U. Council discusses judicial charter draft

Criticism of the proposed University judicial charter dominated discussion at yesterday's University Council meeting, the first of the year. Provost Stanley Chodorow did not explicitly defend the draft against its critics, saying that a heated debate at Council would do little to resolve the concerns members of the community have expressed about the charter. Instead, Chodorow clarified some vague parts of the charter, and called for responses to the proposal from across the University. "I welcome all the feedback I can get," he said. "And I would be happy to entertain new comments based on a complete reading of the actual document." The body also discussed the reports of the Provost's Council on Undergraduate Education and several Council committees yesterday. And before the meeting started, Council moderator and Political Science Professor Will Harris announced that the Council's Steering Committee had decided to allow UTV13 to televise meetings for at least the duration of the fall semester. But most of the meeting focused specifically on responses to the charter proposal, which was released for comment by the University community on Tuesday. Chodorow said his office will take suggestions for improving the charter from across campus until October 6. He said he felt the charter met the goal of producing a "fair, open system." But members of Council reiterated concerns that the proposal places too much control in the hands of the provost, with student rights and faculty involvement being lost. "It comes a long way, and it's a generally workable document," said College senior Wilton Levine, chairperson of a student committee that advised Chodorow on the draft last spring. "But [in some areas] it's not really a fair system." But Chodorow said he is ultimately responsible for protecting both the integrity of the system and the mission of the University. He said he felt this justifies the provost's powerful role in the proposed charter. But he also said that part of the University's mission is to ensure fairness for its students. Other Council members echoed Levine's sentiments. Associate Radiology Professor David Hackney said he found many aspects of the charter bizarre and troubling. "The document does not say that once someone is found not responsible by the hearing panel, the case is over," Hackney told Chodorow. Chodorow said he felt some basic rights not mentioned in the document -- such as a student respondent's right to consult an attorney before entering a hearing -- were implicit in the charter, and therefore did not merit specific mention. He said he plans to clear up problems of vague language, and he hoped that will settle some people's concerns about the draft. But Chodorow added that some points in the document are simply a matter of differing opinion, and that he would have the final say on those points. "I can't guarantee I will change my mind," he said. "It's a matter of assessing where the responsibility for the mission of the institution is."