In the past, I have usually thought of Tufts as a place of equality, justice and integrity. Through a variety of committees, such as the Tufts Community Union (TCU) Judiciary and the Committee on Student Life, the administration purports a commitment to ensuring due process for any student disciplinary matter.
Yet Ben Gittleson's article, "Student denied hearing, sentencing appeal in cheating case," (Feb. 4) has revealed a gaping hole in the university's seemingly just punitive process.
Under most circumstances, if an infraction has occurred or a student is accused of a crime, the indicted is given a chance to defend himself or herself against the allegations. It is a system mirroring our nation's legal system, one that has worked quite well throughout America's history. Looking back to the time before America's inception, it is easy to understand why the Bill of Rights includes the right to a fair trial.
The Court of Star Chamber from 15th century England provides an illuminating example of justice gone wrong, when expedience was stressed and only "incontrovertible proof" was needed for a conviction. The court operated outside the rules of English common law in an attempt to expedite court proceedings.
Yet such swiftness came with a cost, as the court would hand out judgments without even an argument of defense, developing into a powerful tool to stifle all political dissent and leading to its infamy.
While not oppressing alternative views, Tufts does face a pressure to eliminate all academic dishonesty with as much haste as possible. However, it is crucial to ensure that the rights of the accused are preserved and that they are able to defend themselves against all allegations brought forth, so that justice is preserved and the integrity of Tufts' judicial process is maintained.
Miscarriages of justice can also be found in our nation's own history. During the second Red Scare, Sen. Joseph McCarthy fed on public fear to consolidate power, which he exerted in the form of expedient "hearings" to uncover those "disloyal" to America. The Senator had his own form of "incontrovertible proof" in the shape of a list of communist sympathizers - a list to which only he was privy.
For a time, the peculiarity of this arrangement did not impede his rampant denunciations of communism against government officials. The House Un-American Activities Committee also struck fear into the hearts of Americans. It used similar tactics: the idea of a trial being unnecessary, and the spreading of doubt and suspicion among the population. There was no need for hearings; if you were accused of being a communist, you were a communist, and you needed to punished.
In his letter to the Tufts community after the Primary Source incident, President Bacow condemned those college presidents who gave in to public pressure during that time, providing authorities with any "proof" they desired. Yet though colleges no longer have to fight against McCarthyism, a new problem plagues many campuses: academic dishonesty.
Cheating of any form must not be tolerated. However, this does not give the administration the excuse to deny the rights of students to defend themselves against allegations. It is imperative that a university protect a student's right to innocence until proven guilty, regardless of public pressure to act otherwise.
Dean of Student Affairs Bruce Reitman's and Dean of Judicial Affairs Veronica Carter's declaration of "incontrovertible" evidence against student Stephen Li is reminiscent of the days of the Spanish Inquisition or the trial of Ferdinando Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti, when only an accusation was required for conviction and demonstrated proof was unheard of. The problem with such thinking is that there does not exist such a thing as incontrovertible proof. This is illustrated by the lack of an official definition of "irrefutable evidence." There only exists over-vigilance, which becomes elevated in times of trouble and leads authorities to make hasty decisions.
Evidence, no matter how condemning, means nothing until scrutinized under cross-examination and used as part of an argument. Arguments can be imperfect or flawed, which is why it is crucial to allow those accused of crimes with serious consequences to receive fair trials in which they may attempt to prove the faultiness of such thinking, protect their innocence and therefore avoid unwarranted punishment. Furthermore, it is the duty of those in power to ensure that the rights of the governed (in this case, the students) are preserved, regardless of the allegation.
On behalf of the Tufts student body, I strongly urge all those in the administration, such as Reitman and Carter, to think heavily on the issues at hand. And as the TCU Senate drafts recommendations for judicial reform, please consider its advice so that we may have a just legal process at Tufts - rather than one that merely mimics due process while barring students from fair representation.
Kevin Dillon is a junior majoring in sociology.
