LETTER: Judicial Charter

I was extremely disheartened when I read the article publicizing Provost Michael Aiken's decision not to review the judicial charter (DP 2/4/92). I personally had a first semester horror experience with the Judicial Inquiry Officer. It was dragged out until the middle of last semester even though the person to whom I unknowingly was expected to report had left the country without my knowledge. I was accused of not fulfilling obligations of which I had never been informed. The experience was my worst at Penn. I have heard of similar experiences from anyone I have ever spoken with who has had contact with the JIO. The unanimous opinion voiced is that students would rather take their chances with the Philadelphia police than the JIO. In the smaller university cosmos, the JIO should have power to fully investigate cases better than overcrowded state courts, but from my experiences, the JIO has only one power: the power to abuse. The article states multiple student demands for a reevaluation of the charter and for separation of power. The only people in the article who are not interested are Aiken and Professor Burbank. Could this diffidence occur because they are not in danger of being hounded by the Inquisition that is labeled the JIO? Vice Provost for University Life Kim Morrison's new advisory board is not a strong enough measure to temper this problem. I implore the dean of each school to consider his or her students' well being before approving this new, but still inadequate charter. ANNE CHESNEY College '94

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