> I can't find "social media" or any form of a "mandate" to "monitor" social media in the document.

You're correct. Digging deeper, I find no mention either. The title is factually incorrect. I will make updates to my comment to reflect this so as to avoid providing false information. That said, this sort of action is still deeply concerning given that someone can now bring social media posts and speech to the attention of the university for sanction.

Couldn't they do that before this change? And why is it deeply concerning? I'm pretty sure if someone tweeted "gonna plant a bomb on campus tomorrow" or "planning to burn down my professor's house at 123 Main St, anyone interested DM me, good luck @ProfessorBrown" the school could have done something about it even without this policy. And if not, this new policy is clearly necessary.

If you think the policy is too broad and covers more than just these extreme examples, I'd love to see a rule that only covers such extremes and can't possibly be abused.

The thing is, this sort of activity is already covered under criminal law like you said. The rules from the university form a redundant legal system, and as a result are open to abuses given the lower standards of harm and evidence used.

So, to answer your question, the regulation could sanction people convicted of violent offences when the violent offenses pertain the the university and/or it's members. Therefore:

"The university reserves the right to sanction members of its community who have been convicted of acts of violence, or convicted of making credible threats of violence, against it's members."

Ok, but since getting suspended or kicked out of school is a much lighter penalty than getting put in prison, we can easily imagine behavior that doesn't quite rise to the level of criminal assault or harassment, but does deserve university punishment. It's also common for the legal process to take years, and we can imagine a student continuing to attend the university normally and graduating, and then finally being convicted of something that happened in their junior year.

"lower standards of harm and evidence" are used because the consequences are lower. As the importance of an organization grows, the standards grow. At the lowest end of the spectrum, you don't need any evidence or process to kick someone out of a house party, because the stakes are very low. At the highest end, you need a ton of evidence and process to kick someone out of society by imprisoning them, because the stakes couldn't be higher. There's a big spectrum in between - banning someone from a store/sports stadium/airline, kicking someone out of a professional organization, firing someone from a job, etc.

I don't know the details of UofO's process, but I do think it's appropriate that they have lower standards and faster responses than a criminal prosecution.

If I take on $50,000 of debt to get a degree, and then they kick me out before I get it, that's a lighter penalty than getting put in prison, but it can still mess up my life for the next large number of years.

Not to mention that getting your degree revoked will likely get you blacklisted from nearly as many jobs as having a conviction of some sort on your record. Especially if someone can google your name and find that you were "charged" by your university for "causing disruptions".

I know, that's why I'm talking about a spectrum. They shouldn't kick you out on a whim, or with no evidence, but they also shouldn't weigh it like they're giving you a life sentence in prison.