After hearing a variety of negative experiences about Judicial Board I think that as a college we must work to improve the system. I ask those who will oppose this article to think about the argument before they seek to make harsh and irrational responses. I have made those kinds of responses in the past and I have learned from my mistakes. I have taken my time to do my homework and I ask that anyone who chooses to respond to this article might also do his or her homework.
We must maintain a judicial board that is transparent and fair to all parties concerned. First and foremost that means becoming compliant with the by-laws of Judicial Board. Three provisions in the documents published in the Scotís Key recommend that Judicial Board submit materials to this newspaper for publication. To my knowledge current practices are not in compliance with these policies. You can find these guidelines on page 75 of the Scotís Key.
The first provision I direct your attention to is in the pre amble #8. It specifically states that Campus Council will send to the Voice general information about the board itself and any changes. Telling students about the make-up of the board and explaining changes and regulations is the first step to being transparent.
I then turn to section XV.A.2.E of the Scotís Key. Once again Judicial Board and Campus Council fail to meet the reporting requirement to anonymously publish case information. It is the right of students to know the kind of activities that are going on amongst their peers. The Collegeís choice not to forward or publish this information might be self-consciousness.
Are they afraid that students may think that penalties are harsh and irrational? Are they afraid to open up dialogue and transparency to discuss whether the system is justified?
Finally, I look to Section XV.B.3.D. This section makes a more stringent request that Judicial Board forward the information within a 30-day period including appeals. The reality is that students have a right to know what is happening on the Judicial Board and if they followed these simple steps they might be closer to a solution.
That will not fix the inherent flaws in the Judicial Board system. Students who want to open their hearings to the public should be allowed to do so. At Duke University students are allowed to request an open hearing at the discretion of the board. (http://conduct.studentaffairs.duke.edu/resources/univ_jud_bd/univ_jud_bd_more.html). Wooster does not allow for open hearings citing privacy concerns under Federal Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). While I do not purport to be an expert on this or any legal statute, it seems that these hearings still work to maintain the provisions contained within these laws.
I am concerned with the fairness of these hearings. It seems that a select group of students are chosen to arbitrate cases. Students by no means are impartial, they have connections to the campus and are prone to favor some persons over others.
Emulating the legal systemís use of jury selection might eliminate these sources of bias. I understand that all students do not have the time to serve on the Judicial Board, however giving allowance for personal circumstances is a reasonable exception. This jury will insure that jurors are impartial and hold the least amount of favor.
More importantly, student representatives should be able to speak on behalf of the persons they advise. The current system only contains provisions for students being advised as to how they should plead. I have read the Scotís Key provisions that pertain to the Judicial Board and found it to be cryptic and requiring time and prerequisite knowledge to piece together coherently.
In our legal system we do not expect laypersons to represent themselves because they are not versed in the legal provisions. As the saying goes, ìonly a fool has himself for a client.” Another possible solution is to assign students both a faculty adviser and a student adviser to help them make their case with the student adviser actually representing them in the hearing. It is difficult to go up against your peers and faculty whom for speaking in front of people is a full-time job.
I envision these suggestions as a starting point. I request that we have an open conversation to begin to understand how we can make discipline more transparent. To the outside world in the status quo, the boardís decisions seem dichotomous ó either removing people from the College or allowing them to stay.
I know that there is a much more intricate system than this, but its lack of transparency makes it difficult for others to be satisfied with its decisions.
Alexander Lans is a regular contributor for the Voice. He can be reached for comment at ALans10@wooster.edu.