OUSA has maintained a policy opposing the controversial code of conduct since it was ramped up by the university council in 2006 to include off-campus ructions in response to a rise in unruly student behaviour in North Dunedin.
A recent OUSA referendum has resulted in a change of policy for the organisation, which has softened its stance against the code to allow a student representative to be readmitted to the university council's disciplinary appeals committee.
About 1505 students, or 59% of the total 2551 votes cast, were in favour of the OUSA adopting a neutral stance regarding the code of conduct, 10% were against the motion and the rest abstained.
Students have two representatives on the university council, but they have been barred from hearing code of conduct disciplinary appeals because of a conflict of interest arising from the OUSA policy.
OUSA education officer Katherine Reid - a student representative on the council - said the referendum result was "not particularly surprising" and signalled an acceptance by students of the code of conduct.
Measures implemented under the code, such as campus watch, were now accepted and "even seen as a positive change by many students", she said.
"Students remain free to oppose the code at individual and group levels.
The way we see it now is, move on with it and see it is applied in the best interest of and in fairness for our members," Ms Reid said.
Given the confidentiality surrounding disciplinary appeals under the code, it had been "almost impossible to tell" whether a lack of student representation had affected decisions, she said.
University of Otago communications manager Megan McPherson said the change in OUSA's stance would likely lead to the inclusion of student members on all appeals board panels.
OUSA's policy had created a conflict of interest because disciplinary appeals were administered under the code of conduct, which the association was opposed to.
Since the two student members of the university council were appointed by OUSA, it had not been possible to include them in hearings related to breaches of the code of student conduct, Mrs McPherson said.
"The university has always emphasised the value it places on having student involvement in the appeals process. Now that OUSA recognises the code ... the university council will be able to include a student member on all appeals board panels," she said.
Timeline
September 2006: University of Otago council adopts a new code of student conduct, which for the first time gave it the ability to punish students for off-campus incidents; OUSA decides to take legal action against the move. University council drops student representatives from disciplinary appeals board, citing "conflict of interest".
November 2007: Disciplinary measures against student code of conduct breaches more than double after new code adopted - netting more than $18,000 in fines.
October 2009: OUSA loses High Court judicial review questioning the legality of the university code of conduct.
March 2010: OUSA decides to drop appeal against the High Court's judicial review decision affirming the code's legality and the conflict of interest.
June 2011: Students vote for OUSA to adopt "neutral stance" on the code of conduct and support the reinstatement of student representatives to disciplinary appeals.
