Steven Li was found guilty of academic dishonesty and sentenced to a one-semester suspension last semester - all by one administrator.
After the freshman said he was denied a hearing and a sentencing appeal, the Tufts Community Union (TCU) Senate passed a resolution on Sunday calling for reform.
The resolution proposes the creation of a judicial review board, which would consist of students from the TCU Judiciary and administrators from the Dean of Student Affairs Office. The board would review academic dishonesty cases in which the judicial affairs officer in the Dean of Student Affairs Office believes that there is "indisputable evidence" against the accused student.
Currently, students who have complaints filed against them have their cases settled through a number of avenues, many of which involve the Dean of Student Affairs Office.
The Senate's resolution is not binding legislation, but instead serves as a recommendation to the administration. Administrators can use it or ignore it whenever they like.
But Dean of Students Bruce Reitman said it has his support.
"I think this is a good approach and one ... that our office is quite pleased to work with the judiciary to set up," Reitman told the Daily. "I think that the Dean of Students Office and judicial affairs are quite ... eager to establish a mechanism of the judiciary participating in the weighing of evidence for its irrefutability."
Some academic dishonesty cases warrant more than one adjudicator under the current system. But when a student admits guilt or the judicial affairs officer decides that there is incontrovertible proof of cheating, then the officer can refuse to grant the student a hearing, opting to instead issue a ruling called a "dean's decision."
Li, whose case brought these issues to the Senate's attention, said that in his proceedings, Judicial Affairs Officer Veronica Carter ruled that indisputable evidence existed proving he cheated, and she waived his right to a hearing.
Li said he was denied an appeal of his sentencing because the rules for dealing with academic dishonesty cases are clearly stated in university literature. But he said that the circumstances surrounding his case were not completely straightforward, and he maintains that he did not cheat.
The freshman told the Daily last week that the lack of his right to a hearing is one of the greatest faults with the system. He said that the resolution addresses his complaints about the system.
"The resolution says that every student has a right to a [judicial review board] and that everything has to be done in a timely manner," he said. "I guess that's a step ahead of what we had before, where it's not just two-on-one or one-on-one."
Carter, who declined to comment on Li's case, told the Daily last week that hearings are not generally used "in an academic integrity case, because there is a very specific set of guidelines." A disciplinary hearing involves a five-person panel consisting of two randomly selected members of the TCU Judiciary and three unbiased administrators or faculty members.
Li's roommate, freshman Bruce Ratain, approached the Senate after trying to get involved with Li's case. He said that the judicial affairs officer should never be the only person involved with cheating cases.
"Every student, however indisputable the evidence may seem, has a right to have their case heard by students," he told the Daily.
Ratain worked with TCU Senator Emerson Luke over the past two weeks to draft the resolution that was adopted Sunday. Luke, a junior who is the co-chair of the Senate's Culture, Ethnicity and Community Affairs subcommittee, worked with Reitman on the resolution prior to submitting it at the Senate meeting.
The resolution, titled "A Resolution Supporting the Creation of a Judicial Review Board," passed by a vote of 25-0 with one abstention.
Luke said he was generally satisfied with the debate surrounding the legislation that took place at the Senate meeting.
"I'm happy that the Senate was unified in getting it passed," he said. "I'm happy that ... mostly everyone wanted to be on board in terms of moving forward with this process."
Luke added, though, that he wishes the resolution could have specifically mentioned the judicial affairs officer's position instead of referring in general to the Dean of Student Affairs Office, the department that houses the judicial affairs officer.
"I would've liked it to be more explicit in terms of it referring to the judicial affairs officer as having the discretion [of making decisions on irrefutable evidence] because it is the judicial affairs officer that usually has that discretion," Luke said. "Instead, the Senate voted to take a broader approach with the resolution."
The resolution specifically calls for a judicial review board, with no mention of disciplinary hearings. Reitman said that hearings sometimes take all day, involve witnesses and are impractical for the review of whether evidence is indisputable.
"I know the resolution does not ask for a hearing in all cases," he said. "What they're asking for is some faculty or maybe student and administration input ... similar to the Committee on Student Life."
The resolution explicitly deals with only cases of academic dishonesty, but under the current system this is not the only charge that can lead to a unilateral decision. Reitman suggested implementing a broader policy to apply to all judicial cases in which indisputable evidence can lead to a unilateral ruling.
"Why limit it to just cases involving academic integrity?" Reitman said. "I think similar [questions] about what cases should be considered irrefutable applies to all cases, and so I think I would not limit it to just academic integrity."
Luke said that the Senate wanted to approach the judicial affairs reforms one step at a time, but that he would be open to expanding the scope of a judicial review board in the future.
"The Senate fully supports this process in more cases than academic integrity," he said. "However ... we didn't want to overstep our bounds ... by just asking for something that we didn't think was feasible."
The legislation also recommended including the accused student during the judicial review board's examination of the case. The resolution advises allowing "every student to be present and speak on his or her own behalf during the judicial review process and be represented by a judicial advocate if he or she so chooses."
In the meantime, Carter said that she will work to implement the resolution's proposals.
"I am enthusiastic about the proposal, and I feel it will be an improvement," she told the Daily in an e-mail. "I will work with the Senate on ways to implement it."
Reitman said that new policy does not usually impact cases already decided. As a result, it appears that Li's case will not likely be affected by the resolution.
Luke said he and Ratain had, for the most part, accomplished their goal of instituting fair reforms.
"Essentially, what we wanted to emphasize with the resolution is, it would broaden the group of people [involved and] make it so that more people would have input over what constitutes indisputable evidence," he said.
