Inside Iowa State: Iowa State University

November 13, 2002

Senate raises questions about proposed student disruption policy

A proposed policy to deal with disruptive students raised several questions during the Nov. 12 Faculty Senate meeting, including how to define disruption and protect students' rights.

The proposed Policy for Dealing with Classroom Disruption defines disruptive behaviors as actions that interfere with an instructor's ability to ensure a safe environment, control the class agenda and deliver the approved curriculum.

Under the proposed policy, a student who disrupts a class first would be asked to stop. If the disruption continued, the instructor could ask to have the student suspended from the class, pursue student disciplinary regulations or seek police intervention.

Suspension requests would need approval of the department chair or program director. Upon that approval, the student would be suspended while the chair conducted an investigation. The student would receive written notice of the suspension and results of the investigation.

Those results might include conditions for allowing students back in the course. Further disruption could result in termination from the course and disciplinary action, according the proposed policy.

If the department chair determines a student should terminated from the course, the chair would notify appropriate university officials and inform the student of the reasons for the dismissal and his/her right to appeal through the Appeal of Academic Grievances process.

During the investigation, the instructor or chair also would determine if the incident should be reported to the Dean of Students for disciplinary charges.

Some senators argued that the definition of disruptive behaviors was too vague, while others cautioned against developing a "laundry list" of disruptive behaviors.

"Sometimes disruption can mean the student doesn't agree with my opinions or perspective," said Gary Mattson, community and regional planning. "The policy needs to be more specific about what disruptive behaviors are." "I know we can't define every instance of disruptive behavior," said Gary Phye, psychology, "and I agree it's nice to leave it up to the professor, but students have rights too. There needs to be a trigger mechanism that starts the process. What I read now (in the policy) is that it is whatever I as the teacher defines disruptive behavior to be."

Carolyn Heising, industrial and manufacturing systems engineering, suggested the policy refer to "serious or extremely serious disruption so it's not just a disagreement with the instructor. We need to protect the students' rights too."

Stephanie Madon, psychology, opposed too specific a definition of disruptive behavior. "If it's too narrowly defined, then we're boxed in." Other senators raised questions about what termination from the class meant and how it would be treated. Some said students should receive an "F" for the course, and others said it should be treated as a withdrawal.

The proposed policy deals mainly with students who are enrolled in a course, and makes it clear that anyone not enrolled in a course, such as those auditing a course or visitors, may be in the class solely at the discretion of the instructor.

The proposed policy will be revised and considered by the senate at its Dec. 10 meeting, which will begin at 7:30 p.m. in the North Prairie Room, Gateway Center.