The first major purpose of the UHR is to consolidate housing regulations. It didn’t make sense to have three different sets of rules that all basically said the same thing. We combined the three documents, incorporating what minor differences existed between them. The second key part of the UHR is the elimination of overlap between the General Student Regulations and the housing policies.

On Saturday, August 25, the new University Housing Regulations took effect. The UHR is particularly special to me because I was one of its principal authors. During the 2016-17 school year, I served on the University Committee on Student Affairs, and I was the chair of the UCSA Subcommittee on Policy, which drafted the UHR. I want to take this opportunity to tell you a little bit about the UHR’s policy effects and the tremendous challenges my team and I faced in getting them passed.

What does the UHR do?

The UHR is the set of policies governing conduct within MSU’s residence halls and apartments. Whether you live in an undergraduate residence hall, Owen Hall, or one of MSU’s apartments, this document applies to you. The regulations also apply to anyone visiting one of those places.

As further explained below, it consolidates three different sets of housing regulations and reduces overlap between those rules and the General Student Regulations.

How did the UHR come to be?

The UHR replaces three old documents, namely the Residence Hall Regulations, the Residence Hall Regulations – Owen, and the University Apartments Community Bill of Rights and Responsibilities. The RHR, which had been around since the late eighties, was identical to the RHR-O, excluding one policy relating to toaster ovens. The UACBRR, which dealt with MSU’s apartments, was stylistically different than the RHR and RHR-O, but it was substantively similar.

In September of 2016, I was the Assistant Director of ASMSU’s Student Rights Advocates, a department of the undergraduate student government that defended students at conduct hearings (read more about it beginning on p. 167 of my book). Part of my duties that year involved a thorough review of MSU’s policies. I, alongside my department’s Director, Mitchell Bild, noted several problems with the housing regulations. We drafted about a dozen proposed changes and took them to the University Committee on Student Affairs, which we were both appointed to in anticipation of the project.

Rather than give the changes a simple up-or-down vote, UCSA opted to form a smaller working group to address further potential changes. What became the Subcommittee on Policy also included administrators whose expertise would be helpful in dealing with the various regulations. The Subcommittee asked me to chair it, and I accepted.

In addition to myself, the Subcommittee’s members included:

Mitchell Bild, Director of Student Rights Advocates and James Madison College senior

Seth Betman, a member of ASMSU’s Freshman Class Council and JMC freshman (and the current Assistant Director of Student Rights Advocates)

Amanda Knox, a graduate student representing COGS

Rick Shafer, the Associate Director of Student Life, Student Conduct, and Conflict Resolution

Jess Rehling, then-Assistant Director for Residential Student Conduct

Maja Myszkowski, then-Student Conduct Officer (now the Assistant Director for Residential Student Conduct)

Robert Caldwell, then-University Ombudsperson

Kristine Zayko, then-General Counsel

Ehsan Ahmed, Professor of Romance and Classical Studies

Over several months, the Subcommittee drafted the UHR and proposed amendments to the General Student Regulations and the Student Rights and Responsibilities document.

So really, what does the UHR do?

The first major purpose of the UHR is to consolidate housing regulations. It didn’t make sense to have three different sets of rules that all basically said the same thing. We combined the three documents, incorporating what minor differences existed between them.

The second key part of the UHR is the elimination of overlap between the General Student Regulations and the housing policies. The GSR governs the conduct of all students, whether they live on campus or not. The problem was that the GSR and the three sets of housing regulations contained many rules that addressed the same behavior; if you were accused of harassing someone, for example, you could be charged with violating both the applicable GSR and RHR. Students were regularly being charged twice for the same behavior. The UHR eliminated the overlapping behavior so that one action was met with one charge.

Who had to approve this?

To first step was to approve it through what I call “housing-level governing groups.” This included the Residence Halls Association, the Owen Graduate Association, and the University Apartments Council of Residents.

We ended up passing it through RHA twice (once in 2017 and once in 2018) due to a mutual mistake involving the documentation of the vote, but both votes were unanimous. UACOR also agreed fairly quickly. OGA, on the other hand, proved difficult to convince; after two votes on the question, a town hall discussion about it, and a third vote (this time of the entire building’s residents), OGA eventually passed it.

After that, we had to get it approved by both ASMSU and COGS, the undergraduate and graduate student governments, respectively. ASMSU passed it unanimously. COGS initially defeated the measure in a nine-to-ten vote with sixteen abstentions, but eventually passed it by a margin of twenty-six to seven, with eleven abstentions. The reason for its initial failure had to do with lingering concerns from OGA; it’s far too long a story to tell here, but if you ever see me at The Peanut Barrel, I’d be happy to share it.

Once ASMSU and COGS approved of it, UCSA had to formally pass it. Of course, we knew it was coming because we wrote it, but it passed.

At that point, it was up to the Vice President for Student Affairs and Services, Denise Maybank. UCSA advises Vice President Maybank, so she was aware of the document. During the summer of 2018, Maybank gave her official approval.

Is this good for me?

Probably. If you live on campus, you can rest easy knowing that you’ll only be charged with violating one regulation should you (allegedly) do something wrong. Furthermore, there is now one central spot for you to see what the rules are, no matter which on-campus building you call home.

There were also some substantive amendments. For example, RHR 1.8 used to read, “No person shall fail to make an effort to discourage another person from violating a regulation and/or to report a violation of which one has knowledge.” For obvious reasons, this policy, colloquially called “Failure to Discourage,” was charged often.

The UHR got rid of Failure to Discourage and replaced it with UHR 1.8 and 1.9., which read, “No person shall remain in the vicinity of an ongoing policy violation of which they have knowledge,” and “No person shall fail to report a policy violation of which one has knowledge where such violation causes or threatens to cause a substantial negative impact on the safety of members of the University community,” respectively. In short, you’re no longer on the hook for reporting minor/common violations that you know about. If your underage friend is drinking in her room, your only obligation is to leave; you’re no longer required to turn them in.

What effect will this have on the average resident?

Almost none. Unless a resident gets in trouble with the University, they will not notice anything different under the UHR. If they do get accused of violating the UHR, they will find the regulations are clearer and less redundant than under previous changes.

I hate what you’ve done and want to change it. How do I do so?

While I’m a little hurt by the hypothetical, I suppose that’s your right. In order to save future advocates from some of the headaches my team and I faced, the amendment process for the UHR is fairly streamlined.

Any resident can submit proposals to their respective housing-level governing group (RHA, OGA, or UACOR). If that group approves of a proposed amendment, it must notify the other two groups that it is sending the measure to ASMSU and COGS. Both ASMSU and COGS must then pass the proposal, after hearing from the other two groups.

This part of the amendment process is what gave some dissenters pause. They worried that a regulation that adversely affected one housing constituency being shoved on it by the other two. My team and I worked hard to imagine such an amendment that could feasibly pass the rest of the process, and we failed to come up with one; none of the dissenters ever did either.

If ASMSU and COGS both pass the proposal, it goes to UCSA, and then to the Vice President for Student Affairs and Services.

Closing Thoughts

Thanks for reading this far in a post about a traditionally-boring subject. At this point, I should take a second to say “thanks” to three people who did not serve on the Subcommittee on Policy, but without whom the UHR would not have passed.

First, former ASMSU’s former President, Lorenzo Santavicca, provided me and my team with immense leeway and flexibility to pursue a rather niche issue. He kept us in line and inspired us to work harder, and we appreciate him for that.

After my time on UCSA and with ASMSU ended, Student Rights Advocates continued the fight to make sure it passed the last few governing bodies. Haley Gold was the department’s office assistant when we wrote the UHR, and as the Director from 2017 to 2018, she did a great job of finishing what the team started.

Sarah Ghazal is now the Director of the program, but she was an SRA intern from 2016 to 2017 and my successor as Assistant Director the next year. She had this to say about the UHR’s passage:

The UHR passing is a great step toward making sure students know their rights and there is no confusion as to what they’re being “charged with”. Seeing that students were essentially being charged with the same policy violations twice within our conduct system and being able to help make a change for the better was a major accomplishment for our office. It is, of course, a personal accomplishment to be able to have helped pushed University policy through all of the different governing bodies needed. I learned a lot about how these policies impact students, and how unaware many of them are of the rules they’ve signed on to follow once they agree to live on campus here at MSU. More importantly, I learned just how far the student voice can go, and I hope that these policy changes can act as a sign that the student voice matters and that students can and should take the lead to change the University for the better.

I’ll close by saying that if you should be accused of violating the UHR (and believe me, it happens), I encourage you to contact Student Rights Advocates at (517) 884-1253. Finally, I hope that the UHR goes to show what can happen when students get involved in academic governance, and I urge interested parties to reach out to your ASMSU or COGS representative and inquire about serving on a University Committee.

Tyler Silvestri Tyler Silvestri is a third-year law student at MSU who received his bachelor’s degree in Political Theory & Constitutional Democracy from MSU’s James Madison College in 2017. He spent one year as the Assistant Director of ASMSU’s Student Rights Advocates and two years as a Resident Assistant. He is the Chairperson of the University Committee on Academic Governance. He can be reached at Tyler@onthebanksmsu.com. See author's posts