Taming Dean’s Discipline

Dean of Student Affairs Chris Colombo recently created a committee to evaluate the Dean's Discipline Process. Although such a review has been long overdue, the committee is a welcome step towards revamping the opaque procedures currently in place. As it looks to various ways of fixing the process, the committee should call for the hiring of advocates for students facing disciplinary action.

Dean’s Discipline handles the majority of student infractions. Students are notified by e-mail that they must attend a hearing, where they will be met by at least two representatives from the Division of Student Affairs and informed for the first time of the specific charges being brought against them. After being presented with this information, a student is given the opportunity to present his or her defense—a tall order on such short notice, especially without official guidance as to administrative procedures. The problem is exacerbated by the paucity of publicly available information about how Dean’s Discipline works. Students charged with interrupting Minuteman Project co-founder Jim Gilchrist’s speech waited months for their punishments, then found some had received “censures” while others received the lighter “disciplinary warning.” In response to this incident, the Student Governing Board called for a review of the process in April 2007. While the University does have an Ombuds Office, where students can learn about Dean’s Discipline and the procedures behind it, an ombudsman is required to remain neutral and cannot shepherd a student through the actual procedure. An official advocate tasked with preparing defenses in disciplinary proceedings would help students navigate this complicated process.

The University recently created a committee composed of leaders from Student Governing Board, the Activities Board at Columbia, Engineering Student Council, and Columbia College Student Council, as well as administrators, to reevaluate the Dean’s Discipline process. The committee has met three times so far and is listening to student complaints against the current system. It is working to make the process more equitable for students while continuing to protect the privacy of those involved. It is considering modeling Dean’s Discipline after the disciplinary procedures for sexual crimes—procedures that are not only much more transparent than those for Dean’s Discipline, but also allow for student advocates.

The committee should recommend that the University designate advocates for students in Dean’s Discipline. An advocate would be able to provide students with more information than is currently available before a hearing, and inform students of their rights and explain their options at all stages of the process. Furthermore, students would not be left fearfully in the dark as to possible punishments, as an advocate could provide a reasonable understanding of what to expect. Equally important, the presence of advocates would make hearings more consistent and fair. Because the University publicizes neither punishment guidelines nor the outcomes of disciplinary proceedings, students have no way of knowing whether the punishments they receive are on par with those meted out for similar infractions. While privacy concerns preclude the administration from disclosing information about how specific students have been punished, an advocate familiar with past cases could argue for consistent punishments.

Without advocates, students can easily get lost in the cryptic complexities of Dean’s Discipline. Before their hearings, students are unaware of the exact charges they face, and after the fact, they cannot assess the fairness of the punishment. It is heartening that the committee is giving serious thought to calling for student advocates. It should now follow through with a clear recommendation, which the University should act on immediately.