EDITORIAL: And Justice for None

The proposed Student JudicialThe proposed Student JudicialCharter, supported by ProvostThe proposed Student JudicialCharter, supported by ProvostStanley Chodorow, is not anThe proposed Student JudicialCharter, supported by ProvostStanley Chodorow, is not anacceptable judicial systemThe proposed Student JudicialCharter, supported by ProvostStanley Chodorow, is not anacceptable judicial systembecause it embraces speed andThe proposed Student JudicialCharter, supported by ProvostStanley Chodorow, is not anacceptable judicial systembecause it embraces speed andefficiency at the expenseThe proposed Student JudicialCharter, supported by ProvostStanley Chodorow, is not anacceptable judicial systembecause it embraces speed andefficiency at the expenseof fairness.The proposed Student JudicialCharter, supported by ProvostStanley Chodorow, is not anacceptable judicial systembecause it embraces speed andefficiency at the expenseof fairness._______________________________ But unfortunately, justice at the University cannot work like Henry Ford's assembly line. Instead, it must be a slow and calculated process that ensures fairness, not speed. In order to function properly, any judicial system must have fairness as its most central element -- both the accused and the accuser must have equal opportunity. And perhaps, the slow pace of justice is the consequence we must accept if we truly seek objectivity and unbiased treatment in a judicial system. Unfortunately, Chodorow's comments make perfectly clear that he does not see fairness as vital to the Student Judicial Charter. Instead, he seeks a quick fix and machine-like efficiency so not to bog down a new system. His comments say it all: "[Changes to the judicial process are] not about fairness, but about effectiveness." Chodorow has championed a proposal that "allows the institution to pursue its academic mission." But his desire for a smooth and efficient system minimizes the importance of fairness. And it is this fairness that must be at the core of any judicial system at the University. In the American judicial system, any defendant has the right to an attorney to advise his client and challenge his accuser during any hearing. But not at the University. The charter proposal, instead, prevents any advisor to the accused student from speaking during any judicial procedure. This may speed the process, but it will not ensure fairness. All it will do is leave an 18- to 22 year-old student to face his trial and its consequences alone. Furthermore, citizens are presumed innocent until proven guilty in the American judicial system. Not at the University. No where in the charter does it say students are innocent until proven guilty. Even more alarming is that the hearing board controls the hearing and asks all the questions. The accused student cannot speak unless spoken to. He cannot call witnesses -- he can only request that the hearing board calls them. And he cannot cross-examine any witnesses. This system makes it extremely difficult for a student to respond if he is wrongly accused. The proposed code in its current form overlooks all the lessons that can be learned from the American judicial system that has worked for over 200 years. Instead of embracing fairness like our forefathers did, the University looks for speed and efficiency. And what compounds this mistaken philosophy is that all the hearings are closed, so that even if there was an abuse of justice no one would know. We urge University Council at its meeting today to reject the current proposal and mandate that another committee start anew so that fairness -- and justice -- are at its center.