The University of Otago Students Association (OUSA) says it will be expecting the university to be more involved in planning off-campus events such as the Undie 500, now the High Court has upheld the institution's legal right to discipline students under its code of conduct.
"We are now looking forward to the university using its self-proclaimed authority in a more proactive way to stop student misbehaviour from happening," OUSA president Edwin Darlow said yesterday.
"The court . . . has ruled the university has a wider role in maintaining student discipline in the community, and its role cannot be solely a punitive one."
The OUSA asked the High Court to decide whether the university had the legal right to use the code of conduct to discipline students for behaviour off-campus as well as on; in particular, against a student banned from classes for a semester for throwing rubbish at a car and breaking one of its windows during the OUSA-organised toga parade in February.
The OUSA also sought a judgement on whether the university was correct to exclude student representatives from toga parade appeal-board hearings, on the basis student representatives had a conflict of interest because of a formal OUSA resolution opposing the code.
A one-day hearing was held in Dunedin two weeks ago before Justice Gendall, of Wellington.
His decision, released yesterday, favoured the university on each point and invited the university to apply to the OUSA for costs.
Justice Gendall said it was clear the university, under the Education Act, "had a role as a critic and conscience of society" and he was "abundantly clear" it had the power to regulate the conduct of its members, including students.
The code of conduct was "squarely necessary" for the good government and discipline of the university, he said.
Mr Darlow said the OUSA was happy the legality of the code had been clarified.
But he said the decision now required the university "to be part of the solution" when off-campus student events such as the toga parade or Undie 500 were held.
"They cannot say, as they did with the Undie 500 this year, `This is not our problem.' We attempted to talk to them before the Undie 500 about how we might stop student behaviour deteriorating, but they washed their hands of it."
The OUSA was still willing to work with the university to try to stop student behaviour getting out of hand, he said.
Mr Darlow would not say how the university might be proactive and stop student behaviour deteriorating, saying solutions would vary from occasion to occasion.
In a statement, university vice-chancellor Prof Sir David Skegg said yesterday he was "delighted, though not at all surprised", by the decision.
"This finding removes any lingering doubts about the legitimacy of the stance the university has taken with the code and its application."
Despite some "unacceptable lapses", student behaviour had improved steadily in recent years, something he attributed to the code and the university-funded Campus Watch service.
Mr Darlow agreed Campus Watch had "for the most part had a positive impact" but said the university could still do more.
He said he was "stunned" Justice Gendall had upheld the university's decision not to allow student representatives on the code of conduct appeals board, calling it "a baffling point".
"We will be seeking legal action on that part of the decision and considering all options."
If student representatives had a conflict of interest because the OUSA had a formal resolution opposing the code, then university council members might also have a conflict of interest because the council formally supported the code, he said.
"Based on that ruling, everyone at the university has a conflict of interest and no-one should be sitting on the board."
Mr Darlow would not say how much the OUSA had spent to date on the judicial review or how much it might have to pay in costs.
Costs had been "factored in" when the decision was made to proceed with the review, he said.
High Court decision
- University has legal authority under Education Act, 1989, to have and apply code of conduct.
- University has right to discipline students for misconduct which breaches the code, whether on-campus or off-campus.
- To breach the code, misconduct must have sufficient nexus (direct link) with university.
- Whether link is sufficient should be determined on case-by-case basis.
- Misbehaviour of students at the 2009 toga parade fell within university's disciplinary powers.
- University appeals board hearing 2009 toga parade appeals was properly constituted.
- University legally able to exclude student representatives from toga parade appeal hearings because student representatives had a legal bias (conflict of interest).
