Students’ tongues have been wagging all around Saint Louis University’s campus about the Classroom Civility Initiative, a document drafted by the Civility in the Classroom Committee. While the proposal is intended to “create an educational climate of excellence and respect,” some students have expressed doubts.

“College is supposed to be a time of freedom and self-monitoring,” said Amanda Reed, a sophomore in the College of Arts and Sciences. “If students are not allowed to do that, we might as well go back to high school.”

The initiative, which has yet to be approved by Provost Joe Weixlmann, classifies misbehaviors and gives guidelines for faculty reactions. Behaviors are divided by degree of intensity into four types: A, B, C and D.

Type A behaviors are considered minor and include text messaging and frequent tardiness. Type B behaviors are repeated Type A offenses. Those infractions would be dealt with in the classroom by the faculty or staff member and would not be referred to the Conduct Office.

Type C behaviors are those that can result in a “guarded classroom environment” and include harassing comments and ridicule. Type D is the most extreme offenses-violent rage or threats, for example. These behaviors would be referred to the Conduct Office for further judicial action.

Proactive actions are also suggested, such as “conduct[ing] workshops for faculty” and explaining of academic conduct expectations through U101 and SLU 101.

The committee has been working with SGA on the project, which resulted in a revised second draft.

“The first draft was in definite need of improvement, but students were able to voice their opinion and get changes made,” SGA President Andrew Clifton said.

SGA drafted their first version of a student section for the initiative and presented it at the Nov. 7 SGA meeting. (For further details, see “SGA senators present draft of student section in Civility Code.”)

However, many students have remained skeptical and sometimes critical of the document.

SGA Commuter Senator Paul Spica felt that civility is not really the issue at hand.

“The document mixes etiquette and ethics, which should not be done,” he said.

Student opposition has also manifested itself in a Facebook group called “Say NO to ‘Civility in the Classroom!’,” which has garnered nearly 650 members.

Sarah Klucker, from the Office of Student Conduct said that the intentions of the document are far from totalitarian and Paaige Turner, Ph.D., the Chair of the Civility in the Classroom Committee, said the intention is to create an environment of excellence and respect.

“Classroom civility is a national issue,” Turner said when explaining the necessity of the document at SLU.

She said that the issue has come up increasingly over the past five years in student development listservs, conferences, research, workplace, as well as popular literature.

The current Code of Conduct is strictly non-academic in nature, and, during the past two years, several cases were sent to her office that had taken place in academic settings. Those instances caused confusion because the Student Conduct Board is not technically supposed to handle infractions in academic settings. A faculty committee started drafting the document as a way to eliminate what Klucker describes as a “gray area” in the Code of Conduct.

The next big step for the document is the provost’s approval. In the meantime, according to Klucker, the Classroom Civility Initiative is an ever-changing, organic document. She said that the faculty is pleased at the feedback and discussion, because it enables revisions that can create a version that both students and faculty can agree on.