CJC Comments: Independence of Judicial Process

Current practice under the present code

The judicial process is independent of the University administration. The JA is appointed by President, with concurrence of University Assembly, for renewable 2-year terms; can be removed during term of office only by Board of Trustees. The CJC makes recommendations to the UA for people from the community to sit on the judicial boards.

Proposed practice in Krause Report

“Office of Student Conduct” is incorporated into Dean of Students Office; disciplinary system has a more educational focus and is integrated with student affairs. “Director of Student Conduct” reports to Dean of Students. Vice President for Student and Academic Services (or designee) assumes significant responsibilities, including review of interim suspensions.

Students engaged in political protests on campus need to be unambiguously shielded from direct administrative retaliation by an independent judicial process. In the 80’s, the judicial administrator refused to prosecute minority protesters that had taken over Rhodes’s office. I remember at that time Rhodes, angered by this, attempted to change the judicial process to make it less independent.

In order to further ensure an independent JA, perhaps the duration of the JA’s appointment should be extended from 2 years to 5 years.

I can see no good reason to incorporate the JA office into the Dean of Students office. If it is going to happen someone needs to explain the motivation behind it.

The independence of the judicial administrator is all that ensures that decisions made by that office have the respect of the community. Deans of students have other interests, such as their own job performance evaluations and preserving university interests, independent of the truth.

The JA office should be independent from the Dean of Students office in order to ensure fairness in dealing with all students. This is not to say that the Dean of Students would be unfair, but sometime in the future, somebody might be biased in that position and/or subject to various pressures from within.

There are some disadvantages in having an independent JA office, as mentioned in the report. However, I believe none of this problems is more important than having some certainty in the fairness of the process. If the system is changed, most cases will be treated fairly but there is no guarantee. Most likely the next revision of the code of conduct will recommend an independent JA.

The judicial system should be independent from the policy making body of the university in order to ensure that a high level of fairness and accountability is achievable for the community. It works, at least most of the time, on a state and federal level. I don’t understand why the University would want to change this now.

Elsewhere I have noted that the current process is not truly independent because there is community oversight through the UA. For me, broader community input and oversight of the process has clear advantages as other have pointed out.

The intimation that attaching the judicial system to the Dean of Students office somehow improves its educational role is bogus, especially since important educational provisions of the current process will be reduced or removed. For the accused, both systems have very limited educational functions. The Judicial Codes Counselor function in the present system will disappear and the number of students on the Hearing Board will be less both of these allow for more educational opportunities. I see the Krause system as less educational.

I agree with everyone who’s posted here so far that the JA function should remain independent.

One point in the Krause Report that deserves addressing: working relationships between student affairs professionals. But quite frankly, I see no reason why independent campus units can’t have good working relationships, such as addressing student behavioral issues. For example, when designing sanctions for, say, alcohol abuse, I’m sure the JA’s office can devise appropriate programs in tandem with the Gannett Health Center.

Rumor has it that student affairs people on entirely different *campuses* network and have mutually beneficial professional relationships. Heck, the Federal agencies and Congress - in a system dedicated to separation of powers - have close working relationships.

As for the matter of adequate staffing which Ms. Krause also cites: if there aren’t enough people in the office, don’t offload part of your extra work onto somebody else in another office who probably is already very busy with that office’s work. Instead, try hiring somebody for your own office. Sounds crazy, but it just might work.

Even after reading the Krause Report, I have heard of no “runaway JAs” which the president or the Board of Trustees couldn’t handle.

With regard to the organization of hearings and appeals, I believe the Hearing Board and Review Board should be kept the way they are. I fail to see how it could be harder to reconcile students’ schedules than faculty or staff schedules. Students often have more free time than faculty or staff. Even during exam time, my experience as a student has been that students are willing to take a few hours off for things they deem important.

On the other hand, if exams do pose such a burden that not enough students can serve when needed, I would support holding over some cases to the next semester, and for those for which that is not viable, having a special set of “exam week/summer/winter hearing rules”. For those times of year, we could have hearing panels along the lines suggested by Ms. Krause; I believe we could keep the same appeals procedures.

I see no reason, with regard to accused students, to abandon majority student representation on hearing boards.

I can understand the appeal (no pun intended) of having a single Conduct Review Officer hear appeals not involving suspension or expulsion. However, I believe it would better serve due process to continue having appeals, just like hearings, conducted by independent panels including students.

I have no objection in principle to standing boards, or even a unified University Conduct Council from which hearing and review panels may be drawn, as Ms. Krause suggests.

Obviously there should be some distance between the judicial office and the administrative office. Think how the United States would be if the founding fathers had given the judicial power to the White House. Let’s recall Washionton’s words “ The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositaries, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern…