Sections

Code panelists left ill-prepared

This, in our minds, is a serious problem.

Let us go through our job assignment point by point. First, gathering information. We are given 48 hours notification of an arbitration which we have to hear. In that brief time we are expected to evaluate a case file, decide on questions to ask, which potential witnesses we want to hear and what needs to be proven. An hour before the hearing, we meet our fellow panelists for the first time and decide together how the arbitration will work -- in essence, scripting this "arbitration room" drama before it happens. Susan Eklund, associate dean of the Law School, has said this time period is too short and recommends a more extensive preparation. For some odd reason, we too feel that 48 hours is simply not enough time to prepare one for the task of passing judgement on a peer.

Next, we deliberate to determine if the Code has been violated. You'll be happy to know there are no set guidelines for how we do this. We have learned that courtesy and civility are important, and that sometimes "tears and laughter can be heard at these hearings." Beyond that, nothing. We have no clue.

Luckily, Mary Lou Antieau will be there at all times to guide us in this process. This is good, since she is an attorney. This is bad, since she is the prosecuting attorney. This is also bad because she has the power along with the faculty resolution officer to "determine that a question must be modified or disregarded." When questioned on this arcane point of fascist legality, Antieau replied that the situation hardly ever arose. However, the simple fact that this loophole exists is a danger to the rights of all students.

Perhaps Antieau is fair in her actions and judgments, yet we cannot be assured that she will remain the resolution coordinator forever. When she leaves, so do the rules and regulations governing these procedures. Relying solely on our own judgment of the evidence presented, without any written guidelines, we must determine the truth. In the University's legal system, determination of truth is based on direct and indirect information, or hearsay, as it is better known. After one afternoon of training, the administration feels confident in our abilities to differentiate between these two categories. We thank them for their faith in us. However, we do not share it.

Finally, and most disturbingly, we are expected to make recommendations about possible sanctions to the dean of students. The Office of Student Conflict Resolution prides itself on the flexibility of sanctions. Flexibility is good. An utter lack of guidelines is not good. Sanctioning is based solely on the whims and capriciousness of the student panelists. We hope that this means that the panelists will devise fair, educational and original sanctions. This indeed is the expectation that the OSCR has of us.

We have a moral issue with judging and sanctioning our fellow students. When this issue was raised at arbitration training, we were told that after going through the process of judging an arbitration we would have no problem with sanctioning. If we still had a moral problem with this Star Chamber mentality, we were invited to resign. If we opposed the Code, we were also invited to resign. We oppose the Code and are utterly appalled at the idea of this mock judicial process. Yet we will not resign.

We joined this panel because we believe in student rights and want to ensure as fair a process as possible for both complainant and alleged violator. We do not wish to see student panelists hand-picked by the administration for its support of the Code.