Judicial code to be released

After a year of discussion, debate and compromise, subgroups of the Student Judicial Reform Committee have drafted documents that could change the way the justice is meted out at the University. The documents, which detail how alleged violations of the Code of Conduct and Code of Academic Integrity should be handled, will be available for comment before being finalized. College junior Ashley Magids, who chaired the academic integrity working group, said her subcommittee decided to create a separate system to deal with violations of the academic integrity code. She said this would simplify the judicial process -- and emphasize the importance of honesty in scholastic endeavors through the selection of a 16-member student Honor Council. With implementation of the new policies tentatively scheduled for next fall, College junior and student judicial charter working group chairperson Wilton Levine said he is pleased with his group's accomplishments. "In what we're proposing, we've really developed a system for students to be directly involved in overseeing the judicial process," Levine said. He added that the working group examined judicial charters from more than 15 other schools and combined their best features with the University's existing judicial system to fashion the new charter. The hallmark of the new charter is student involvement. It establishes a Student Judicial Council -- which will consist of five faculty members and 11 students, one of whom will act as chairperson -- to advise the Judicial Officer. The SJC's three-member executive committee would work with the JO to decide how cases progress through the judicial system, considering options ranging from dropping a case entirely to referring it to a hearing board of two faculty members and three students. Under the new charter, however, selected cases could be voluntarily referred to an on-campus mediation center, which would also be available to students trying to resolve disputes such as conflicts with roommates. If a case is referred to a hearing board, the complainant would not appear unless called as a witness, the draft document states. The respondent would be permitted to have an advisor present -- although that person would not be allowed to speak during any judicial proceedings. However, there is still one major point of contention in the proposal -- the working group believes that the hearing board's findings should be considered a decision, while Provost Stanley Chodorow contends that findings of fact should only take the form of recommendations to him or another administrator appointed by him. But Levine said he feels that judgement by one's peers would encourage students to feel "ownership" of their actions and the results of those actions, and would probably be harsher than rulings by administrators. The proposed charter states that appeals could only be advanced because of suspected bias or procedural error. They would still be read by the Provost, who would make a final decision. Penalties or sanctions imposed by the hearing board could not be increased by the Provost on appeal. Magids said her committee worked jointly with Levine's for much of the past year, because their projects were parallel in many ways and because alleged violations of both the Code of Conduct or the Code of Academic Integrity will go through the Judicial Office. The Honor Council would act as an advisory body, in a manner similar to that of the SJC, Magids added. It would assist the Provost in deciding whether to drop, settle or pursue a case. If the latter option is chosen, the Council would select the two student hearing board members for that case.

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