Diverse group debates revised Judicial Charter

Seven faculty and staff members and eight students gathered to discuss the future of the University's judicial system yesterday afternoon. Sitting at an oblong conference table in a stuffy room on the second floor of Houston Hall, a portrait of Bishop White staring sternly down upon them, the group of 15 vaguely resembled a convention of jurists from centuries past. The group spent two hours in heated discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of the once-again-revised Judicial Charter, returning repeatedly to unresolved issues until a consensus was reached on many points. College junior Wilton Levine, who chaired the Student Judicial Reform Committee working group that wrote the new Charter, centered debate around the role of advisors in the new judicial system and the procedure for questioning witnesses. Other concerns that were raised include whether a hearing board's decision will be a final decision or merely a recommendation to the provost and who is permitted to present new evidence after a finding has been made in a case. College senior Dan Schorr, an Undergraduate Assembly member and chairperson of the First Amendment Task Force, opened the conversation by expressing his fear that without an advisor who can speak on their behalf, accused students will be unable to present their cases effectively to a hearing board. Levine countered by explaining that if an advisor -- once permitted to speak -- began to dominate judicial proceedings, the hearing board would have no way to remove him or her from the hearing. But John Rudolph, manager of the Student Employment Division of Student Financial Services, disagreed. Rudolph has served as an advisor within the judicial system for the past three years. "I really see the role of advisor as more than a hand-holding function," he said, adding that although students should not be expected to face judicial proceedings alone, advisors also need more direction from the University. The group agreed that a procedure should be developed to prevent advisors from assuming control of a hearing, while simultaneously offering them more comment than a simple summary statement. Judicial Officer Steven Blum admitted that the current system is unwieldy, but said that whatever system is implemented in its place must allow the University to function as a University -- not a court of law. "The purpose of the system is to bring together a wide variety of viewpoints," Associate Professor of Radiology David Hackney said. "[We need] more people, less arbitrators." College senior Beth Hirschfelder, who chaired the SJRC working groups that drafted the Code of Conduct, agreed -- citing the importance of protecting both victims and those students who are wrongly accused. Arguments followed about the purpose of the University's judicial system, specifically whether it is inherently confrontational or adversarial and how it can better serve students' needs. "Finding the truth is not your purpose -- it's not the University's purpose either," Associate Professor of Political Science Will Harris said. "Doing justice is." A timetable for the procedures outlined in the draft Charter was also discussed yesterday. Levine said he felt the meeting was "perhaps the most productive we've had so far," adding that he will work with Hirschfelder and College junior Ashley Magids, chairperson of the academic integrity working group, to incorporate new ideas into the existing Charter's framework.

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