BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 186
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB
186 (Jackson)
As Amended April 16, 2015
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE: 35-0
------------------------------------------------------------------
|Committee |Votes|Ayes |Noes |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------|
|Higher |11-0 |Medina, Baker, Bloom, | |
|Education | |Chávez, Irwin, | |
| | |Jones-Sawyer, Levine, | |
| | |Linder, Low, | |
| | |Santiago, Williams | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Authorizes a California Community College District
(CCD) to remove, suspend, or expel a student for sexual assault,
as specified. Specifically, this bill:
1)Authorizes a CCD to remove, suspend or expel a student for
specified sexual assault conduct that is unrelated to college
SB 186
Page 2
activity or attendance.
2)Provides that the statutes prohibiting a student from being
removed, suspended, or expelled unless the conduct for which
the student is being disciplined is related to college
activity or college attendance are not intended to limit the
ability of a CCD to take appropriate action in compliance with
federal law.
3)Expands the definition of "good cause" for which a CCD may
suspend or expel a student to include both of the following:
a) Sexual assault, defined as actual or attempted sexual
contact with another person without that person's consent,
regardless of the victim's affiliation with the CCD, as
specified.
b) Sexual exploitation, defined as a person taking sexual
advantage of another person for the benefit of anyone other
than that person without that person's consent, regardless
of the victim's affiliation with the CCD, as specified.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Authorizes a California Community College (CCC), the president
of a CCC, or the president's designee, or an instructor to
suspend a student for good cause, as defined; authorizes the
governing board to expel a student for good cause when other
means of correction fail to bring about proper conduct, or
when the presence of the student causes a continuing danger to
the physical safety of the student or others; requires the
suspension or expulsion of a student to be accompanied by a
hearing as provided; and, authorizes a CCD to require a
SB 186
Page 3
student whom the district has a protective order against to
apply for reinstatement. (Education Code (EDC) Section 76030)
2)Prohibits the removal suspension or expulsion of a community
college student unless the conduct resulting in the
disciplinary action is related to college activity or college
attendance. (EDC Section 76034)
3)Authorizes a governing board of a CCD to deny enrollment,
permit enrollment, or permit conditional enrollment to a
student who has been expelled or is being considered for
expulsion from another CCD within the preceding five years for
specified offenses, following a hearing and appeal process.
(EDC Section 76038)
4)Requires, under federal Title IX (20 United States Code
Sections 1681 to 1688), public and private postsecondary
educational institutions that participate in the federal
financial aid program to establish certain rights for victims
of sexual assault.
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown. This bill is keyed non-fiscal by the
Legislative Counsel.
COMMENTS: Background. On November 12, 2014, the author
participated in a roundtable at UC Santa Barbara (UCSB), hosted
by the Assembly Higher Education Committee, to review UCSB's
handling of sexual assault complaints. Roundtable attendees
included representatives of UCSB and Santa Barbara Community
College (SBCC). According to testimony provided by SBCC
representatives, current law (EDC Section 76034) has been
interpreted to prohibit a CCD from taking action to suspend or
expel a student found to have violated a campus misconduct
policy, even in cases of rape, unless the misconduct occurred on
the college campus.
SB 186
Page 4
CCC Chancellor's Office opinion. In 2007, the CCC Chancellor's
Office issued Legal Opinion L 07-07 to provide guidance to CCDs
regarding the authority to discipline a student. The opinion
notes that EDC Section 76034 imposes a significant limitation on
the ability of a CCD to impose discipline for conduct even if
that conduct is criminal in nature. However, it goes on to
state that in 1966 the Attorney General indicated that this
language in a predecessor statute "should not be interpreted to
mean that school districts could only impose discipline for
conduct that actually occurred at school and during school
hours. Instead, the Attorney General determined that if a
district could identify a link between the conduct and school
activities or attendance, then conduct that occurred away from
school could be considered for disciplinary purposes." The
opinion notes that if a student commits a crime that has nothing
to do with a college activity or with college attendance, the
college will be hard-pressed to suspend or expel for that
conduct.
UC and CSU Policies. There is no similar statutory restriction
on the University of California (UC) extension of its
jurisdiction over issues of student conduct beyond the campus.
The UC reports that its campuses have exercised this discretion
in the interpretation and application of student conduct code
expectations and discipline when it determines that the conduct
endangers the campus community. According to the California
State University (CSU), Title V regulations specifically state
that conduct that threatens the safety or security of the campus
community, or substantially disrupts the functions or operation
of the University is within this jurisdiction whether it occurs
on or off campus.
Analysis Prepared by:
Laura Metune / HIGHER ED. / (916) 319-3960 FN:
SB 186
Page 5
0001068