When students choose to matriculate at Tufts, they sign up to join an academic community, not to sign away their freedoms.
Enrollment at the University should present an opportunity for academic and extra-curricular enrichment in an environment that seeks to achieve the highest standards in its classrooms and organizations, as well as throughout its administration.
Tufts has gone to great lengths to improve its academic rigor, diversity and many other aspects of student life. Students and professors expect the highest quality of work and involvement from each other.
While the University houses professors who can discuss democracy and equality at great length, certain institutions and processes fall disparagingly short in their methods.
For many students, the judicial process resembles the one-sided kangaroo court Charlie Simms faces at the Baird School in "Scent of a Woman" instead of a legitimate legal process that provides equal rights to defendants and prosecutors.
Harvey A. Silverglate - a high-profile Boston lawyer and co-author of "The Shadow University" - brings to light a number of the problems which face campus tribunals, and many occur on the Hill.
The entire principle of preponderance which Silverglate highlights and the Tufts Community Union (TCU) Judiciary defends is based on the prosecution only having to prove that the defendant is more likely to be guilty than not. While at times this approach may be rigorous and appropriate, it more often creates a slant against the defendant.
Students only spend a few years on the Hill, and they should rarely encounter disciplinary hearings or measures.
For this reason, when students find themselves in this situation, they are likely to be baffled and unaware of many of the intricacies and procedures of their hearing.
The University has taken measures to improve this problem, though the advocacy program seems only to be a half-hearted attempt to band-aid the problem. While the 16-member panel is trained in the judicial process, it will be of limited benefit to students.
Not only are affected students new to the process, but it is shocking that the student's advocate is provided by the same institution which charges students and whose employees make up the majority of the judiciary panel that tries and sentences students.
The judge, jury and executioner should not all come from the same group of people.
TCUJ member Alex Clarke said that "since the process is not as rigorous [as in criminal trials], a lower burden of proof is appropriate."
It is appalling to see members of any judicial organization defending a principle that lacks rigor. Students should be allowed to defend their innocence rather than prove their lack of guilt.
When the system is designed to allow for a lower burden of proof, there are naturally going to be errors in judgment when drawing conclusions from sparse facts.
In addition, the entire system of sentencing is nebulous and lacks any clarity. There are no guidelines to determine what an appropriate sentence would be, but fair standards and appropriate sentences are expected to be determined by panelists.
This not only provides a lack of continuity across sentences and hearings, but also subjects students to the whim of the same few people.
While it is true that students are expected to abide by certain reasonable standards of behavior at Tufts, that expectation should have absolutely no effect on the quality of the disciplinary hearings.
A fair process must allow all parties equal opportunity and treatment. While it is natural for certain processes to be taken over or supplemented by the University, they must uphold the same ethical and judicial standards we demand of our professors, colleagues and governments.
