GUEST COLUMN: The continued pursuit of justice

Although the new judicial charter has some kinks, Wilton Levine says it still represents progress. During late January 1995, the committee released its recommendations for a new Student Judicial Charter to the University and administration. Last week, the provost provided the University with his version of the Student Judicial Charter. This document represents the culmination of two years of work by students, faculty and administrators. Throughout the charter revision process, the student committee had several primary goals. These included greater student involvement with and ownership of the judicial process, a fair system that would be "user-friendly" toward students and a system in which a senior University administrator (the president or provost) would have ultimate responsibility. We also realized that the judicial process for a university is inherently different from civil or criminal judicial processes in the "real world." As a result, our judicial charter would have to be primarily educational, not punitive, in nature. As proposed by the provost, the new charter generally begins to realize these goals -- although not to the full extent the committee envisioned. The new charter makes the provost ultimately responsible for the system, but places several checks on his authority. For example, while the provost is responsible for appointing the Disciplinary Hearing Officer (DHO) and Disciplinary Appellate Officer (DAO), he must appoint this person from a pool created by the Faculty Senate, the University Conduct Council (UCC) and University Honor Council (UHC). (The UCC and UHC are student bodies that consult with administrators of the judicial system, sit on hearing boards for cases and run educational activities within the community.) The new charter directly involves students in the judicial system in several ways: as mediators within the University Mediation Program (UMP), as advisors to students who have charges filed against them by the Office of Student Conduct (OSC) and as members of the UCC and UHC. Members of the UCC and UHC will have the greatest immediate impact on the system, as they will sit on hearing panels and meet regularly with each other and the OSC to discuss the charter and other pertinent judicial issues. These students will have constant contact with the judicial system and the personnel who run it, and will be able to see which aspects of the system are effective and ineffective. Then, they will work with the OSC, Faculty Senate and provost to amend the charter, and they will be able to report to the provost about unproductive personnel or inappropriate decisions. This is a critical element of the new charter. Another improvement in the proposed system involves the expanded role of advisors. Previously, advisors were not allowed to speak at all, except for closing remarks at the end of a hearing. Under the new charter, though, they will be able to speak with permission from the DHO. It should be remembered that Penn's judicial system is designed to be educational, and for this reason, students should try to explain their situations themselves. But, should this be impossible, the DHO may allow the advisor to assist the student respondent in a more direct way. These are many of the positive changes that are present in the new draft of the charter. But there are still two major issues that cause us concern and must be addressed: the decision of whether hearings should be open or closed and the issue of respondent confidentiality. As the new charter is written, for a respondent to gain an open hearing, the respondent, complainant, OSC and DHO must all agree to the same (Section II.F.4.e.). This should not be the case. First, the new charter states that the complainant is not even party to judicial proceedings, and therefore should not be relevant to the decision of whether a hearing will be public -- unless federal laws provide protection for the complainant, as in sexual violence cases. Second, if the respondent desires an open hearing, there is no reason for the University to block such a hearing. The only way to ensure fairness is to allow the members of the community access to the system. Hearings should not be held in private simply because it is more convenient. This university certainly has adequate facilitates to provide for open hearings when necessary. Our other serious concern involves the statement of confidentiality (III.F.2). According to the new charter, no member of the University community may disclose confidential information related to a case or hearing. In no way should respondents be prevented from speaking openly about their cases if they so desire. But at the same time, if a respondent speaks about a case, the complainant, OSC and any other party must be allowed to respond to the statements made. In effect, the new proposal is a step backwards from the previous charter, which allows the respondent to speak openly about a case and allows other parties to respond to comments made by the respondent. Overall, the proposed charter is a great improvement over the current system. It addresses nearly all of the issues students, faculty and administrators have raised -- although the solutions are sometimes not as extreme as some would have desired. As students, we must trust the provost to make appropriate appointments of the system's administrators. More importantly, we must stay involved with the process. Students and faculty must become involved as members of the UCC, UHC and as mediators within the system to ensure that students are treated fairly when dealing with the system. Without this participation, the system will fail. In the coming weeks, the proposed charter will be sent to the deans and faculties of the schools for approval. Once approved, it will be your duty as a member of the University of Pennsylvania community to stay vigilant.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.