EDITORIAL: Justice for None, Reprise

Once again the newly proposedOnce again the newly proposedStudent Judicial Charter is anOnce again the newly proposedStudent Judicial Charter is anunacceptable judicial systemOnce again the newly proposedStudent Judicial Charter is anunacceptable judicial systemwhich limits student involvementOnce again the newly proposedStudent Judicial Charter is anunacceptable judicial systemwhich limits student involvementand places too much power in theOnce again the newly proposedStudent Judicial Charter is anunacceptable judicial systemwhich limits student involvementand places too much power in thehands of Provost Stanley Chodorow.Once again the newly proposedStudent Judicial Charter is anunacceptable judicial systemwhich limits student involvementand places too much power in thehands of Provost Stanley Chodorow.___________________________________ The new proposal is riddled with the same drawbacks as the earlier version, minimizing the importance of fairness and student contribution. We wonder if Provost Stanley Chodorow's involvement has prevented the committee from producing a charter with which students would be more comfortable. College senior Wilton Levine -- who chaired the committee -- said, "The document was written over the summer by people in the Provost's office and in the President's office. We did not write it." Following the publication of the original proposal in February, Chodorow said, during a forum with students, that efficiency -- rather than fairness -- is crucial to a new system. His comments speak for themselves: Changes to the judicial process "are not about fairness, but about effectiveness." With Chodorow supervising the new charter, can he support a document detailing a calculated and meticulous, but fair system? Based on the recent proposal, apparently not. The new proposal places too much control with Chodorow. The new system would be run by the Office of Student Conduct, under the direction and control of the provost. A Disciplinary Hearing Officer, appointed by the provost, would preside over hearings and serve as chairperson of the hearing board. And, the decisions reached by the hearing board would not be binding, but would be mere recommendations to the provost. If the University hopes to achieve a fair document with student input, we urge the committee to reconvene and formulate a new document in which the hearing board's decisions are final and a member of that board, consisting of both students and faculty, presides over the hearing. Only then will students have a real stake in the system, and the deliberations of a student-faculty hearing board will be more than just a facade for authoritarianism. The University community is tired of lip service and so are we. The newest proposal must be amended to guarantee meaningful student involvement and possibly slow, but fair, procedures. If a new proposal cannot be formulated with the student committee leaders present and contributing, then we ask University President Judith Rodin to consider removing the project from Chodorow's jurisdiction and give it to an administrator that has the same goals as the committee charged with this task.