The Rice Thresher

Location: http://the.ricethresher.org/news/2005/10/28/u_court_student_justice

October 28, 2005 > News > Student justice: how conduct violations are adjudicated

Student justice: how conduct violations are adjudicated

By Risa Gordon | Thresher Editorial Staff

At the end of many sentences in the police blotter lies a mysterious phrase: Student Judicial Programs. Its bodies are powerful, but quiet. One of its bodies, the Honor Council, is a well-known element in student lexicon and is associated with the pledge and unproctored exams. But another, University Court — with a similar caseload to the Honor Council — is relatively unknown to students. There is no Blue Book on its policies nor an exam at the end of Orientation Week. Nevertheless, U. Court is a critical Rice institution, and it is changing, tending more toward fines and altering its response to the Alcohol Policy.

Even though U. Court has previously had a penalty structure that included the possibility of levying fines, most sanctions for minor violations in recent years included a community service component. This year, the court has begun to assess fines as a penalty instead of community service. This year’s penalty process constitutes a change in practice rather than one in policy, U. Court Chair Nate Shaw said. Students can still be assessed other sanctions including expulsion, suspension or disciplinary probation.

Assistant Dean of Student Judicial Programs Don Ostdiek said he decided to alter the sanction components because community service penalties are hard to administer, and because he thinks service should not be used as a punishment.

“Community service should be something all Rice students do, not just people who are being punished,” Ostdiek said.

Shaw said students are unenthusiastic about community service.

“Ostdiek believed that … people weren’t actually doing the community service wholeheartedly, and that [for] the people they were serving — it was actually doing them a disservice because the [sanctioned] students did not want to be there,” Shaw, a Wiess College senior, said.

Shaw said U. Court has also changed its approach to Alcohol Policy violations. In the past, one part of recommended sanctions included an alcohol education class, Shaw said. The court may now require an alcohol counseling class that will be used to evaluate whether students have alcohol problems, Shaw said. The Counseling Center is in charge of the evaluation and has hired psychologist Timothy Baumgartner to conduct counseling, Ostdiek said.

Shaw said another change is that students caught drinking underage in Willy’s Pub will be banned from entering the Pub for about a semester.

What reaches the court

Students are usually initially referred to Student Judicial Programs by the Rice University Police Department. Ostdiek then chooses whether to adjudicate the case himself or to refer the case to U. Court.

The Code of Student Conduct specifies that the assistant dean of student judicial programs should hear cases involving private issues such as sexual misconduct, complicated cases that require a significant investigation and serious cases in which suspension or expulsion is a likely sanction. Students who are initially referred to U. Court can request to have Ostdiek hear their case, and Ostdiek can hear other cases at his discretion. Ostdiek said he sometimes hears cases he would normally refer to U. Court if U. Court falls behind on its caseload, so students do not have to wait excessively long before their cases are adjudicated.

Shaw said U. Court deals with about 25 cases per year. In 2003-‘04, 35 students were sent to U. Court, and Ostdiek heard 20 cases in addition to 54 related fake ID cases that resulted from a Rice student selling fake IDs. In 2004-‘05, U. Court and Ostdiek each saw 20-30 cases. This year, about 15 cases have been referred to U. Court, Ostdiek said. Ostdiek said he tries to send as many cases as possible to U. Court.

“The more I can see students adjudicate, the better,” Ostdiek said.

Ostdiek said having a student-run aspect to Rice’s judicial system is valuable for all students.

“I think it’s good for the student body to have to answer to members of the student body,” Ostdiek said.

Rupal Bhimani, a U. Court ombudsman, said students are uniquely qualified to judge other students.

“A jury of your peers has the advantages of having people your age who can relate to situations you were in, but they are also responsible and have been chosen by the university [community] to take on this leadership role,” Bhimani, a Baker College sophomore, said.

Shaw said most of the cases that come to the court for adjudication are similar. Shaw estimated that 80-90 percent of the cases U. Court adjudicates involve Alcohol Policy violations. Other common types of violations include trespassing — usually entering college kitchens after they are closed — and assault, Shaw said.

U. Court process

After U. Court receives Ostdiek’s memo and the police report, court members meet to deliberate about which violations to charge the student with and the recommended sanctions. The accused student is then notified and a time is set for an initial meeting.

Each student is also assigned an ombudsperson, who is present at the hearing and meets with the student prior to the initial meeting. The role of the ombuds is as a procedural reference for the accused and to ensure the U. Court members act according to its guidelines. Lee Peifer, an ombuds, said he thinks many students are confused about the role of an ombuds.

“A lot of people seem to think the role of ombuds is to serve as an advocate, but our job is explicitly not that of an advocate,” Peifer, Hanszen College senior, said. “We’re there to make sure there are no procedural errors and to inform the person of [their rights].”

Students can plead “In Violation,” “No Contest” — when they do not dispute the violation but think the sanction is too harsh — or “Not in Violation.” Shaw said more than half of accused students plead “In Violation.” Students who plead “No Contest” or “Not in Violation” then have a formal hearing.

The hearing panel consists of the U. Court chair, the U. Court vice chair — who also serves as investigator — and at least six additional justices, based on justice availability. The accused student is allowed to present evidence and refute accusations. The hearing panel then deliberates about the penalty, which usually takes about 15 minutes, Shaw said.

Bhimani said the deliberative process is fair to the accused student. U. Court includes 18 members — one representative per college, two representatives per class and one graduate student, most of whom are elected — who can all voice opinions during hearings.

“The justices do a really good job of deliberating and challenging each other during the hearing,” Bhimani said. “Justices can choose not to vote if they think they are biased.”

If U. Court votes to impose sanctions, then the sanctions are sent to Ostdiek to be implemented. Ostdiek said he has never had to reject a recommended sanction before an appeal because U. Court does a good job of assigning appropriate sanctions. Ostdiek said communication between himself and U. Court members prevents problems.

“Ultimately I have to make sure the recommendation is appropriate, but I haven’t run into a situation where that isn’t the case,” Ostdiek said.

Ostdiek said the sanctions are generally consistent within a range of penalties, but vary according to the individual circumstances of each case.

Assistant dean’s process

When Ostdiek adjudicates a case, he said he tries to obtain pertinent information that is not contained in the police report. Ostdiek said an investigation might involve talking to college masters and other students in addition to the accused student.

The Judicial Advisory Committee is an investigative committee that Ostdiek can utilize to determine the facts of a serious case, such as a sexual misconduct allegation. A fact-finding sub-panel — usually consisting of a student, a faculty member and a staff member, such as a resident associate or someone who works in student affairs — presents Ostdiek with a report, which he uses to determine sanctions.

Sanctions

Students who receive sanctions can appeal if they think the proceedings were unfair, if new evidence arises or if they think the imposed penalties were inappropriate. Students whose cases are heard by U. Court can appeal to the assistant dean. If the assistant dean’s appellate sanction involves suspension or expulsion, undergraduate students can then appeal to Dean of Undergraduates Robin Forman, and graduate students can appeal to Vice Provost for Research and Graduate Studies Jordan Konisky. Students whose cases are initially heard by the assistant dean can appeal to Forman or Konisky.

Ostdiek said U. Court is functioning as it should but that it could improve by instituting a more orderly and consistent changeover so its caseload does not become backlogged in the late spring, Ostdiek said.

End of article

Back to top