Michelle Robarts
The Board of Governors Consultation Council recently opposed the development of certain guidelines and principles as part of a student bill of rights established in March.
Why was this supposed bill for the rights of students never put into effect? Michael S. Magee, a member of the Government Relations division for the California Community College Chancellor’s Office, had some of the answers.
Magee explained that the recent bill of rights, SB 1412, was substantially similar to the Bill SB 5 that Senator Morrow introduced in 2005 which explains why this re-issue of the bill may have been opposed.
“Legislative sessions are two years, this one being 05-06, so it is a more recent phenomenon that the same bill would be reintroduced within the same session,” said Magee.
It is a common misconception among students that those in the higher-up positions of the district, don’t really care about the rights of students.
“The Legislation may be euphemistically named, but it is likely to have the effect of dismantling academic freedom, and squeezing instructors who may be justified in awarding a grade based on merit, or lack thereof,” said Magee
“The rights were originally intended for students who oppose the theory of evolution, those who are against the war in Iraq, etc. In both situations, students have felt that their views resulted in lower grades.”
The rights were important to students because the California Community College system values academic freedom. The biggest concern for most students in college is their grades.
If they express how they feel towards certain issues in the classroom, it can result in the teacher being biased and not giving the student a grade he/she truly deserves.
The main intent for the Bill is to protect the academic rights of students.
“Maintaining academic freedom ensures that our students are provided the best possible instruction,” explained Magee.
One of the most interesting statements in the Bill was a section that explained it would be mandatory to videotape all meetings that involving hiring, promoting and tenure of faculty members.
“Personnel actions such as hiring, promotion, and faculty tenure affect instructors individually and opening up these activities to the scrutiny of the general public would impinge on their right to privacy and administrators would lose the ability to provide constructive feedback.
Instruction in and of itself is an open act, to open up personnel actions would be invasive, unnecessary and unproductive,” Magee said.
The main reason for the opposition in April was that the bill would interfere with academic freedom and procedures established by local community college districts, according to the consensus for the opposition by the Consultation Council.
Along with community colleges, UC’s and CSU’s are also required to have a bill of rights for their students.
Though each type of college has a different committee in charge of putting the bill into effect, the academic freedom of the students is the main concern of all legislations.