Provost reviese new judicial charter for fall

Suggestions from student, faculty incorporated Rockville, MD The University will probably institute a new judicial charter in the fall after a year-long review process that was driven by heated calls from students and faculty members for revision of the proposed draft. Provost Stanley Chodorow released a draft of the charter to the public for the first time in September, drawing the ire of undergraduate members of the Student Judicial Committee. Charged by him to help write the document, Committee members said they felt their suggestions had been ignored. "There are a few issues which stand out as inconsistent with our goals for the system, and because of that, we cannot support it," said College senior Wilton Levine, chairperson of the committee. The judicial charter governs how the University's disciplinary system handles complaints against undergraduates and also includes a new Code of Academic Conduct, which outlines how it deals with allegations of academic improprieties. Opponents of the earliest proposed charter were unhappy with its clauses that students' facxulty advisors would not be allowed to speak at hearings, even though undergraduates were to be questioned by a faculty member, most likely an attorney, at judicial hearings. "If you're charged under this, get a lawyer," said History Professor Alan Kors, who advised College graduate Eden Jacobowitz in his 1993 hearing in the "water buffalo" case. "If I were a student, I would be terrified to find myself caught up in this system." The first Amendment Task Force issued a list of 33 suggested changes to the prposed draft to mke it fairer to students, including calls for greater student involvement in the process. After a revised draft of the charter was released in February, critics took aim at a provision that forbade any participant in a judicial hearing from speaking publicly about it, and deemed all testimony, files and findings from the hearing to be confidential. Changes to the charter under the new draft include provisions requiring the provost to consult the faculty senate before dismissing or replacing judicial system officials he appoints; and mandating that the Disciplinary Hearing Officer, who oversees the system, is a tenured faculty member. The draft also included new language that allowed students' advisors to speak in hearings, but only if the DHO deems the situation to have "extraordinary circumstances." "How date the University believe that it may draw a shadow of night around itself and not be subjected to the scrutiny of public opinion," Kors said. The Undergraduate Assembly unanimously passed a resolution expressing the body's "disappointment" with the revised draft. The First Amendment Task Force also voted to oppose the charter. In September, the UA unanimously recommended that Chodorow lessen the provost's role in the process, allow hearings to be open to the public at respondent's request and broaden the ability of a student's advisor to speak at hearings. College sophomore and current UA chairperson Tal Golomb put up flyers and posted e-mail messages advising students who opposed the "disastrous and freightening" charter to show their concern by attending the February 21 University Council meeting. Council is a body of Undergraduate Assembly members, graduate students, staff, faculty members and administrators that meet the last Wednesday of every month to advise the president and provost on policy issues. Then UA Chairperson Lance Rogers, a College senior, said in his report to Council that undergraduates were "misled" by Chodorow and University President Judith Rodin about the Charter's contents. "The UA, (Graduate and Professional Student Assembly) and faculty members alike continue to be treated superficially, or in most cases, downright ignored," Rogers said. After the meeting, Rodin approached Rogers and, in the presence of her advisors, spoke with him for more than 15 minutes about the charter and the UA's response to it. "Get a life," Rodin tole him at one point during the animated conversation. "There are more important things going on at the University than the judicial charter." The last version of the proposed charter, which was released and submitted to the faculty of the four undergraduate schools for approval in March, included several changes in response to student and faculty protests. Under the latest charter, which has been approved by three of four undergraduate schools, respondents can disclose confidential information about themselves, but may not violate the confidentiality of others. Also, judicial hearings may be opened if both the respondent and complainants agree in writing. But the DHO has the power to close them to protect the rights of the participants. And advisors can now speak in the hearings with the DHO's permission.