Student judicial system proposed

The preliminary draft of the Student Judicial Charter was released yesterday and advocated sweeping changes for the University's entire judicial system. Whereas the current system allows for no student involvement in the judicial process itself, the proposed changes will involve a Student Judicial Council, which will include 17 students and a hearing board with four students. Additional students will be involved in the process as well. Also included in the draft, released today in Almanac, is a draft of a revised Code of Conduct and a new Code of Academic Integrity. Three subcommittees, made up of faculty, administrators and at least four students each, constructed the three reports, Vice Provost in the Provost's Office Kim Morrisson said last night. An oversight committee oversaw the actions of the three subcommittees, she added. According to the draft, which will be presented at tomorrow's University Council meeting, the Student Judiciary System's intent is to "insure fair and efficient determinations on questions of possible student misconduct." College senior Kirsten Bartok, chairperson of the Student Judiciary Committee, said part of the problem with the current system is "minimal student involvement." "Administrators did not understand the demands placed on the student body in connection with the judicial system," she said. "It is about time that the University recognizes the intelligence of the students and trusts our judgement." Bartok said the amount of time students will have to devote to the council will "not even come close to" the time students put into other extra-curricular activities, such as student government. "There will be times when those roles will be demanding, but there is commitment amongst students who want to make this University a better place," she added. Bartok said the Commission on Strengthening the Community, which in its final report released today advocates faculty, but no student involvement in the judicial system, probably "did not know enough about whether students could handle it." But, she added, there was no doubt in her mind that "students could take that role." According to the draft, the Student Judiciary Council will consist of 13 undergraduates, four graduates and four faculty members, along with a "senior member" who will act as chairperson. The Student Hearing Board will have four students and one faculty member and will make decisions on all cases except "minor level" ones which have a hearing with the Judicial Advisor. The present Judicial Inquiry Officer will serve as JA, Bartok said. And this person will also oversee the Mediation Center, another large component of the new charter. "The outcome of mediation will influence if and how the case proceeds through the judicial system," College junior Beth Hirschfelder said. And Bartok said "mediation and resolution" was the "paramount" goal of the proposed charter, in order to make the system a "non-adversarial" one. The other non-student involved in the proposed system is the Judicial Officer who will serve as the "settlement officer" in minor cases, such as PENNcard usage by someone other than the holder, Bartok said. She emphasized that the committees which drafted the reports could not decide who this person should be. "This is an example of where community feedback comes in [because] it was a big question for us," Bartok said. "We really want everyone's input and feedback." Current JIO Steven Blum said he hopes for "healthy and thoughtful debate" in the coming months. "Student involvement in the judicial system is a very valuable thing," he said. "But the extent of that involvement which would be most effective must be discussed." Morrisson said the final Student Judicial Charter's drafting and implementation will not take place before the fall because it advocates the biggest changes out of the three documents. But, she added, the other two codes may be approved before then, with the Code of Conduct being addressed first. Hirschfelder, who served as chairperson of the Code of Conduct committee and worked on the other two documents as well, said the revised Code of Conduct was "going for simplicity" so students can understand it easily. She added that the main conflict her committee dealt with was between the right of freedom of speech and the right not to be discriminated against. An Honor Council will review individual cases to determine when an action is detrimental enough to "deprive a student of his or her rights," Hirschfelder said.