This letter is in response to the editorial published in the Daily on Thursday, Mar. 30, 2006 ("Stop the kangaroo court"). Several factual errors were made in the editorial regarding the TCU Judiciary (TCUJ), the Advocacy Program and the operations of the University disciplinary system.
As representatives elected to serve the student body in all matters regarding the University disciplinary process, the members of the TCUJ find it necessary to correct any misperceptions that the erroneous information may have caused. In the great spirit of academic inquiry and institutional reform, we welcome a campus-wide debate about the merits of the current system, but want this debate to be based on accurate information.
The editorial claims that the judicial standard of preponderance of evidence "often creates a slant against the defendant." This claim is not supported with any factual evidence by the author, and furthermore is demonstrably false. A student is innocent until proven guilty under the University disciplinary system, and the burden of proof lies with the complaining party to show that the accusation he or she is bringing forth is accurate.
The author of this piece did not talk with the Dean of Students Office or the Advocacy Chair before writing this editorial, and therefore could not have the wide knowledge of cases necessary for such a conclusion to be drawn.
The author points to a serious issue in the past operation of the disciplinary system by noting that students who deal with the University disciplinary system are "likely to be baffled and unaware of many of the intricacies and procedures of their hearing." But this problem has been identified by both the TCUJ and the Dean of Students Office, and is the exact reason that the advocacy program was created.
Contrary to the statements made in the editorial, the advocacy program is sanctioned by the Dean's Office, but not managed by it. It is a completely student-run organization. Both the TCUJ and the Dean's Office train the advocates in the student judicial process and are available for legal consult.
The implications made by the editorial that the advocacy program is a tool of the administration are plain wrong. The advocate exists as an independent resource for students to use. Though the advocacy program is young, it is growing and is taking on an increasingly active role in aiding students in many different capacities. The advocacy program is one of many mechanisms put in place to ensure that those going through the University disciplinary system will receive a fair and just outcome.
In making false allegations regarding the advocacy program, the editorial also claims that the disciplinary system therefore is run by the "judge, jury and executioner." This claim is also unfounded and incorrect. The disciplinary system is run by the Dean of Students Office in order to fairly and judiciously solve problems which arise within the university community.
The members of the disciplinary hearing panel are not "employees" of the Dean of Students Office. Rather, for each hearing, a new five-member panel is drawn from the faculty, non-Dean of Students Staff and the elected students of the TCUJ.
The editorial claims that "there are no guidelines to determine... an appropriate sentence." This statement is simply not true, and the misperception can be corrected by reading the Student Judicial Process packet, which clearly and succinctly delineates the process that is used for all cases which come before the Dean's Office.
Within this outline, a clear set of guidelines dictates the consequences for actions that are deemed violations of the University code of conduct. Certain actions receive Probation I, certain actions Probation II, and so on. If the panel sitting on a student hearing finds a student guilty, it makes a sentencing recommendation to the Dean of Discipline based on the guidelines set forth in the Student Judicial Process.
It is then at the Dean's discretion to make alterations to these consequences as she sees fit. Exceptions are sometimes made for students who demonstrate extenuating circumstances. For example, exceptions can be made for students who are deeply involved in a particular school activity and show that this activity is an integral part of their educational experience.
The consequence structure is flexible so that it can most justly treat the case of each individual student, but it is in no way arbitrary or capricious.
Additionally, the TCUJ finds the journalistic research employed in writing the editorial deplorable, due to the accessibility of the information which could have corrected the errors of the editorial.
We on the TCUJ hope that in the future, the Daily will observe better journalistic practices by seeking out all available resources before writing articles and editorials. All members of the TCUJ are available resources for the entire Tufts community, and we encourage any student seeking information on the disciplinary system to contact us.
TCU Judiciary 2005 - 2006
Response from the Editor:
The TCUJ raises a number of good points: more fact-checking should have been done on this editorial, and a more strenuous attempt should have been made to contact the Dean of Students Office. As the University's paper of record, it is our responsibility to be sure that we do not unfairly criticize student groups.
That said, it is important to clarify two statements in the TCUJ's letter. First, though the editorial writer did not contact the Advocacy Chair himself, another Daily writer did do this for the story on the same topic that ran in the News section that day, and the editorialist used those quotes as his references. Second, the letter implies that the editorial accused the TCUJ of not addressing the difficulty students have understanding the "intricacies and procedures of their hearing" at all, and points out that the Advocacy Board was created in response to this very concern. In fact, the editorial acknowledged this attempt to improve the situation (albeit incorrectly attributing it to the administration), and said that the Advisory Program was a "half-hearted attempt to band-aid the problem," a charge the letter fails to address in much detail.
Overall, the TCUJ deserves an apology: although we stand by the spirit of concern expressed in our editorial, the issue should have been addressed more thoughtfully.
