Dean Tuttle's Trinitoninan Columns

Dean's List

<< PREVIOUS | HOME

February 20, 2004

NEXT >>

Dean outlines new procedures

Last semester the administration, the faculty, and the Association of Student Representatives (ASR) all approved changes to disciplinary procedures for students accused of violating University policies. Students concerned about their rights and the fairness of procedures should acquaint themselves with these important changes.

As a starting point, the goal of the University disciplinary process is educational. Students are making the transition from adolescence to adulthood and experiencing independence for the first time in an environment where it should be safe to make mistakes, to learn about choices and consequences and to consider the impact of their behavior on others.

The University process becomes punitive (where students are removed from the University) only when there is a pattern of disrespect for policies or egregious conduct (usually violent behavior). It is, after all, a privilege to be here. Students have a right to feel safe and to be able to study in what is first and foremost a learning environment.

Furthermore, determining rules to maintain that environment can be traced to this premise: People should treat themselves, each other and property with respect. (And of course dorm balconies should be kept neat and uncluttered.) In addition, the Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act requires that we adopt a program to prevent the unlawful possession, use or distribution of alcohol and illicit drugs by students in order to receive federal funding of any kind (including student financial aid).

The committee first determined it values the concept of an all-student conduct board. It is unusual for a University to refer nearly all conduct matters to an all-student panel. Peer review is an important tradition on this campus.

Second, the committee removed all legal language from the procedures. On the surface this may appear superfluous, but the University does not enforce or uphold the law (though some policies mirror the law). Trinity does, however, establish and uphold its own policies. Mistakenly applying legal procedures to University conduct procedures shifts the emphasis from education, responsibility and accountability to issues related to process.

The Student Court was never intended to act as a real “court,” as rules of evidence are beyond the scope of a student board. (Because of their complexity, they are often beyond the scope of educated attorneys.) The Student Court is a panel whose goal is to determine what has occurred and to respond accordingly. Clear, simple and understandable procedures are critical to providing a fair process for students accused of violating policies.

As a starting point, the goal of the University disciplinary process is educational. Students are making the transition from adolescence to adulthood and experiencing independence for the first time in an environment where it should be safe to make mistakes, to learn about choices and consequences and to consider the impact of their behavior on others.

It is a disservice to students and their parents to let them think our process is a legal one. Thus, students are found “not responsible” rather than “not guilty”; they are “respondents” rather than “defendants.” The “Student Court” will now be called the “Student Conduct Board” to more accurately reflect its role.

Likewise, the standard of proof in a University setting is not as high as in a criminal court (beyond a reasonable doubt) because the stakes are different. Students who violate policies are not facing jail time or execution. The Board’s standard of proof is to determine if it is more or less likely that a policy violation has occurred. (This standard remains unchanged.)

Next week I will review further changes in campus judicial procedures.

HOME | TRINITY | TRINITONIAN

Webmaster: Jason Bullock