Vice-Chancellor’s Statement Misguided

Vice-Chancellor’s Statement Misguided

Otago University Students’ Association (OUSA) President Renée Heal is today disappointed that she must clear up public misconceptions after a misguided statement released by the Vice-Chancellor of Otago University, Professor David Skegg. Heal is frustrated that the letter was sent to all students without consultation with OUSA, especially given that OUSA has no mechanism to contact all students to clarify its position.

In a statement sent to all Dunedin-based students, Skegg commented that the Code of Conduct was not “legally flawed” and that OUSA opposition to the Code came at “the eleventh hour.” In reality OUSA has always opposed the University’s claim to be entitled to discipline students for conduct that occurs off campus and not in relation to University events. OUSA’s objection has consistently been based on its legal advice that that form of disciplinary action is outside the University’s powers under the Education Act.

“If it is outside the University’s legal powers under the Education Act then the Code cannot be used to discipline students for off campus events,” said OUSA President Renée Heal.

“OUSA’s legal advice is that a challenge to the Code could well result in parts of the Code being declared invalid, or the University’s intended application of the Code being declared unlawful. This is precisely the situation OUSA tried to avoid in suggesting amendments to the Code of Conduct in 2006 in order to make it intra vires,” Heal said.

Skegg has commented that in previous proceedings “the offences have occurred either on campus, or away from the campus but always in circumstances where there was a connection with the University.” OUSA is firmly of the view that this cannot be proved in the case of the events on August 25th.

Heal is concerned at the back-door process through which students may be excluded, and encourages any student involved to contact OUSA for advice and support.

OUSA has always maintained that confidential discussions with only two student representatives is inadequate consultation for a document that has such wide-ranging implications.

ENDS

© Scoop Media