Judicial advisory board to open JIO procedure

Vice Provost for University Life Kim Morrisson has established an advisory board to help the Judicial Inquiry Office determine sanctions and provide information about the JIO to the University community. The Judicial Inquiry Advisory Board will recommend possible sanctions to the JIO for student violations of the University's codes and policies, including the codes of conduct and academic integrity. The eight-member board will also help the JIO establish informational materials about the University's judicial system and procedures. But the advisory board does not give the body the power to reevaluate the role of the JIO if administrators decide to consider splitting the position into a "prosecutor" and "settler." Provost Michael Aiken said earlier this week that if the University's new judicial charter requires further study, as student leaders have demanded, the advisory board would conduct the review. Aiken said that rather than create a new committee to revamp the judicial system, he would rely on Morrisson's new board. But Morrisson said that should review of the charter become necessary, the board could only serve in an advisory role to any committee the provost might form. She added that the board is entirely separate from the new judicial charter. Aiken could not be reached for comment last night. Because of the JIO's strict rules of confidentiality, the advisory board will only discuss hypothetical cases, not specific incidents. Members will not be privy to identifiable details of individual cases. "[The board] will advise the JIO on a range of sanctions that would be appropriate [in each hypothetical situation]," Morrisson said yesterday. "[It will] help the JIO think through the issues that are in front of him or her." Morrisson said she hopes to have the board, which will consist of four students, three faculty members and one staff member, operating by March. Student leaders said last night that the board is "a step in the right direction," but added that the continued confidentiality of the judicial system may impede the board's operations. "It could be a waste of time if they end up only talking about hypothetical [situations]," Undergraduate Assembly Chairperson Mitchell Winston said. "Every situation is different and every incident is different." And graduate student activist Elizabeth Hunt said the board "seems like a lot more bureaucracy for a little more enlightenment." "Given that the information has to be hypothetical and confidential . . . that committee is not going to have any muscle at all," she said. Winston said the board is most likely "a compromise by the administration to appease the students," who want to split the role of the JIO into a "prosecutor" and "settler." "Basically, the [office of ] the JIO is the equivalent of a high school principal or even a grade-school principal," Hunt said, adding that the system needs to be "more sophisticated" in order to handle the complicated issues that it faces. But the students conceded that the information the board will provide University members may be extremely valuable. Faculty members of the board will be chosen through the Faculty Senate, the Nominations and Elections Committee will choose undergraduate representatives and the Graduate and Professional Student Assembly will choose graduate student representatives. (CUT LINE) Please see JIO, page 4 JIO, from page 1

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