NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/alt/comp/acadfre/talk/4030

Text File | 1993-01-26 | 15.2 KB | 252 lines

Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Path: sparky!uunet!usc!sdd.hp.com!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!cs.uiuc.edu!kadie
From: [e-mail] (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [Inside Illinois] Committee Formed to Review UI's Discipline System
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 06:15:32 GMT
Lines: 242

[This is an article from _Inside Illinois_, the Faculty-Staff
Newspaper of the U. of Illinois, January 21. The newspaper is
available via gopher (details appended) or via the newsgroup
uiuc.pubs.in-illinois. - Carl]

Committee Formed to Review UI's Discipline System
By Melissa Mitchell

Committee formed to review  UIs discipline system For at least the
fourth time in its 60-year history, the UIs discipline system is
about to undergo a comprehensive review.  On each occasion in the
past  most recently, in the late 1970s  the system has been found
to be fundamentally sound, but has been fine-tuned to accommodate
changing times. The impending review, set to begin in the next few
weeks, was called for last week by a special committee, appointed
by Senate Council chair and English professor Emily Watts.  The
committee, which included the chairs of the Senate committees on
Equal Opportunity, University Student Life, Student Discipline,
and General University Policy, was formed after the Student Government
Association presented a report to the Senate Council calling for
an examination of the student discipline system in the wake of
recent criticism by some students and others. The committee
recommended a review of all aspects of the system, with special
attention to procedural issues. It also called for the existing
student discipline system to continue to function while the review
is under way.  We welcome the review, said kinesiology professor
Nancy Rich, who chairs the Urbana-Champaign Senates Subcommittee
on Undergraduate Student Conduct. This system has a long history
of working pretty well, but we can always do better.  Rich said
everyone involved with the system has the same goal.  Ultimately,
we want people to get a fair hearing, she said, adding that it is
important to keep in mind that the UIs discipline system is
educational, not punitive.  Were an educational system, not a court,
and we dont want to turn this into a court system, Rich said. Most
of those who come before the discipline system are not bad individuals,
they just make bad choices. But when the code is violated, we want
to say to students, What you did is wrong, sit back and consider
what you did, and re-evaluate your behavior. And, we educate them
that there are consequences that come with bad choices.  Only in
rare cases do we call for dismissal, she said. In the case of
dismissal, we say, What you did is inconsistent with the standards
of this academic institution, go home for a period of time and
then, if you can abide by the code, come back and talk to us about
the possibility of completing your education. What many do not
understand is that with dismissal, a student may petition to be
re-admitted after the defined period of dismissal. Also, dismissal
is not a common sanction.  Rich has chaired the disciplinary
subcommittee since mid-November. Before that, she served as a member
of the Senate Committee on Student Discipline. The subcommittee is
charged by the Senate Committee on Student Discipline to hear
student disciplinary cases, as are similar, but less active,
subcommittees serving students in the Graduate College and colleges
of law and veterinary medicine.  Most of the 100 to 150 cases heard
typically each year by the undergraduate subcommittee involve
allegations of serious infractions of the Code on Campus Affairs.
Cases of a less serious nature are typically resolved through an
informal meeting with one of the universitys three disciplinary
officers, who may either dismiss a case or authorize minor sanctions
ranging from probation to issuing a reprimand of record  which is
removed from the students file upon graduation.  The job of the
subcommittee is to review all aspects of cases that involve more
serious offenses, as well as those in which the students request
a hearing. The subcommittee is charged with determining whether
the student has violated the code; and, if so, issue an appropriate
sanction.  While the universitys discipline process does not allow
for standard courtroom practices such as issuing subpoenas or
allowing for cross-examination by attorneys, our procedures are
very, very clear, Rich said. And, she added, the system was
deliberately designed to afford students every opportunity to
present their side of the case  verbally and in writing; to have
an adviser and witnesses present who will speak on their behalf at
a hearing; to present any other substantiating documentation; and
to question witnesses or accusers.  Further, if students are
dissatisfied with a ruling or sanction by the subcommittee, they
are encouraged to appeal the decision to the Senate Committee on
Student Discipline, chaired by animal sciences professor Carl
Parsons.  Our main goal is to oversee the entire system, Parsons
said. Our primary function is to hear the appeals. Even though we
oversee the entire process, we purposely dont get involved with
the day-to-day work of the subcommittee. Otherwise, the committee
members could be biased, he said, in the event that a particular
case should be sent to the committee for appeal.  If a case is
appealed, Parsons committee does not rehear the case, but simply
reviews it on the basis of four criteria: We review it to determine
whether there was a violation of the code, whether the procedure
was authorized, whether the sanction was authorized and whether
the sanction was warranted, he said.  The Senate committee also is
charged with appointing members to the subcommittee. Potential
members are selected two ways  through randomly generated lists of
students and faculty, and, to ensure sufficient diversity,  through
recommendations by directors of campus units such as La Casa Cultural
Latina and the Afro-American Cultural Center.  Rich, who before
coming to Illinois served two years as a member and two years as
chair of a disciplinary committee at Miami University in Oxford,
Ohio, said the UIs student-faculty-based system and the procedures
it follows are 99 percent similar to Miamis.  The UIs procedures
also compare favorably with other institutions which we consider
to be our peers, according to Richard Justice, executive director
of the disciplinary committee and director of the Office of Student
Judicial Affairs. The major difference between the UIs disciplinary
process and those of many peer institutions is structural.  Although
they will involve faculty and students in the hearings, many have
an administrative system in which the chancellor or some other
campus official has the final decision, said Justice, who serves
on the board of directors of the international Association for
Student Judicial Affairs and is in regular contact with his
counterparts at other schools. The UIs system differs from many
others, he said, in that it draws its authority from the faculty
Senate and not the administration.  Justices primarily responsibilities
at the UI are to assist the Senate committee and its subcommittee
with the administration of the system by providing advice on
procedures, meeting with students to resolve less serious cases,
communicating policy matters to students and scheduling hearings.
While he and his assistant, Don Arnold, advise the Senate committees,
they do not direct the proceedings or participate in deliberations;
nor do they have the authority to issue the most serious sanctions
suspension or dismissal from the university.  Rich said one of the
charges leveled against the system  that it is adversely affected
by campus administrators who influence the actions of subcommittee
members  is particularly difficult for her to understand.  The
irony of those accusations, she said, is that anyone who makes them
doesnt have much experience with faculty members and students. Were
an independent-thinking bunch, and its probably a bad decision for
an administrator to try tell us what to do.  As evidence of this,
she said, even in my brief tenure, the subcommittee has dropped
charges during the hearing. If we were so influenced by the
administration, this would never occur.  Furthermore, she said,
student participation in the process is one of the reasons it has
worked so well historically. Each case is heard by a seven-member
subcommittee, which includes the chair. The subcommittee is selected
from a pool of 19 students and faculty members. As mandated by
procedural rules, a majority of the seven  four members  must be
students.  In my limited experience on the committee, Rich said,
what Im most impressed with is the student membership. They, like
faculty, go in completely open to listen to both sides of the case,
with no assumptions about guilt or innocence, and they ask a lot
of questions to ensure that they make an informed and fair decision.
Im very impressed with their goal of fairness.  I am also always
pleased with the discourse that goes on between students and faculty
members, Rich said. Every opinion is listened to and considered.
Ive seen faculty members make special efforts to empower students,
and they respect the students opinions very much. There is no
hierarchy in the subcommittee decisions.  And, Rich said, since
this is their chance to have an influence on how the system works,
of course theyre going to be very fair when it comes to judging
their peers.  Another complaint about the system  that it punishes
students for exercising their right to free speech  is equally
suspect in Richs view.  Students will never go before the discipline
subcommittee for invoking their right to free speech, she said.
Thats what were all about at a university. We encourage students
to develop their belief system and be strong in it. But when they
go beyond that, they do not have the right, for instance, to assault
another member of the campus community.  Some critics of the
disciplinary system believe it is unfair because students charged
with more serious offenses, such as physical or sexual assault,
are required to go through the university system even after criminal
charges against them have been dropped.  Responding to that complaint,
Rich said: There are many reasons  other than innocence  why cases
may be dropped in civil or county court proceedings ... plea
bargaining, for instance. But if we have a student alleged to have
physically or sexually assaulted another student, were still
concerned with the case.  Furthermore, she said, a civil or criminal
court isnt always interested in the same offenses that an academic
institution takes issue with, such as falsification of admissions
records and issues related to cheating or plagiarism. And, by the
same token, she said, we dont take jurisdiction of incidents such
as traffic violations in the community.  Added Justice: Were dealing
with alleged violations of the code, while the states attorney is
dealing with alleged violations of the law.  Yet another charge
leveled against the system is that it does not afford students
their rights to due process.  Steven Veazie, associate university
counsel, said due process is derived from the 14th Amendment to
the Constitution, and the courts have applied that to students
facing dismissal from a public university.  Due process doesnt have
a single set of rules for all cases, Veazie said. The same definitions,
rules and procedures that apply in the court system do not apply
in other situations.  However, whenever an institution is considering
the imposition of discipline for conduct reasons, Veazie said, two
primary principles do apply. There has to be notice of the charges
and opportunity to respond.  And the UIs discipline system satisfies
both criteria, he said. Most recently, the system held up to legal
scrutiny when it was tested in a case that went before the Federal
District Court in Danville in 1989. In that case, a student who
was dismissed from the university because of his involvement in a
hazing incident claimed that his rights to due process had been
violated. The judge disagreed. His decision, in part, reads:  The
facts that are before me at this preliminary injunction hearing
show that the requirements of Loudermill were met. There was some
kind of hearing. There was notice. There was the opportunity to be
heard. There was the opportunity to ask questions and to respond.
The hearing itself did not have to be a full evidentiary hearing.
Unrestricted cross-examination is not required to afford due process.
Certainly the cases involving administrative proceeding recognize
that the communications among the parties need not adhere to the
strict no ex parte communications rules that apply to a judge. The
fact that at the disciplinary committee hearing and at the appeal
committee hearing, unrestricted cross-examination was not allowed
did not work a deprivation of due process. I conclude that on the
question of due process the plaintiff has not demonstrated to the
court a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits.  In an
op-ed piece published in the News-Gazette in December, Chancellor
Morton W. Weir noted that the primary reasons the universitys
discipline system has endured so well for 60-plus years include
its flexibility and the universitys overriding commitment to
fairness.  Weir wrote of the system: ...we are always willing to
consider adjustments that will improve it. We consider its adaptability
a real strength of the system. The faculty and students created
this system, they have modified it over the years, and they have
the power to do so again now and in the future.  Ian Westbury,
professor of curriculum and instruction and chairman of the Senate
Committee on Committees, said a committee would be appointed
immediately to act on the Senate Councils charge to review the
discipline system. The composition of the committee is to include:
1) a faculty member who does not have experience with the system
to serve as chair.  2) a faculty member from the Equal Opportunity
Committee (this may be the same as #1).  3) a faculty member with
experience on the Senate Committee on Student Discipline.  4) a
faculty member with experience on the Subcommittee on Undergraduate
Conduct (this may be the same person as #3 if the faculty member
has had experience on both committees).  5) a faculty member with
legally based student discipline expertise.  6) an undergraduate
student who has not served on a campus discipline committee.  7)
a graduate student who has not served on a campus discipline
committee.  8) a student with committee experience in the current
system.  9) university legal counsel, or the counsels designee, ex
officio without vote.  Westbury added that the review committee
has been charged with reporting its findings to the Senate this
spring, at its April 26 meeting.

======== End of "Committee Formed to Review UI's Discipline System" ================
For reference, the "bookmark" for this gopher item is:
     Name=Committee Formed to Review UI's Discipline System
     Type=2
     Port=70
     Path=0/News/Inside Illinois, the Faculty-Staff Newspaper/January21/discipline_system_committee.txt
     Host=gopher.uiuc.edu

--
Carl Kadie -- [e-mail] -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
 = [e-mail] =