Based on current policy, the Organizational Adjudication Committee of the judicial affairs office handles cases of misconduct for student groups (both Greek and non-Greek). The committee is made up of faculty members, administrators and students who are given a packet of related materials beforehand so they may familiarize themselves with details of the case. Then the actual presentation of the case occurs. It is not unlike a jury, although fundamentally the committee is not determining culpability. Rather they suggest sanctions to the judicial affairs office based on precedent.
Like a jury, though, the committee may debate how closely the suggested sanctions should match precedent. They can also take the past history of an organization into account — which I believe is an important part of the process. Like a person, organizations can have a character to them. Just as a jury might look differently at a one-time offender than they would at someone with an extensive background of criminal history, so too might an organization’s current offenses be seen within the context of a larger history.
Currently, only a three-year backlog of an organization’s disciplinary history is presented to the committee. The rationale, judicial affairs director Leigh Remy wrote in an email, is that the oldest possible members implicated in an organization’s past activity would be seniors who had joined the organization as freshmen. Looking back more than three years, the reasoning follows, could potentially penalize current members for infractions for which they are not responsible, as they would have been committed by members whom the current members may have never met. Such a limited consideration of past incidents, however, hinders the committee’s ability to make a more holistic assessment on the culture within an organization, which can reveal the core values of the organization and its members over a long period of time. I think it is important that student groups who face potentially serious sanctions by the College should be given the chance to show that they have a long history of service and contributions to the College and that recent issues might only be a superficial, recent development. Conversely, it would also be important to see if the organization had a history of similar issues with the College, particularly if similar incidents continually and predictably occur.
Inquiries on my part about the history of this policy simply revealed that the three-year limit dates back to the creation of the OAC. The judicial affairs office could not find files that indicated what the past policy of disciplinary action disclosure was prior to the formation of its creation. And while the three-year limit on disciplinary history records may be a long-standing policy, I believe it would be in the favor of students and student organizations to have it modified.
In light of the recent reforms in how the College handles cases of sexual assault, the College should review how other parts of the judicial process for individuals and organizations could also be modified. The limited history of disciplinary action currently permitted in organizational reviews prevents the students, administrators and faculty entrusted with suggesting sanctions from adequately judging the situation. Should current members of a group be penalized for the actions of long-passed alumni? Certainly not. But it is also hard to ask the committee to make an informed decision when the evidence cannot provide a comprehensive picture of an organization.
Considering more than three years of an organization’s record may reveal whether the problem perhaps rooted more deeply in the organization’s culture. I would suggest that the disclosure of information be expanded to eight to nine years, so that more leeway can be given to groups that have a consistent history of good conduct and service to the College. Conversely, the committee could consider the possibility of stronger sanctions for an organization with eight to nine years of conflict or judicial issues as compared to those for a group that has only had one or two minor judicial issues.
I have always been a proponent of transparency, and I believe an increased time frame of disclosed information would make sanctioning more equitable and actually work in favor of many organizations.
