Verbum Ultimum: Demystifying Judicial Affairs
By The Dartmouth Editorial Board
Published on Friday, February 15, 2013
With the impending departure of undergraduate judicial affairs director Nathan Miller at the end of this academic year, the College is in a position to make an influential hire. As the person who deals with student misconduct and disciplinary action, the undergraduate judicial affairs director must uphold rules in a transparent manner and focus on critical and sensitive aspects of student life. Given that a search committee within the Dean of the College’s office is set to review applications for the job (“Undergraduate Judicial Affairs seeks director,” Feb. 12), we hope that the College makes the most of this opportunity by appointing someone who will revamp what is regarded by most students as an obscure and intimidating system.
The office of undergraduate judicial affairs oversees one of the most uncomfortable realms of college administration: student discipline. The College claims to seek a candidate with “superior ability to exercise sound judgment and demonstrate cultural competence,” as the director must adhere to the College’s Student Handbook with the knowledge that the outcome of a Committee on Standards or Organizational Adjudication Committee hearing can have powerful consequences for individuals and groups alike. We commend the College for its interest in selecting a director who wants to interact with the student body and is prepared to respond to queries from individuals and their families. But it is troubling that the office itself does not anticipate any reforms with the appointment of a new director.
Undergraduate judicial affairs is not a transparent or efficient institution in its current state. While students can access information on the office’s website to help familiarize themselves with the process of a COS or OAC hearing, it is unlikely that they will feel adequately prepared. Furthermore, the chair wields enormous discretion over everything from procedural rulings to the people allowed to be present at hearings, which are often held in small rooms, seemingly so that organization members, friends and witnesses are intentionally excluded from the proceedings. Perhaps most importantly, the committee requires only a “preponderance of evidence” to arrive at a guilty ruling. This is a significantly lower burden of proof than state or federal standards, which require prosecutors to prove a defendant’s guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
It is clear that this adjudication process is in need of serious reform. That the current process draws complaints of a lack of professionalism and a standardized approach across all hearings suggests that the College must do better. With new leadership should come a new emphasis on transparency — beginning with more mock hearings and more regular reporting of hearing verdicts.
Hopefully the dishonorable kate burke goes too. Positions like these are extremely self selecting—only a certain kind of person wants a job based around punishing students. Burke and miller are worthy of all derision thrown at them. I hope the college makes a responsible hire that lends transparency and fairness to the judicial process, but I have no faith that will be the case.
By ‘hursted on Feb 15 | 8:47 am
I have worked on COS with both Nate Miller and Meredith Smith on several occasions, and I am sorry to say that these College employees act with such disregard to the culture of the campus and the fallibility of Dartmouth students that their presence is not constructive. In each hearing I adjudicated as part of the now defunct Organizational Adjudication Committee Student Board, Meredith Smith actively tried to pull prior infractions from more than 3 years before the infraction in question as examples of what she called “institutional failures”.
Maybe Meredith Smith needs to catch up on her Bible study. Deuteronomy 14:21. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother’s milk.
The administration has one goal right now when it comes to disciplining Greek houses on campus—it wants to derecognize a house as soon as possible. While such a severe action as removing a fraternity from campus based on one infraction would bring a PR nightmare and an alumni backlash, the administration is employing a slow burn strategy to smoke the Greek system out (and not in the good way).
After the administration and Judicial Affairs has been able to build up an “institutional history” of repeated minor infractions, they will have far more leverage in the eventual discussion about derecognizing a house.
Random walkthroughs have been increasing dramatically over the last few terms in both frequency and severity. Just a year ago, S & S would walk into the basement, make sure everybody seemed cognizant and somewhat collected, and move along. Now, they are strictly enforcing rules about underage people playing pong, holding cups without a wristband, and other minor issues that are very difficult to control from a party management position.
The vendetta against the Greek system as a whole floated by the current administration and Judicial Affairs as a whole is representative of a larger disregard for the quality of life of the students on Dartmouth’s campus.
Unfortunately for students, the sterilization of student life on this campus is bound to continue. Wes Schaub and Charlotte Johnson inflicted such a blow on the Greek system with their stricter policies and ignorance of student opinion that it may not recover.
Maybe they should consider how it feels to be the member of a Greek house which goes on probation because one brother absentmindedly brought a bottle of beer into the basement during a “cans only” event. The insistence on following arbitrary and overly strict rules on the consumption of alcohol is driving more events underground, with many houses on campus no longer registering tails events, and deals significant collateral damage to both the culture and the health of Dartmouth’s campus.
By COS Member ‘13 on Feb 15 | 11:52 am
get your facts straight – the student chooses whether the hearing is closed or open to campus, and almost all of them choose to have closed hearings so that nobody else can be present.
also the COS publishes a report every year about all of the hearings that occurred and the outcomes.
By Anonymous on Feb 16 | 4:23 pm
at least know what you’re talking about before you write your requisite weekly op-ed.
dartmouth has to use a preponderance of evidence standard for sexual assault cases in order to get title IX funding.
have some actual data to substantiate your claim that UGA is not efficient. or that students may not feel prepared. Or that they lack professionalism, or that they don’t have a standardized approach.
do you know how people are chosen to be at the meetings? you clearly don’t based on this: “seemingly so that organization members, friends and witnesses are intentionally excluded from the proceedings.”
obviously, students aren’t ever going to like getting in trouble, even if it is for clearly illegal things that they wouldn’t be able to get away with in the real world. and obviously, they are going to complain about the process if they think they shouldn’t have gotten in trouble for something “everybody else does” like hazing/underage drinking. if you ever had a journalism internship, this would be something your editor would say, “uh duh” to. hearsay complaints aren’t the same as reports filed and issues investigated. report something substantive rather than what’s the hot gossip/b@b trope.
By more facts to be straightened on Feb 17 | 3:09 pm
Very well reasoned editorial. To require only a “preponderance of the evidence” to find guilt is especially troubling. When someone’s future is on the line, “clear and convincing” or “beyond a reasonable doubt” should be the standard.
By Rocky on Feb 17 | 3:13 pm