Dean Tuttle's Trinitoninan Columns

Dean's List

<< PREVIOUS | HOME

February 27, 2004

NEXT >>

Printed procedures offer clarity

This is the second in a two-part series on disciplinary procedure changes approved for next year.

Students often don’t read the campus judicial procedures until they find themselves facing serious University consequences. Nevertheless, students should acquaint themselves with policies and procedures sometime other than when they are in trouble.

Last week I wrote that the disciplinary procedures review committee had two initial priorities: to affirm the importance of the student hearing board on campus (Student Court) and to continue the process of removing legal language from disciplinary procedures.

This column focuses on the other two judicial bodies: the University Conduct Board (formerly the administrative hearing body) and the Conduct Review Board (formerly the University Court).

The current administrative hearing procedure is generally reserved for sexual assault cases or other cases that may involve felony prosecution. This hearing has traditionally been conducted by a one-person hearing officer (the vice president for Student Affairs or, most often, the dean of students).

The administrative hearing officer has been required to serve in multiple roles: information gatherer; resource for the student, parents and concerned faculty (often all from opposing sides); meeting convener; decision-maker; and as the administration’s representative in appeals.

This puts the hearing officer in an extremely difficult position and can lead to perceptions that one person has too much control. There are virtually no written procedures for this type of hearing, which is problematic for students trying to move through it.

Next year, a panel of two faculty members and one student from the Student Conduct Board will sit on the University Conduct Board to hear cases formerly referred for administrative hearings. The dean of students will conduct the hearings but will no longer be in a decision-making role. This will free up the dean to be a more neutral adviser to students.

Student Conduct Board procedures. In fact, both boards will share identical and permanent procedures that will be published in the Student Handbook. (Currently procedures can change annually.)

Secondly, the committee changed the role of the University Court, which has been an appeal board consisting of three faculty members and three students.

Students often don’t read the campus judicial procedures until they find themselves facing serious University consequences. Nevertheless, students should acquaint themselves with policies and procedures sometime other than when they are in trouble.

The University Court has been in an unenviable position of trying to gather enough information to make an informed decision. The University Court often hears student statements, in a sense, creating a second hearing, which is extremely difficult on students.

Since faculty members and a student will serve on the University Conduct Board, strengthening the input on those serious cases, the appeal process can justifiably be simplified. Students will only be able to submit appeals in writing to a faculty and student appeal board – the Conduct Review Board.

The sum of all these changes should culminate in fair, clear and published procedures for students who find themselves in conflict with University policy.

HOME | TRINITY | TRINITONIAN

Webmaster: Jason Bullock