First, the proposal wants to take away a student's option to choose whether to have an administrative hearing. Twenty-three years ago students were given the right to choose to have a hearing before their peers or an adminstrator on alleged violations of the University Conduct regulations. Currently, students may choose an administrative hearing, which is condcted by the Office of Judicial Programs, or a student hearing, which is conducted by three students of the student j u d i c i a r y .
This proposal would take away that choice by requiring that all accused students be brought before a panel of three students and two faculty. The rational for this policy comes from a collection of a few cases during 1989 and 1990, which seem to indicate that different treatment occurs in an administrative hearing than in a student judiciary hearing. Specifically, the administrators during 1989-90 did not suspend as many students as the student judiciary.
However for the
1990-1991 school year, administrators suspended 100% of all students
found guilty of academic dishonesty, while the student judiciary only suspended
94%. In
effect for 1990-91,
there was no statistical disparity in treatment. Furthermore, my experience
as a justice in hearing academic dishonesty cases is that no disparity
in treatment exists between adminstrative hearings and student judiciary
hearings. Thus, the perception that disparite treatment exists is based
on a small number of cases from one year that is being applied to show
an institutional problem.
This proposal is flawed as well by including faculty in the panel. The faculty argue that since they are affected by plagerism, they should judge students behavior. However, the student judiciary was created so that students, who are also greatly affected, can judge their own. In more than half of the cases I dealt with as a justice, faculty were asking that mitigating cirucmstances be found so that a student would not be suspended. Furthermore, in the cases with supposed disparite treatment, more than half of those cases included statements or letters requesting mitigating circumstances be found. This evidence seems to indicate that faculty do not want students suspended for academic dishonesty. Faculty appear to want suspensions in general, but not when the suspension applies to a specific student.
The other major
group of faculty, would be faculty that felt that they were treated
unfairly by the student judiciary system because the student was found
not guilty or was not suspended. In fact, according to Dr. Betty Whitten,
Associate
VP of Academic
Affairs, this proposal grew out of a complaint from Dr. Susette Telllarico
when a student was not suspended in an adminstrative hearing. Justices
must assume that a person is innocent unless proven guilty of academic
dishonesty. Just because a student is brought to the student judiciary
does not mean that the student is guilty. These faculty may be biased becuase
of their past experiences.
The proposal also discusses a procedure for appeals. Currently, a student may appeal a case from the student judiciary, to the judicial council, to the vice-president of student affairs, to the president, and then to the Board of Regents. The proposal, in its currervt form would only alllow an apppeal to the preseident and the Board of Regents. In effect this proposal would deny a student two additional appeals.
~Lastly the proposal would mandate that a student could no longer have an attorney act as counsel for academic dishonesty charges. According to the proposal, student justices are intimidated by attorneys. As a justice, however, I did not notice any intimidation when an attorney was present. For a serious allegation such as academic dishonesty, a student should be able to have any counsel that the student wishes.
The other' rationale
for this proposal is to make it similar
to other student
hearings. Students, however, will still be
able to have an
attorney for all other conduct violations. The
rule makes little
sense when disorderly conduct affords a
student greater
protection than the more serious charge of academic dishonesty.
While this proposal may never effect you directly, as students we need to protect the rights that we have been entitled to over the last 23 years. Those rights are to have an unbiased trial by peers, to have a sufficient appeals process, and counsel of one's choosing. The Education Affairs Committee and the University Council should vote no to this proposal.
4