After three years as a member of the Voice staff, I value honesty in reporting. And as a hearing board member for the Collegeís Judicial Board, I value admitting to oneís mistakes.
Alexander Lansís article in the Jan. 29 edition entitled ìJudicial Board Needs Reevaluation” does not hold these same values.
Lans claims that he has ìtaken the time to do his homework” yet his response is riddled with inconsistencies that could have been cleared after five minutes with any member of the Judicial Board. In fact, he does not address his open letter to any member directly affiliated with the board, such as our adviser, Senior Associate Dean of Students Carolyn Buxton, nor our Chairperson, Aneeb Sharif í10. This serious oversight on Lansís part does little to illustrate the ìhomework” he has done in preparation for an article alleging serious charges against the Judicial Board.
This is not entirely Lansís fault.† Reading the Scotís Key without understanding its contents in context with how the Judicial Board functions as a body can be a confusing process.† The Scotís Key has not been revised significantly in about a decade; Lansí suggestions serve to illustrate the pressing need to understand the Scotís Key and the context in which it is exercised as a student body. Lansí criticisms may also serve as a useful springboard from which to revise or update the Scotís Key as necessary.
First, Lans has read the Scotís Key correctly in that the Judicial Board is to report its findings to the Voice after 30 days. In this, we have been remiss. However, we are actively compiling cases to be reviewed by Campus Council, and expect to begin publishing hearing details next week.† The 30-day stipulation is a difficult one to uphold, especially when cases are appealed. I assure you the Judicial Board is not purposefully blocking the dissemination of our decisions because we have something to hide.
Lansís concern with the make-up of the Judicial Board is unfounded. The Judicial Board selection process is competitive, yet we welcome any and all interested members of the student body at large to attend our group interview and schedule an interview during the spring semester. We are interested in recruiting students that comprise a representative student body. We look for students who are fair-minded with a variety of personalities.
Asserting that the students serving the Judicial Board cannot be impartial, and then later suggesting a ìjury” of randomly selected students should be implemented to adjudicate cases, does not form a logical argument. Students, faculty and administrators serving the Judicial Board as board members or hearing counselors undergo weeks of training to ensure hearing procedures flow smoothly and that both the accused and the accuser receive a fair and impartial trial. It would be logistically impossible to coordinate a jury of oneís peers, subject those individuals to a lengthy training process, and then ensure a fair hearing. Doing so would not be an efficient use of the Collegeís resources, nor would this ensure a ìfairer” hearing for the accused and accuser.
Lans makes an interesting point by suggesting hearing counselors should be able to speak for the accuser or accused, but again reveals that his article was written with little preparation. Hearing counselors serve a complex role in the judicial process ó they may present cases on behalf of the College as accuser, prepare the accused or the accuser before the hearing date and advise, off the record, during the hearing as necessary. They may also suggest other avenues of questioning after final statements are made. Suggesting the hearing counselors take on a greater role in the hearing process likens the role of hearing counselor to legal counsel ó as the Judicial Board process strives to hear cases without being ìunduly legalistic,” furthering the role of hearing counselors beyond their described positions extends beyond the role of the Judicial Board.
The Judicial Board recognizes its perception as a ìclosed” body inaccessible to the main campus community, and we are making strides to reverse this perception.† Our first step is to host ìMeet and Greet” sessions in Lowry during the month of February.† Stop by Lowry on February 18 from 4-5 p.m. or February 22 from 8-9 p.m. to ask questions about Judicial Board policies, information about joining the Judicial Board, suggestions for Judicial Board reform, or any other questions with current board members and hearing counselors.† Mr. Lans is correct in suggesting the Judicial Board and the larger student body need to have an open conversation about J-Boardís policies and hearings; I hope Mr. Lans and other interested students will take advantage of this opportunity to turn frustrated mutterings into productive and constructive dialogue.
Alexandra DeGrandchamp is the Senior Staff Writer for the Voice. She can be reached for comment at ADeGrandchamp@wooster.edu.