Questions, comments or a tip? Let us know.
Rethinking Dean's Discipline
PUBLISHED OCTOBER 29, 2007
Last semester, the students involved in the Minutemen demonstration were punished by the University without having a chance to present their cases with a friend or family member present, an effective means of appeal, or even an explanation for why some students received harsher punishments then others. Columbia's disciplinary procedures have been long criticized as arbitrary, opaque, and unjust. Dean's Discipline—the procedure by which Columbia tries students who are accused of violating University policies—is long overdue for an overhaul, and should be replaced with a new system that respects students' rights.
From the moment a student of Columbia College or SEAS is accused of violating the University's rules, he or she is denied any chance at a fair hearing. The student is notified in writing of the general charges against him or her, which includes only the sections of the Rules of University Conduct he or she is accused of violating without any specific facts about what he or she has allegedly done. Additionally, the notification may come several months after the violation occurred, which makes it incredibly difficult to gather witness testimony or build a defense. It is only once the accused student is at the hearing that he or she is notified of the facts of his or her violation. Hearings can be announced with as little as 24 hours noticed, but decisions can take months.
Once at the hearing, students are afforded none of the protections that Americans are given by the constitution. They must present their case in front of a legally trained official appointed by the administration, students may not be accompanied by a family member, a friend, or an attorney. Students may not take notes and the proceedings are conducted in secret, with no hope of transparency or accountability for Columbians who are at risk of expulsion and criminal prosecution. Even the appeals process is desperately in need of reform. Students can appeal a decision only up to ten days after they receive their punishment, and the administration can decide whether or not to hear the students' case. The dean of the students' school then reviews the case and makes a second, final decision. No one else is ever allowed to weigh in.
Many colleges and universities, including Barnard, have judicial boards with students sitting on them, which ensure that disciplinary procedures are transparent and involve the influence of the community that is harmed by violations. Columbia students only have this option when they commit serious violations to the Rules of University Conduct.
The University must work with students to reform Dean's Discipline. Rethinking this system should involve a serious collaboration between students and administrators to introduce some of the basic legal principles requisite for a fair application of justice. This might include a right to counsel, access to evidence before the actual hearing, and public records of proceedings, to name a few. Administrators should seriously consider instituting a judicial board with student representatives to ensure student oversight and justice where our university needs it most.
Article Tools:
View Comments ( 9)
Post a Comment
-->
This editorial raises more questions about the Spectator Editorial Board than it does about Dean's Discipline. Just who is the Editorial Board that prepared this? Undergrads? Outsiders? Lawyers? Sounds like lawyers to me.
If it is true, and I say IF it is true, that "Columbia's disciplinary procedures have been long criticized as arbitrary, opaque, and unjust", why doesn't the EB cite by whom? students, parents? protesters? outsiders? Lawyers? Sounds like lawyers to me.
How grandiose is the EB when offering this.. "Once at the hearing, students are afforded none of the protections that Americans are given by the constitution." The US Constitution? Now I really smell lawyers!
And this: "...the right to counsel, access to evidence before the actual hearing, and public records of proceedings.... " Miranda rights too? Sounds like lawyers to me.
This is a dangerous pile of legal pomposities disguised as reform. Who is the Editorial Board? Sounds like lawyers to me.
Wtf are you talking about? It's an editorial board of students, nothing more. Does having a passing knowledge of the constitution magically make them lawyers? I know how to remove a splinter, so I guess that makes me a doctor, right?
Anyway, I don't think they're saying that the laws of the Constitution actually DO apply to disciplinary procedures at a private institution, but rather that the protections of the U.S. legal system—right to counsel, access to evidence, etc.—offer a good model to aspire to. Student Affairs has said in the past that its disciplinary practices are fair and prudent; if that's true, its decisions should stand up to the scrutiny and rights guaranteed under a bona fide legal system. It rings a bit hollow when the deans pledge fairness but reject every reasonable means of verification and cling to an outdated system with no binding rules.
As they note, Columbia already offers these protections in a limited context under the Rules of University Conduct (which apply only to behavior at protests). Why not extend them to other types of violations (cheating, vandalism, etc.), which most of its Ivy peers have done? Many of the violations that trigger the RoUC carry lesser punishments than those handled under dean's discipline. This makes sense as an historical remnant of the context in which the Rules were drafted, but it should be corrected.
You're absolutely right (below) that few companies would offer such protections, but there are many, many aspects of a University that do not parrot those of a corporation (the right to freely criticize the administration, for one). I hope you'll agree that the corporate world shouldn't be the gold standard for how an institution of higher learning is structured—or should we switch to free market tuition pricing?
As for criticism, it's been lodged every time a major disciplinary incident has cropped up in the past five or six years (Minutemen, Ruggles vandalism, etc.). I imagine those aren't historical anomalies, either. You may disagree with that criticism, and that's fair, but it's nevertheless long-standing.
zing
"minute man demonstration"? You mean when a group of crazed lefties stormed the stage and started physically assaulting Jim Gilchrist and his crew? Yeah I saw that video. Good to know those losers were crying for mommy when the hammer of justice came down.
If you had really "seen that video," you'd know that the only kind of physical assault was committed by Gilchrist supporters. Maybe you need to brush up on the defintion of "physical assault."
Stop bellyaching. The Dean isnt a judge, a cop, or a prosecutor...which is why students cant bring in mom and dad to bail them out after they throw pies and punches at conservative speakers!
According to your "logic", I can have a lawyer present next time my boss wants to ream me out for taking a long lunch break or downloading MP3s on the company's network!
You people are ill prepared for the real world, I promise you that. Fucking crybabys.
First of all, you CAN have a lawyer present at any disciplinary action by a company, and I DEFINITELY would have one if I'm accused of downloading mp3's. But the biggest point you miss is that students pay to go to school at this university, so when they're accused of a violation that could cost them their investment it's only fair to at least allow them to have a witness.
If they're so worried about wasting mom and dad's money maybe they should hit the books instead of hitting guest speakers??? Something to think about!
Post new comment