University judiciary systems have recently faced criticism for their relatively low standards for admissible evidence.
Boston attorney Harvey A. Silverglate told the Akron Beacon Journal that "campus tribunals are the ultimate 'kangaroo court,' an affront to the rational thinking that is supposed to underlie the academic enterprise."
Silverglate co-authored "The Shadow University," a book that heavily criticizes university tribunals, accusing them of depriving students of due process by lowering the burden of proof on the prosecution.
Silverglate alleges that rather than proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, university prosecutors only have to prove "preponderance" - that the defendant is more likely to be guilty than not.
Controversy erupted in Ohio over a case in Summit County where a jury found University of Akron student Charles Plinton not guilty of selling drugs to a confidential informant in 2004. A few weeks later, a University of Akron disciplinary board found him "responsible" for "selling drugs to a confidential informant."
Tufts Community Union Judiciary (TCUJ) members and sophomores Alex Clark and Jamie Morgan both defended the way the judiciary system is run at Tufts.
Clark said that the process differs depending on the nature of the incident.
"In the case of academic dishonesty, the professor has the prerogative to report the incident to the Dean of Students," he said.
The Dean's office then gathers information about the incident and sets up a meeting with the student to discuss possible ways of dealing with the situation.
According to Clark, the majority of complaints are resolved through mediation, a process in which the accused and the accuser reach an agreement that satisfies both parties.
If the involved parties will not agree, five panelists are chosen to hear the evidence and decide on possible disciplinary action. The panel is made up of three faculty or staff members and two student TCUJ members.
In making their decision, the panelists receive no sentencing guidelines. They are expected to make a decision that appropriately reflects the offense committed and the student in question.
"The burden lies on the panel members to make a fair decision," Morgan said.
Even though campus tribunals are not held to the same standard of evidence as civil or criminal courts, "preponderance of evidence is still a pretty high standard," Morgan said.
Clark agreed, saying that "since the process is not as rigorous [as in criminal trials], a lower burden of proof is appropriate."
An advocacy program has recently been created to assist Tufts students with understanding the judicial process.
By this Friday, the program will consist of 16 advocates trained in the disciplinary process and available to students seeking advice about their options, Morgan said.
"The advocacy program is a good way to help students through the process. It's not as anti-student as people think," she said.
Critics such as Silverglate decry the double sentencing that can occur if students are acquitted in a criminal or civil court and retried at the university level, where the standard of evidence is lower.
Morgan said that she feels it is appropriate for students to be able to file complaints with both university and governmental judiciaries so that "the victims don't feel threatened while studying at Tufts."
"Students have a responsibility to act correctly and obey the rules of the institution they work with," Clark said. "They should be held to certain standards of behavior."
As is customary at many institutions of higher education, Tufts students found guilty of criminal offenses are automatically expelled.
Both Clark and Morgan agreed that the current system is appropriate for the University, and that no major problems have yet been encountered.
"By and large I am satisfied with the system. I haven't seen any instances where I can say that [the decision] was wrong," Clark said.
