Provost revises judicial charter draft

Provost Stanley Chodorow will issue a revised judicial charter draft today that will address many student and faculty concerns. The revised charter will be published in today's Almanac, along with a letter written by the provost, College senior Wilton Levine, chairperson of the Student Judicial Charter and Judicial Reform Oversight Committee, and College senior Ashley Magids, chairperson of the Academic Integrity and Judicial Reform Oversight Committee. "In general, the new revisions relax the rules for opening hearings and reinstate, with some clarifications, the current charter's provisions regarding confidentiality," the letter states. Chodorow said last night that the most important of these changes "stemmed from a fresh look at the way the University will interpret the requirements of the Buckley Amendment, i.e. the sections pertaining to confidentiality and the opening of hearings to the public." Respondents may "disclose confidential information pertaining to himself but may not violate the confidentiality of others," under today's new draft. The previous proposal barred all members of the University community from disclosing information pertaining to any aspects of disciplinary hearings. The revisions also include changes that will allow open hearings if the respondent and complainants agree in writing. The prior draft required University approval before hearings could be opened. But the Disciplinary Hearing Officer would retain the power to close the hearings in order to maintain order or protect the rights of participants. In addition, the "extraordinary cases" clause has been removed from the section governing advisors, which will allow the DHO to allow the respondent's advisor to speak for the respondent under any circumstances the DHO deems necessary. The revised draft also clears up some confusion about the provost's ability to alter sanctions recommended by a hearing panel. Under the new draft, the provost must impose the recommended sanctions. Both previous proposals included language that could have been interpreted so as to allow the provost to impose sanctions without respecting the panel's recommendations. Student and staff reaction to the changes has been mixed. "The provost has made a lot of progress but there is still one huge issue that has not been addressed," First Amendment Task Force founding member Mike Nadel said. "The provost is asking faculty to surrender control over the judicial system." Nadel, a College senior and a Daily Pennsylvanian columnist, explained that by voting for this charter, the faculty will lose its approval power over all future amendments. The charter draft calls for the Council of Deans to approve any amendments to the system. But the whole faculties of the schools must vote on the charter before it is implemented. Nadel argued that without faculty control over future amendments, the provost could easily force the deans -- who the provost appoints -- to approve changes that would be detrimental to students. "The provost and his appointees will be able to make whatever changes they want and undo all the progress that we've made," he said. Undergraduate Assembly Chairperson and College senior Lance Rogers agreed. "The faculty embodies the essence of this University and should certainly play a role in the amendment process," Rogers said. But Magids said these criticisms were off-base. "I absolutely do not think that this will happen," she said. "This document is one that the provost supports and I would like to think he would defend it if a dean or anyone tried to make any changes." History Professor Alan Kors, who advised then-College freshman Eden Jacobowitz in the infamous 1993 "water buffalo" case, said the changes are "a great improvement because the right of a respondent to speak out operates as a very essential check on the abuse of power." Kors said he would like to see respondents have full discretion in whether to open hearings to the public. "I also think that? the respondent's advisor should be free to speak out about what he or she feels to be injustice," he said. Kors also voiced concern that the provost's power to impose sanctions was left unclear, even with the reworded language in that section. "It is not clear if the provost is limited to the sanctions recommend by the hearing panel or if he may increase them," he said. But Political Science Professor Will Harris said the new clause cleared up the previous confusion. "The provost imposes the sanction, because it is his authority under which any sanction would be imposed," he said. "I believe it is quite clear that the provost can not add anything."