LAST WEEK graduate student Richard Felker made the bold decision to open his University Judiciary Committee trial for misconduct to the public. While the trial, in which Felker was found guilty, gave the University community a chance to witness the professionalism and competency with which UJC proceedings are conducted, it also served as a reminder of the tremendous power the Committee wields over students in relative secrecy and ought to reinvigorate discussion on increasing the transparency of the judiciary system.
Felker's trial appears to have been the first open UJC trial in University history, meaning that every year, hundreds of students face judiciary charges, and penalties that range from admonishment to expulsion, out of public sight. A few dedicated volunteers decide what conduct is acceptable and what merits punishment in the University community without facing outside scrutiny. The student body is unable to review UJC decisions and consider whether penalties impinge on students' basic rights, do not match publicly accepted standards or fail to sufficiently punish serious offenders.
There are certainly no ill intentions behind UJC policy. Quite the contrary -- the system is specifically designed to protect those who come before the tribunal. Both accused and convicted students are allowed to keep proceedings secret so as to avoid any public humiliation or other complications that might stem from their involvement in judiciary actions.
In the U.S. judicial system, such privileges are superseded by the need for complete transparency, the hallmark of American legal procedure that holds lawmakers, police officers and judges accountable for their actions in order to ensure fairness. While most disciplinary institutions are held to this standard, the founders of the University's judiciary and honor systems felt an educational institution warranted an exception, and the federal government has long agreed.
The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, a federal law, gives students in any school above the high school level the power to limit institutional release of educational documents, including those relating to disciplinary matters. The logic behind such rulings, the same that undergirds UJC and Honor Committee policy, holds that an educational community entails a different set of relationships than does a general civil community. Students are subject to different pressures and circumstances, and thus demand different, sensitive governance.
While some might argue that the need for review and accountability of judicial processes outweighs these factors, even in a college community, University students seem to appreciate the additional privacy. All students before Felker chose to keep their UJC proceedings closed and those who face honor cases behave similarly, making open honor trials a rarity.
Thus disciplinary procedure at the University is put in a difficult position. While federal law and student preference give precedent for closed proceedings, such secret punitive actions clearly go against the grain of modern liberal doctrine. Further, common sense tells us that trials that can have such a major effect on students' lives should be held to the highest standards of accountability.
Felker's trial provided ample evidence in support of transparency. Judges charged with determining Felker's guilt or innocence were not faced with a 'did he or didn't he' situation, rather they had to decide whether Felker's admitted actions constituted an impermissible disturbance of a University event. Felker held that his protest was protected by the right to free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment.
Regardless of one's stance on the outcome of Felker's case, it shows that UJC deals with far more complicated issues than drinking in dorms. Disciplinary proceedings must tread a fine line, protecting contentious but legal actions at all costs and consistently handing down fair penalties for even the paltriest transgressions.
No panel of five judges, no matter how fair-minded and competent, should be allowed to dictate what is and is not permissible within the University community. Rather, public consideration by the thousands of students and faculty that make up the community of trust is needed.
One possible solution to the current problem would be editing and releasing documentation of each trial to the public. If the UJC removed students' names and identifying information from case files, summaries of each trial could be released, allowing interested community members to scrutinize judicial actions. Such procedure would be permissible under federal law and would guarantee a higher standard of justice at the University.
Yesterday, the Honor Committee agreed to a weekly release of edited trial information that will include the nature and outcome of each trial and limited, non-identifying information on the accused and the accuser. The UJC must follow suit.
In the past, UJC has been petitioned for release of edited case files, but high costs and excessive time and effort have proved hindrances. However, if the judiciary board acts now to make compiling releasable information part and parcel of investigating and trying students, the practice could be integrated into the current system and would require little effort in the future.
The men and women of the UJC have time and again demonstrated their capability and their dedication to fair, efficient student judiciary proceedings. There is no time like the present for a body of intelligent, fair-minded people to reevaluate the transparency of our system and take decisive action to strengthen the University community.
Nick Chapin's column appears Tuesdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at nchapin@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
KURTZWEIL: True financial aid must be transparent
By Paul Kurtzweil | YesterdayThe implications and revelations of the lawsuit should inspire greater transparency at the University in order to ensure that financial aid is properly and equitably distributed.
SULLIVAN: Ramp up physical accessibility on Grounds
By Scarlett Sullivan | 3 days agoThe University must take responsibility for the inaccessibility of Grounds and work to promote accessibility for all students despite misguided laws.
EDITORIAL: Scapegoating students will not stop hazing
By Editorial Board | 5 days agoInstead of retroactively responding to extreme hazing allegations, we, and especially the University, must begin asking more probing questions about the role of fraternal organizations on Grounds.
