Changes to the Student Judicial Board (SJB) procedures and Non-Academic Code of Conduct (NACC) made in July 2003 have drawn criticism from students and faculty members involved with the SJB.
The changes and the way in which they were enacted provoked fears that the student voice within the SJB is being gradually restrained in favor of more administrative power.
“While some of the changes work in practice, we have also become aware of the fact that the Student Judicial Board as a dominant student voice in non-academic conduct is being adjusted to accommodate more administrative influence,” said senior member Melinda Coro ’04 and co-chair Jenina Nunez ’04 in a joint statement.
According to Dean of Student Services Michael Whaley, who oversees the SJB along with the acting Dean of the College Peter Patton, the changes were made as the result of meetings that took place before the end of the spring 2003 semester with SJB members. Senior members of the board were contacted when the changes were made, and discussions took place over e-mail throughout August before the revised code was printed in the Student Handbook.
One new regulation added to the code, titled “Reckless Endangerment,” prohibits endangering others or property as well as stipulating that, in such a situation, “members of the community are expected to take reasonable constructive action toward remedy or resolution.”
This second sentence was cause for concern among student SJB members and others.
According to senior SJB member Colin Bumby ’04, students were given the opportunity to reword the second sentence, but it was not removed as they had requested.
“It had the potential for opening up people who happen to be present at an incident, through no fault of their own, to being brought up on charges,” said Professor of German Studies Krishna Winston, a faculty advisor to the board.
Whaley responded that, due to the fact that a student’s peers on the SJB would be reviewing the case, the case would be seen fairly in context.
“I don’t think that I would or any of the board members would hold you responsible for failing to take responsive action if you failed to jump in the middle [of a verbal brawl] and break it up,” Whaley said. “In the final analysis, your peers are going to be deciding if that’s a reasonable action for you.”
Other changes involved the ways in which the SJB considers cases, including an expedited hearing process for interim suspensions and delegating minor infractions such as alcohol possession to Area Coordinators (ACs) in Residential Life.
According to Whaley, interim suspensions occur in incidences when students are considered a threat to the community or themselves and are asked to leave campus for an indefinite period of time before their SJB hearing.
“The rationale for making this change was to expedite the hearing such that a student was not suspended for weeks before a full hearing could be convened to adjudicate the case as doing so did not seem fair to the accused,” Whaley said.
The expedited suspension process is carried out by an interim board, which may involve as few as one student SJB board member.
Winston stressed the importance of peer adjudication in the SJB process.
“The students who serve on the board are extraordinarily committed to their responsibilities and give with extraordinary generosity of their time and energy,” Winston said. “What they take particularly seriously is their duty as peers judging peers. My argument against this way of proceeding is simply that the student voice is reduced in such a case.”
Whaley asserted that the students’ dedication to the board would prevent such a situation from happening.
“My hope is that the five students required in a full hearing would always be able to participate,” Whaley said. “I think that the board members have made a commitment that as many of them are going to make this happen in terms of a schedule in making themselves available so that we can participate.”
The changes and the process through which they were enacted raised general concerns about the role of students within the SJB process. Though senior SJB members were notified of the changes in August, the students argue they were not given sufficient opportunity to respond.
“I would assume that they would make these changes without us if they were concerned that our input would oppose them,” Bumby said. “The fact that they proposed and made these changes during the summer, and were approved by President Bennet in July, when no students were around, and without informing us until after they were approved supports this suspicion.”
Because the students were able to communicate with Whaley after they were informed of the changes, and were successful in turning down a proposed recommendation, Whaley asserted the process was fair.
“I don’t think that the SJB voice was excluded,” Whaley said. “I think that they all had a chance to weigh in on it.”
As it stands now, the administration is not formally required to consult with the board before enacting changes regarding its function.
“There was minimal student input, which is largely a result of the lack of written protocol for approval and enactment of changes to the CNAC,” said co-chair David Stone ’04. “Fundamentally, I believe that there should be a set procedure through which changes are proposed, voted upon by members or representatives of the community, and then approved and enacted.”
“The current procedure for changing the code seems very unclear, and lack the appropriate checks and balances of student and administrative voice,” Coro and Nunez said.
Until three years ago, such decisions were made by the Faculty Student Affairs Committee (FSAC), a group of faculty members and WSA members overseen by the Dean of the College. Any decisions involving student life were delegated to the committee. Such a wide-reaching committee involving both faculty and students does not now exist.
“There’s no longer any room within faculty-student governance for overseeing changes,” Winston said. “We are always reminded by the administration that all power rests with the board of trustees and is delegated to the president and those he designates to act on his behalf. In a legal sense that’s true. But in an institution where two major constituencies are gradually being deprived of an opportunity to participate in governance, the institution is impoverished.”
The revised NACC can be viewed online at www.wesleyan.edu/studenthandbook/3_non-academic-conduct.ctt.
Leave a Reply