Student judicial hearing process needs change

Recently, I had the not-so-pleasurable experience of sitting in on a campus judicial hearing. For those who are unaware, some student misconduct proceedings are handled outside of the Dean of Students Office and are instead managed by a panel comprised of various campus faculty members.

Regardless of which path is chosen, the student must initially meet with the assistant dean of students after being approached by the University in regards to his or her alleged misconduct. The panel route seems to be used if the alleged misconduct involves some sort of “serious” offense. These “serious” offenses that are heard by this body may involve sanctions including suspension and expulsion from the University.

The panel proceeding that I painfully sat in on consisted of a case in which the sanctions levied by the panel could range in severity, up to the suspension of the multiple students involved. While observing this hearing, which was run by three faculty members, it was made clear that this body does not adhere to the same strict legal procedural rules as those found in our American judicial system.

During the hearing, I witnessed multiple statements made by the panel that I found to be unfair and unjust. I also noticed a severe lack of the sound procedural mandates that I would have had expected from hearings as life-altering as these.

For example, the chief of the panel stated that their rulings and considerations may not always be based upon indisputable facts and/or proof, but rather, facts the panel is “51 percent” sure about — here, I find error.

Additionally, the student-appointed “faculty adviser,” who for all intents and purposes is an acting attorney for the defending students, is severely limited in his or her ability to properly assist the students.

This faculty adviser is in fact not allowed to speak to the panel or to the witnesses during the hearing, but rather has the ability to speak solely to the students. Essentially, the students are left to fend for themselves without explanation of how to ask appropriate questions, properly protect themselves and appropriately build a case. Here, I also find error.

Furthermore, the appeal process for decisions such as these is severely flawed. The chain of proceedings currently stands as: an initial meeting with the assistant dean of students, followed by a hearing with the three-person panel. If the student appeals the decision of the panel, who does the case go to next? Is it now reviewed by a six-person panel? Or the dean of students?

No. In fact, it ends up back in the hands of Assistant Dean of Students Morgan Levy.
An appeal process is not supposed to be circular in nature, rather the appellate review given to a case is supposed to be more thorough, more fair and seen through more (and fresh) eyes.

The error in this process is so blatantly obvious that I do not understand how it possibly could be considered fair or legitimate and needs to be addressed through a major overhaul of this campus judicial process. 

Suspension and expulsion are serious sanctions that will drastically alter not only a student’s immediate life here on campus, but also his or her future outside of the University.

Additionally, when a student is suspended or expelled, a substantial financial investment is lost at the detriment to both the student and the student’s parents. That being said, to make these life-changing decisions based upon disputable facts, arguable depositions and a lack of sound procedural rules is truly unjust.

The school may argue that to do so would be too cumbersome of a process and would require too much time, effort and money.

Well, I have a simple solution to that problem: take a small portion of our continually climbing tuition and create a body that decides on serious offenses with a little more legitimacy and a little more justice. I think we deserve that little.

Van Houten is a member of
the class of 2010.