And Justice for All?: How the JIO Works

Third in a SeriesThird in a SeriesED. NOTE: This story did not run in this version. It ran as a graphic on Wednesday, October 27, 1993. It had been a wild night of partying and things got out of hand. The police came to your dorm. Your RA said he was pressing charges in the University judicial system. "But what does that mean?" you cry in despair. According to Policies and Procedures, any student, faculty member or staff member may register a complaint with the Judicial Inquiry Office, if they believe a student has violated any University policy. The JIO then notifies the accused, or respondent, that a complaint has been filed against them and he or she has the right an advisor. Advisors can be students, faculty or staff members and are chosen by the respondent. After a preliminary investigation, if the JIO decides the complaint is valid, he or she notifies the respondent again, saying the complaint is official. Based on a further investigation of the charge, the JIO determines who he or she thinks is "responsible" or guilty of the policy violation. At this point, the JIO says he or she wants to enter into a settlement discussion. The JIO will then offer the respondent a settlement, in which students choose a punishment such as community service instead of going to a hearing. If the hearing option is chosen, a panel would decide if the respondent is "responsible" and what kind of punishment the violation merits. "Informal settlements between the JIO and the respondent is the preferred way to resolve a complaint," reads Policies and Procedures. "It is expected that most complaints will be handled this way." If the respondent signs the settlement, he or she waives the right to a hearing and an appeal. Signing a settlement is an admission of guilt. Students are not obligated to sign this settlement. Every respondent has the right to go to a hearing. If a student decides to go to a hearing, the case is heard before a panel made up of three faculty members, one graduate student and one undergraduate student. A Judicial Administrator presides over the hearing, but does not vote with the panel. No less than two days before the hearing, the respondent, complainant, the JIO and the JA will exchange evidence and the names of witnesses who will testify. "Formal rules of evidence shall not apply," Policies and Procedures states. "Evidence, including hearsay evidence, shall be admitted if it is relevant and not unduly repetitious." During the hearing, the JIO presents evidence found during the investigation. The JIO, respondent and complainant may cross-examine the witnesses. The respondent's and the complainant's advisor may not do so, without special permission from the JA. The board then decides by a majority vote if the respondent is responsible by looking for a preponderance of evidence – a certain amount of substantial evidence – indicating one way or another. They also recommend sanctions to the Vice Provost for University Life, who makes the final decision on punishments. The respondent, complainant or JIO may appeal the board's decision, by submitting that request in writing to the Appellate Panel within 14 days of the board's decision. The Appellate Panel, made up of three faculty members, one graduate student and one undergraduate student, will review the appeal within 10 days. If the Appellate Panel finds an error in the evidence, they may vacate or reverse the board's decision, or they may order a new hearing. All decisions of the Appellate Panel are final.