University needs clear policy on student discipline

Bisons athletes mess shows that coaches have too much power, and the university too much secrecy

Tessa Vanderhart and Magally Zelaya, Staff

Secrets are interesting, sure — it's hard not to wonder what is being concealed. But in a professional environment we have to wonder: who stands to gain from not telling?

When the Manitoban reported on an incident some Bisons athletes had with campus security at the beginning of October, Security Services, the U of M administration, Bison Athletics and, eventually, the student-athletes themselves all declined to provide information — but in attempting to get to the bottom of this mess, it became clear that the university needs to improve its student discipline policy and be realistic about what is worth keeping secret.On Oct. 2, three Bisons track athletes were walking home from campus, intoxicated. Security Services caught them in the act of attempting to knock over a garbage can — a $250 garbage receptacle, that is — and two of the student-athletes were apprehended.

One of these students left a message on a Manitoban staff member’s answering machine, claiming to have been “pummelled.”

Of course, the Manitoban contacted these students — apparently roughed-up by campus security for a bit of drunken hooliganism.

The students, when contacted, were much more forgiving. One said he wasn’t even detained, but allowed to leave immediately. The other — one of the university’s best athletes — said that he was asked to lie on the ground while an officer handcuffed him. Then, he said, he was taken to the campus security office where he was detained for an hour and a half.

At this point, the story became interesting.

We contacted Security Services, who said to call Public Affairs; Public Affairs said to call Security Services.

And then, the day after speaking with the Manitoban, the student who claimed to have been detained called back. He retracted his statement and requested that the Manitoban not print or pursue the story, out of concern for his scholarship and place on the track team. The other student made the same request when contacted for a follow-up.

This was one day later; all that had changed was that we had contacted Security Services, making them aware of our interest in covering the story.

We were made aware that the track coach, Claude Berube, did not want the story to be pursued. So we contacted him to ask why not. In response, Berube would say only

“That story is over and done with, and I would prefer that there be nothing at all talked about that story. It’s an in-house issue that we dealt with.”

This is where the questions were raised: how is it “in-house,” and what is “in-house?” Apparently athletes get the benefit of being disciplined by the Bison Athletics Code of Conduct. It’s up to the code, really, to determine whether knocking over a garbage can merits a verbal warning or suspension.

Curt Workentin, Bisons athletics associate director, explained that Bisons coaches have the authority to decide how a student-athlete will be punished, and whether to notify the university administration of student punishment.

In that case, why would a coach bother to go do the administration? He can avoid media attention, not to mention losing his star athletes to suspension, by keeping it within the athletics department.

The university’s reason for the lack of a more definitive policy — one that would spell out an appropriate punishment for an inappropriate action — is simply that it should be up to the coaches; the coaches are trustworthy, Workentin said, and besides, the university would be inundated with problems if every single one went through the administration.

And the third reason, possibly most ridiculous, is that allowing the coaches to punish student-athletes builds team camaraderie — fostering strong relationships that will foster relationships between teammates.

Yes, that’s right — the fostering of team relationships is the reason why the university chooses to stay out of the punishment of student-athletes, leaving it all to the coaches.

And the only policy these coaches are required to abide by is the ineffective athletics code of conduct.

When asked where to look for further policies on student discipline, Public Affairs was no more help. We were referred to the Winnipeg Police Service — who probably have to tell the university about students’ off-campus crimes, U of M director of public affairs John Danakas said, which could not be confirmed before press time — and the university’s Respectful Work and Learning Policy, which deals with human rights discrimination. The university was recently found guilty of violating the collective agreement with the U of M Faculty Association in the way that coaches’ positions were covertly changed from having academic rank. Because those contracts were overturned, coaches continue to be members of UMFA.

What the Manitoba Labour Board’s ruling did do, however, was make the financial reasons for keeping top players out of trouble very clear.

L. Halket, U of M staff relations officer, when presenting Bisons football coach Brian Dobie with the proposed new contract model, “mentioned to Mr. Dobie that there could be bonuses for extraordinary performances including winning national championships.”

Regardless of academic or non-academic rank — under UMFA’s collective agreement, performance incentives are allowed — this makes clear that Bisons track coach Claude Berube, one of the coaches mentioned by name in the ruling, could stand to gain financially and professionally by keeping his mouth shut and his stars on the track.

Are we pushing this too far?

Even Workentin admitted that, under the current policies, abuse of the system is possible.

But a coach’s priority, he said, is “to help shape young people, and to help them grow and go through life lessons.”

Ultimately, though, without clear policy it is impossible to say what the motives are behind coaches’ disciplinary measures.

And — whatever happened to the “pummelling?” Was it simply drunken exaggeration, or is all this secrecy actually for a reason?

The fact is, this is no longer about the students. Though their case file is still open, garbage cans — no matter how expensive they are — are not what the story is about.

It’s about transparency and accountability and fairness and clear guidelines — not only for the administration, but also to give students a clear understanding of what they can and cannot do.

Skirting questions does nothing but prevent us from providing students with this information. The comment from public affairs was that it would be a breach of the students’ privacy to comment.

And perhaps it would. We still haven’t disclosed the names of the track athletes who were involved, to at least partially honour their request, but also because we’re only trying to understand and explain what we see as an important story.

Should student-athletes be held to different rules than others? More importantly, should coaches? Should a theatre professor or band instructor have the jurisdiction to punish their students as they see fit?

No. The policy for the discipline of student-athletes should be the same as it is for any other student — and the university should know, and be able to explain, what that policy is.

Unfortunately, the university’s student discipline bylaw is just as unclear and effectively useless as the athletics code of conduct. And a newly proposed student discipline bylaw was referred by the Board of Governors back to committee this summer — who knows when it will resurface, or if it will be any more clear?