At the same time as the start of the “Women, Life, Freedom” movement in 1401, students across the country in universities acted as the beating heart of social movements and protests, in response to the death of Mahsa Amini. These protests were so widespread that student organizations – including Islamic associations, trade unions, and even unofficial groups such as newspapers and sometimes scientific associations – joined the silent and unstoppable movement. Some showed their reaction by publishing statements or diaries that explained and described the daily atrocities of security forces and their inhumane treatment of students, while others peacefully gathered in university courtyards to demand justice and freedom.

This solidarity and interconnectedness between multiple student movements and also with the protesting people on the streets made security institutions take action to prevent the advancement of the movement by mass arrests or heavy disciplinary measures. In fact, universities played a central and important role in the continuation of the movement and protests, and no confrontation or suppression could hinder their courage and bravery. According to official and unofficial statistics, more than a thousand students were faced with security-judicial or disciplinary measures.

These confrontations caused a huge wave in the media and among the people, with titles such as “Suppression of Students and Universities Nationwide”. Therefore, security institutions were determined to suppress this, often relying on the university environment, along with widespread amnesty for detainees by the judicial authority. With this decision, a new disciplinary code was approved by the Ministries of Science and Health in November 1401. This code – or rather “suppression code” – which did not even consider the minimum rights of citizenship, faced numerous negative reactions from the university community due to repeated violations of this amendment.

Even the principles mentioned in the introduction of the code of conduct have undergone fundamental changes and contradictions with the constitution and judicial and criminal procedures, in order to make the relevant provisions more severe. For example, in the principle of the legality of offenses, the clause of referring to legal definitions for the verification of charges has been removed and only reference to the disciplinary code is mentioned. Or in the principle of innocence, the clause of innocence of the student in case of lack of evidence has been removed.

Originally, espionage is said to not have the right to spy on matters unrelated to misconduct. This is while in the disciplinary code of 1998, it was mentioned that evidence obtained through violation of a student’s privacy or other illegal means (such as secretly filming, photographing, or recording, or spying on personal virtual devices and pages belonging to the student, etc.) cannot be used as evidence for the council’s decision. Furthermore, the sixteenth principle of this code officially authorizes the committee to spy on a student’s privacy in matters related to the case.

In fact, the right to fair treatment, clause “T” which includes preventing student harassment for forced confession, has been completely removed. This is while during the movement, some students of the University of Tehran were forced to confess and admit under shock and physical confrontation in the security building.

The right to a hearing also means that a student can present their defenses in written or oral form to the members of the disciplinary council, and in general, it has been eliminated.

In the composition of the ad hoc committee, the presence of a faculty member from the Faculty of Law is mandatory and the number of faculty members has been reduced to one. Therefore, the quorum for holding a meeting (chairperson plus secretary and at least two other members) has been reached and the approval of a vote has been reduced to three members. This means that practically the student and faculty members have been removed. In addition, being a student is a mandatory requirement for a member.

The quorum for approving votes in the review committee has also been reduced to two votes and the quorum for formation has been mentioned as three members.

The important point to note is that if a student is absent from the initial council meeting, their verdict will be issued in absentia. However, if their absence is deemed “justifiable”, they can request a reconsideration session. This is in contrast to the 1998 regulations where meetings were not held without the presence of the student. The disciplinary measures also include inhumane and contrary to student rights. For example, in article 21, students who are issued a ban on studying for one to four semesters will also be deprived of welfare facilities such as housing, meal reservations, etc. Additionally, in the 1998 regulations, obtaining the opinion of the university counseling center was mandatory for disciplinary measures such as deprivation of welfare facilities and cancellation of housing, but this condition has been removed in the new regulations. Article 112 explicitly states that the use of the counseling center’s opinion is only at the discretion of the committee and in necessary cases, and only if it does not prolong the

The next issue that is again a violation of privacy is informing the family. Article 22 of the new regulations states that the disciplinary committee can inform the family in specific violations and upon the discretion of the committee’s chairman, before issuing a verdict and upon receiving a report.

Severe punishment has also been considered for the vague offense of “damaging university property”. In the 1998 regulations, this punishment was limited to a written warning with a note in the student’s file, but now it includes a one-year suspension from studying.

The most important part of the code of conduct is the punishments for violations in the virtual space during the Middle Ages.

The violations of Article 32 of the new regulations, including insults to sacred beliefs and disrespect towards individuals, etc., by forming a group of 100 or more students without obtaining permission from the university, are subject to punishments up to Article 19. This means that the student will be expelled from the university and will not have the right to participate in entrance exams for up to five years. Another provision of this article, which is a violation of citizenship rights, states that the determination of privacy boundaries is the responsibility of the disciplinary committee. This means that if the committee members decide that it is necessary to enter the student’s bedroom in the case, they will definitely intervene.

In the 1998 manual, peaceful gatherings without causing damage and free from insults, defamation, and actions to disrupt classes did not result in punishment. However, in the new manual, this article has been completely removed.

An interesting article designed specifically for medical students mentions the consequences of considering a strike, stating that any disruption or interruption in diagnostic and treatment procedures will result in disciplinary measures ranging from written reprimands to temporary suspension from studies for two semesters, and in case of repetition, expulsion and prohibition from participating in entrance exams for up to five years.

In political offenses, the term “virtual space” has also been added to expand the authority of committees in filing cases and prosecuting crimes without limitations.

Furthermore, in clause 1 of article 41 it is stated: The maximum punishment for “engaging in activities in favor of combatant groups and foreign intelligence organizations” is dismissal and five years of academic suspension.

In addition, in clause 2 of article 43, punishments for fasting are mentioned to prevent education for a period of two terms.

In Article 44, the word “company” is mentioned in addition to “establishing a company” in the Bylaws, and its penalties include deprivation of welfare facilities and changing from government funding to tuition payment.

Failure to adhere to Islamic dress code will also result in severe punishment, including being deprived of welfare facilities.

A notable point about this issue (i.e. lack of coverage) is the violation of “networking misconduct”, which is punishable by a ban on studying for up to four terms with consideration of past records.

One of the notable points of the Ad Hoc Committee is the registration of reports from institutions and organizations, which in the 1998 regulations only private complainants were considered valid. For example, complaints and reports from the Basij, Sepah, Ministry of Intelligence, and security forces are now considered reliable and trustworthy in the new regulations without any explanation.

In addition, the minimum time interval for the process of inviting students through telephone notifications in all stages of handling was five days, but now it has been reduced to 24 hours. This was a violation that was observed in the disciplinary council procedures and has now become a law.

In the 1998 guidelines, it was mentioned that in case of a student’s absence after five working days for any reason, in order to clarify the accusation, this matter would be addressed by sending an invitation to the student’s place of residence. However, in the new guidelines of the disciplinary committee, under any circumstances, after five working days, it is mandatory to continue the investigation of the case, and even in “special” circumstances, with the discretion of the committee’s chairman, this five-day period can be reduced to 48 hours.

Also, the contents of the file, the rights of the student, and the process of the committee will be informed to the student according to the discretion of the committee secretary.

According to the new regulations, students can only review their files based on the committee secretary’s discretion. In the 98 regulations, the possibility of copying or obtaining a duplicate was also provided.

In Article 78, under “Special Circumstances” and “Evident Violations”, the committee secretary may not adhere to the five-day period for notifying the committee meeting.

It is also stated in Article 80 that under the same “special circumstances” and “obvious violation” and according to the interests of the members of the review committee, the time period for students to protest against the verdict and its reconsideration can be reduced to 48 hours. This period was ten days after the verdict was announced in the 1998 regulations.

Article 91, which represents the peak of ambiguity and injustice towards students, states that the review committee has the right to issue and intensify previous judgments. This is in contrast to the previous guidelines where the review committee was not able to issue a stricter judgment than the initial committee’s judgment.

Filing and issuing disciplinary orders are also completed with Article 94: The central committee can, at its discretion, change all orders issued by the review and appeal committee. Additionally, there is the possibility of changing and reconsidering previous decisions of the central committee, if new evidence is presented at any time.

Article 107 also contributes to this oppression, lawlessness, and immorality: student rebellion against accepting and enforcing disciplinary measures and their own “disciplinary committee orders” is considered a new violation and after being reviewed by the immediate committee, the sentence is intensified.

Article 116, which violates the rights of detained students, states that judicial conviction and imprisonment are not considered for unintentional crimes during the years of being a student.

According to Article 119, disciplinary committees of universities and centers can, based on their discretion and after obtaining a commitment from the student, suspend the execution of all or part of the issued provisions. Additionally, according to this article, firstly, in case of repeated offenses, in addition to imposing new penalties, the suspension order will also be enforced, and secondly, these suspension orders will remain valid until the end of the student’s academic period.

With mentioning all of these points, it must be said that the existence of disciplinary protocols is not for establishing order in the academic and university environment, but rather for suppressing the voices of student activists.

In other words, even if the approved regulations from 1998 are reinstated, the security institutions will still have unlimited authority to control the university space and turn its courtyard and premises into their own private secluded areas during social and political gatherings in the country.

The demand for reform of the manuals should be in line with the complete removal of security and political clauses in their texts, so that they can only be used as evidence in cases of educational violations such as cheating.

Currently, with the beginning of the new academic year at universities and at the same time as the second anniversary of the death of Mahsa Amini, nearly 200 students have been deprived of attending classes and continuing their studies due to false accusations related to their activities on social media or their choice of clothing, or as a continuation of the suppression of the Mahsa movement.

Out of this number, several students have a judicial sentence and are in prison.

The suppression apparatus has used all its power to suppress the university as the main arm of promoting social movements, through disciplinary, political, and judicial regulations, as well as implementing multiple unfair quotas, devoid of content and identity.

But Iranian students strive every day more than ever to stand against the oppressive wave of the Islamic Republic and the unequal war of the government against the university, demanding their rights, freedom, justice, prosperity, and the awareness of Iran with a loud cry.