practice and to single out expulsion for a standard of "clear and convincing."

 

VIII.E.9.p. 

Feedback: "This provision reiterates the rule of evidence used in administrative law proceedings.  It would make more sense and more clear to say so directly, and refer to the established rules." (April 17^th memo)

Our response: Melinda Grier, University General Counsel, drafted new language for this provision.

 

 

Article IX: Alternative Dispute Resolution

IX.A.1. 

Feedback: "The time to request mediation should be at the time of the meeting to discuss resolution of the case, consistent with timeline to respond in the original notice." (April 17^th memo)

Our response: We've changed the language to "within fourteen days."

 

 

Article X: Appeals

X.D.

Feedback: "“If an accused student fails to attend the hearing . . .” should also include the accusing party." (April 17^th memo)

Our response: We've added the following phrase: "Similarly, if the complainant(s) either fails to attend the hearing or to present information in some other format approved by the hearings panel,  they too may not appeal except to show with direct information that they did not receive notice of the hearing."

 

 

Article XIII: Administration of the Conduct System

XIII.A.2

Feedback: "Files should be kept no longer than six months after graduation."

Our response: Melinda Grier has reviewed the state law concerning conduct records retention, and she recommends that we simply delete this provision. State law is very precise in determining how long conduct records must be retained; we do not have the authority to stipulate our own provisions. The provision has been deleted.

 

XIII.E.2. 

Feedback: "This provision should be omitted.  Code interpretation sets policy and defines procedures.  These are tasks for the Student Conduct Committee.  This provision conflicts with other provisions that require student input in all matters affecting student conduct."

Our response: The provision has been deleted.

 

 

*  *  *

 

 

II.Y. 

Feedback: "“University premises” should not include the language “including adjacent sidewalks and streets.”  That language is vague and provides insufficient notice to student’s of the university’s physical jurisdiction." (April 17th memo)

Our response: The language about 'adjacent sidewalks and streets' is consistent with federal law and crime reporting. Because the University is held accountable, for the purposes of federal law and in terms of crime reporting, for any activity happening on our adjacent sidewalks and streets, it made sense to us that the Conduct Code should use this language for the purposes of defining University premises.

 

 

III.A.1. 

Feedback: "Delete this provision.  If it does nothing more than what is currently being done, as suggested in the small group meetings, then it is unnecessary.  Eliminating this provision would resolve concerns that it appears to increase the university administration’s authority over student conduct. Since that is not its intent it should be removed." (April 17th memo)

Our response:  The language here is intended to update 571-21-029 in the current code, and in our view does so straightforwardly and effectively.

 

 

IV. G. 

Feedback: "The statute of limitations should be six months from discovery by a “University Official” meaning “any person employed by the University, performing assigned administrative or professional responsibilities.”  Article I. X.  These are individuals with authority at the university and should encourage timely reporting of incidents." (April 17th memo)

Our response: In our view, the feedback on this point confuses two quite distinct concerns: the speed with which the University takes action following a specific complaint, and the speed with which that complaint is lodged. Neither of these concerns directly address the issue being sought here: namely, a statute of limitations for hearing code violations. The solution offered here seemed unacceptable to us in it creates a burden on university faculty and staff to report any conduct code violation they learn about. This provision, in our view, would have a chilling effect on mentoring and advising situations.

 

VIII.A.

Feedback: "This provision is very confusing.  The reference to 1 year should be meaningful or removed.  The provision should encourage individuals to promptly file complaints and should clearly state the statute of limitations, 6 months from when a university official knows of an incident (consistent with IV. G.), and an absolute limit of one year from the date of any incident." (April 17th memo)

Our response: Again, as with IV.G, we felt that there has been a confusion between two issues: 1) the speed with which complaints are filed after the alleged incident occurs; 2) the speed with which the University acts once a complaint has been filed. IV.G. addresses #2; this provision addresses #1. Neither of these provisions is meant to generate a "statute of limitations" precisely; no such statute exists in the current conduct code, and after weighing this feedback carefully we re-affirmed our sense that such a statute is not appropriate within a code dedicated to educational principles.We agreed that the University should do everything in its power -- short of compulsion -- to encourage complainants to file promptly. We felt that it is necessary to maintain a certain amount of flexibility, especially given the wide range of misconduct addressed by the code.

 

 

VIII. B.

Feedback: Hilary Berkman, the ASUO Executive and Student Members of the Student Conduct Code Committee expressed concern about the possibility of electronic mail being used as sole means of official written notice.

Our response: This provision is consistent with the new University policy regarding email. All students and employees are now required to check their University email accounts regularly. Nonetheless, we have added language in C.3 to reflect the seriousness of written notice concerning panel hearings.

 

Our response:

 

 

VIII.D. Informal Conference

Feedback: Hilary Berkman, the ASUO Executive and Student Members of the Student Conduct Code Committee proposed the possibility of adding language to the Code that would enable an appeal process from the administrative conference to the university appeals board.

Our response: The administrative conference exists precisely in order to create a more streamlined, less protracted resolution to accusations of misconduct. This sort of conference is especially helpful for the literally thousands of conduct cases every year that entail relatively small offenses, and are subject to relatively minor sanctions. To create an appeals process for this sort of conference would inevitably create the need for a more intensive hearing process; otherwise, such appeals would become little more than occasions for students to object to unwelcome outcomes. To remove the threat of a panel hearing In our eyes, this suggestion would ultimately turn all conduct proceedings into panel hearings. A grievance process is already in place for any abuses that might occur in such a conference. It's the same sort of process that students might undergo if they feel they've been evaluated unfairly in a course.

 

 

VIII.E.9.n.

Feedback: "The Director should be excluded from the Board deliberations.  The Director is responsible for charging a student with misconduct on behalf of the university.  He or she also has access to information surrounding cases that may not be in the record, and has an interest in policy determinations.  Therefore, the presence of the Director gives at least an appearance of bias.  The Board should deliberate alone and direct its legal questions to its legal advisor." (April 17^th memo)

Our response: We disagreed about the appearance or reality of bias here -- especially given our shift in this proposed Code away from a judicial and toward an educational conduct model. Furthermore, there are times when the hearings panel may need access to staff for clarification or information. As the staff member chiefly responsible for the administration of the conduct system and for developing procedural rules for the panel hearings, the Director should not be excluded from panel deliberations.

 

VIII.E.9.t. 

Feedback: "An accused student has an interesting deciding and should have the authority to decide whether he or she wants to be heard together or individually with other accused students." (April 17^th memo)

Our response: We disagreed. We find it perfectly appropriate for this decision, along with the decision to charge the student(s) in the first place, to be in the hands of the Director.

 

VIII.11. 

Feedback: "This provision is too broad.  It allows the hearing environment to be manipulated.  The fact that the request is made on the basis of “personal safety, well being, and/or fears” suggests that the hearing panel will be able to draw those inferences from the accommodation despite being directed not to do so.  It is absolutely unclear what “well being” might mean.  Also, it allows written statements of an accuser, thereby eliminating the possibility of questioning that person.  An accused student should always have the opportunity to question his or her accuser.  Fear of cross examination has been overwhelmingly addressed by eliminating cross examination.  Eliminating the presence or questioning of a material witness is too accommodating.  Further, the provision is unbalanced because it requires a person who opposes an accommodation to respond in writing, but does not require that an individual requesting an accommodation put that request in writing.  The rule should require that a request for accommodation be in writing to the hearings panel, and identify the need for the accommodation.  The other party should then have an opportunity to respond to the request, and the hearing panel should make a decision." (April 17^th memo)

Our response: The SCC worked on this language extensively; we in the Ad Hoc committee could find no compelling reason to alter their work. The accommodations seemed extremely responsive to concerns often raised by alleged victims of sexual misconduct and other violent misconduct, and the provisions whereby opposing parties can object to those accommodations also seemed to us reasonable and fair.