Sections

On shaky ground

Code resolution panelists are ill-prepared

Once again, Code of Student Conduct implementation has hit a snag -- this time, a potentially crippling one. Internal disputes among the members of the Student Resolution Panels -- the so-called `juries' of Code proceedings -- threaten the stability of hearing process jurisdiction. Panelists are complaining of insufficient training and power-mongering among some members. Most important, many have expressed fundamental disagreements with the principles of the Code itself.

Student panelists also noted the unconvincing leadership that currently governs Code proceedings -- an observation that should strike fear in the hearts of all who face charges under the Code. The internal disputes between panelists illustrate in living color the inherent flaws of the University's new disciplinary system. These flaws have plagued the Code since implementation, and will continue to hinder proceedings unless officials take self-correcting measures.

The origination of the conflicts can be partially blamed on the hasty and ill-planned recruitment of student panelists. At the beginning of the semester, each of the University's schools was responsible for selecting a total of 60 students required for the panelist pool. Several schools reported recruitment difficulties -- student governments were busy with other projects and could not dedicate an appropriate amount of time to the selection. Other schools did not have student governments or any other central organization to mediate recruiting. Many complained of the time crunch caused by deadlines. As a result, schools were forced to forgo the full application process for many potential panelists.

The repercussions of this move were predictable: The students on The Student Resolution Panels are partially evaluated, reluctant, and hastily and poorly trained.

In the future, substantial improvements in recruitment methods will be necessary to ensure adequate resolution panels. Schools must have more time to recruit, evaluate and select panelists. The application process must be followed. Above all, Code officials must design more sufficient training programs, based on knowledge of the proceedings. As Ben Novick, panelist and RC senior, said, "The training was utterly inadequate ... because the officials of the Code are still unsure of how this Code works."

The panel's problems signal bad news for anyone facing a hearing -- if Code officials are ill-prepared and student panelists are fighting among themselves, who is left to determine justice?

While it is too late to select a new pool of panelists for the current term, the administration must act quickly to remedy the blunders. Supplementary training sessions are a good start. Panelists must understand that the role they play is not to be abused or taken lightly. Likewise, students' doubts must be respected and not held against them -- Code officials would be wrong to exclude dissenters from their place on the panels. The best these officials can do is relieve some of the stress they created -- and make sound decisions about how to steady this shaky structure.