EDITORIAL: ?And justice for none

The proposed judicial charterThe proposed judicial charteris a frightening mockery ofThe proposed judicial charteris a frightening mockery ofdue process for all who wouldThe proposed judicial charteris a frightening mockery ofdue process for all who wouldbe subject to its autocraticThe proposed judicial charteris a frightening mockery ofdue process for all who wouldbe subject to its autocraticregulations.The proposed judicial charteris a frightening mockery ofdue process for all who wouldbe subject to its autocraticregulations._______________________________ The latest version of the charter, released Tuesday, shows incremental improvement but much of the same ignorance of student desires -- and it also incorporates additional onerous provisions. The new draft mandates the absolute secrecy of all proceedings and records associated with the judicial system. Therefore, anyone accused of anything risks being charged a second time for taking his or her case public -- even if evidence that would prove innocence is being wrongly suppressed. The new proposal provides for a student-faculty hearing panel, but does not give this group the power to make binding recommendations of sanctions or punishment for respondents, instead assigning that function to the provost or his designee. And while it finally allows the inclusion of off-campus attorneys in judicial proceedings, the new document stipulates that they may only speak in "extraordinary circumstances," to be determined by the Disciplinary Hearing Officer (appointed by the provost). To make matters worse, "In all cases, the University reserves the right to determine how to process a disciplinary complaint" (Section I.C.3) and "All members of the University community are required to cooperate with the Student Disciplinary System?. A student who fails, without good cause, to appear for a hearing after receiving notice, or to cooperate with the investigation conducted by the OSC, may be charged with a violation of the Code of Student Conduct" (I.C.5). Coupled with the confidentiality stipulations, these guidelines mean you're damned if you do, damned if you don't. Perhaps the only bright spot in the newly proffered charter is that it would give the Faculty Senate a voice in appointing judicial system officials, taking some power away from the provost. In sum, however, we are dismayed that after being flooded with comments from across the University, urging more openness and honesty in the judicial process and a less adversarial environment for students accused of violating the standards of this community, Chodorow would release such an inflexible and all-encompassing document. We realize the judicial system is not, and is not intended to be, a legal system. But we don't think preserving basic human rights is too much to ask, when membership in the University community comes at a high financial and personal price, and expulsion from it carries drastic, life-altering consequences.