Authors of judicial code blast draft

Say new system would be unfair The student committee responsible for drafting a new disciplinary charter will not support the version published in yesterday's edition of Almanac, according to committee chairperson and College senior Wilton Levine. Other student leaders and faculty members also reacted strongly to the proposed charter, which will be discussed in depth at today's University Council meeting. Calling the proposed system unfair to students, Levine said there are serious problems with the charter as written. "There are a few issues which stand out as inconsistent with our goals for the system, and because of that, we cannot support it," he said. "If our recommendations are taken into account and written into the system, we will support it." The three student members of the committee submitted their suggestions for the charter to Provost Stanley Chodorow in April. But since then, they have not met with him, Levine said. Yesterday's publication of the charter revealed for the first time that the administration used few of the committee's recommendations in drafting the plan, he added. Chodorow could not be reached for comment last night. Levine said the system as proposed is "very prosecutorial," adding that his committee had intended a non-adversarial hearing procedure. Under the new proposal, a faculty member -- probably an attorney -- would present the University's case in hearings. But students would argue their own cases, while their advisors would not be allowed to speak, Levine said. "That's definitely not a fair system" he added. "That's putting someone trained against someone who's never done this before." History Professor Alan Kors, who advised College senior Eden Jacobowitz in his 1993 hearing in the "water buffalo" case, sharply criticized the proposal. The "water buffalo" case saw Jacobowitz charged with racial harassment for calling several black students "water buffalo". It brought national attention to the University's speech code and its judicial system. Kors said students should not consider their rights protected at all by the proposed charter. "If you're charged under this, get a lawyer," he said. "If I were a student, I would be terrified to find myself caught up in this system." Kors added that because administrators who are obligated to the University control too much of the proposed system, it would end up protecting only the legal interests of the University. Students' rights could be sacrificed, he said. He listed several other problems he found with the charter, and then added, "I have only scratched the surface of catastrophes." University student leaders said they were also troubled by many aspects of the proposed charter. "It's definitely an improvement over the last draft," said College senior Eric Tienou, president of the First Amendment Task Force. "But there's some areas of concern as to the Provost's role in the whole situation." Tienou said the Task Force is considering writing a set of recommended changes to the charter and delivering them to Chodorow. If the group chooses this option, Tienou said its version would be released by early next week. He also expressed hope that dialogue with Chodorow in the next few weeks would yield a fair charter accepted by most of the University community. Undergraduate Assembly Chairperson Lance Rogers, a College senior, said he also has some reservations about the charter, but that he has not thought about it very much yet. He added that the UA is interested in getting reaction to the proposal from students across campus. "I'd encourage everyone to read the charter," Rogers said. "The UA welcomes their comments and suggestions." Kors, Levine and Tienou all said the general lack of student and faculty control over the system was a major flaw with the document. "The Provost is responsible for appointing essentially all the players within the system, and he is also able to remove -- at his discretion -- all the players except students," Levine said. He added that there are several key faculty posts within the proposed system. "We would like to see the Faculty Senate appoint these members," he said. "The Provost would still have the ultimate authority to run the system but it would diffuse his day-to-day power."