Three reports aim to revamp jusicial system

Though three new plans designed to revamp the University's judicial system have several similarities, they differ significantly on the issue of who should administer the judicial system and make final decisions in individual cases. Many students and administrators said yesterday, though, that the three reports, released earlier this week, should be combined to achieve a final solution to the problems which have plagued the University's judicial system since last year's "water buffalo" incident. The Commission on Strengthening the Community supports increased faculty involvement and a more efficient level of discipline for minor offenses in its final report, printed in yesterday's Almanac. Unlike the Commission's proposal, the Student Judiciary Charter proposes major student involvement in committees, such as the Student Hearing Board and the Student Judicial Council. The council's chairperson might also be a student, but that is not yet definite. And the Abel Report -- the University Board of Inquiry formed to specifically deal with the "water buffalo" incident -- is the third report to confront the judicial system with recommendations and criticisms. It advocates increased mediation, expedited hearing processes and the opportunity to dismiss charges before they materialize. The three reports' basic disagreements center around the administrative issue of who will make up the judicial committees and who will participate in the process. The Student Judiciary Charter states that 17 out of the Student Judiciary Council's 21 members will be students, and four of the five members on the Student Hearing Board will also be students. College junior Beth Hirschfelder, chairperson of the oversight committee for the Student Judicial Charter, along with the Codes of Conduct and Academic Integrity, said the "biggest and most important change" from the original system is the amount of student participation advocated. Yet, in section A.1.h., the Commission says "faculty members should continue to play an important role in student disciplinary processes." The Commission makes no such recommendation for student involvement. In fact, the only mention of student participation in the judicial system is in section A.5, which discusses a crisis team which would "mobilize the campus to respond to crisis incidents." Commission Chairperson Gloria Chisum said the Commission "didn't focus on student involvement, but we assumed students should be involved." Current Judicial Administrator and Regional Science Department Chairperson Stephen Gale said "the two perspectives should be combined." "We have some very good people with different perspectives which, together, will do a lot more for us than saying one group, students or faculty, should have predominance," he said. The Abel report did not discuss this issue specifically. But College sophomore Eden Jacobowitz, the respondent in the "water buffalo" case, said he is not sure a student-run system is the answer to the problems which came from his case. "I think the judicial system should basically guide itself by the principle that the students of the University are mostly mature adults who do not require babysitting," Jacobowitz said. "[But] I don't know whether putting students in charge is going to solve all the problems. College senior Denita Thomas,one of the complainants in the case, would not comment last night. One similarity in the three reports is the support of increased mediation and alternatives to hearings in minor cases. The three reports all said that in more minor cases, mediation might allow those involved to avoid a hearing or further judicial processes. Vice Provost in the Provost's Office Kim Morrison said Monday the final draft of the Student Judicial Charter will not be ready until this fall.