COS Reform: In Pursuit of Due Process

By Michael J. Edgar | Thursday, November 9, 2006

In a surprisingly productive move last Spring, Student Assembly president Noah Riner ‘06 announced the creation of a task force to review the Committee on Standards. Humbly recognizing the inadequacies of tackling the issues from within the SA, the issue was outsourced to Chi Gam in hopes that in time a working document could be produced. After roping in a strapping ‘09 lad and token female members to flesh out the squad, the task force set out to take on the COS.

Five months later, they returned battle-scarred from sparring with the painfully illogical Committee regulations. Steeped in references to legal documents and court cases, the Task Force returned with eight recommendations to overhaul how COS hearings are operated. Despite the hoopla surrounding the report, it is worth remembering that as an unofficial position paper, no official response is required of the administration. The task force members have requested that the Dean of the College issue an official response by the New Year, but Acting Dean Dan Nelson has declined to take action regarding the report, stating it is out of his authority as an Acting Dean to enact the radical changes suggested. The Student Assembly has already voted to endorse it. Notably, Student Assembly President Timmy Andreadis ‘07 dissented, assuring women “every place at all times” he would undoubtedly “bring sexy back.”

Despite Timmy’s objections, Chi Gam has brought a solid set of changes to the table worth pursuing. The common theme running through the report is fair representation in front of the committee and a presupposition of innocence. The more important recommendations include the right to reasonable cross-examination and the provision of the consistent application of precedent cases used by the COS while adjudicating a case. Most importantly, the COS will change its standard of proof from a “preponderance of the evidence”—essentially meaning a suspicion of guilt—to requiring “clear and convincing evidence.” The new standard of proof would require a legitimate reason to smear a student’s transcript with a disciplinary record as opposed to mere word of mouth.

But before we step any further into this black morass of legalese, let’s step back. Your head may be swimming—and the Task Force knows it. After writing thirteen pages of legal mumbo-jumbo and eight recommendations, (as they affirm in their note to the Dean of the College on the final page) they realized without comic relief, apathy would surely sneak into any unsuspecting reader’s noggin. There’s no reason to fear—the report mangages to elicit a chuckle now and then. However, few legal documents bring the funny like the Task Force’s third recommendation.

After brainstorming for what must have been an agonizing period, the Task Force succeeded in laying down this glob of transcribed sewage: “Place the Undergraduate Judicial Affairs Office in charge of keeping track of the demographic information of individuals who sit on the Committee and individuals who go before the Committee.” (In English: How many minorities sit on the Committee, and how many Greek students are hauled up before it?) Undoubtedly written with the best of intentions, that is, entertaining those who made it to the seventh page, the Task Force kills the joke with two pages of nauseating follow up weasel-speak.

Every other recommendation is argued from the standpoint that there is a perceived problem that should be addressed: hearings can get pushed back a term, students with disciplinary history are denied service on the Committee, the standard of guilt is too low, and so on. The third recommendation fails to present any such reasoning. Instead, the reader is spoon-fed such gems as “in the interest of promoting diversity and public confidence, the Committee on Standards should be challenged to track demographic characteristics....” In fact, the word “diversity” appears eighteen times throughout recommendation’s defense.

Why does diversity have anything to do with the discipline system? Of the 427 total cases heard by any disciplinary body last year, 293 were minor alcohol charges, which not only have no inherent connection to any minority group, but aren’t even adjudicated by the COS. Only fifty-nine cases were serious enough to reach the Suspension level; as best as one can determine from the yearly report (they never explicitly state a number), nineteen of those went to the COS. Since we’re having fun with numbers, it’s worth pointing out that this recommendation (#3) takes up two pages (15%) of a report concerning 19 students per year (0.46% of undergrads), and when all is said and done, only six students (one task force member having graduated) really care.

With all these numbers flying around, one has to think how important having hard and fast numbers regarding all sorts of demographics can be. Of course, with a sample size of 19, any sort of profiling would be statistically insignificant. Just as the increase in the reported sexual assault cases went from 8 to 14 (75%) lacks any real meaning at a school of 4,100, it would be difficult if not impossible to extract useful data when considering less than 1% of the student body. Even if hypothetically half those were minorities, exactly how much would that reveal about either black students or the nature of the COS? Considering the unlikelihood of such an anomaly, one struggles to make sense of how such a mind-numbingly empty idea worked its way into an otherwise well-researched report. Apparently that research never involved walking remotely close to a stats class. However, I digress. The meat of this report lies in its first two instructions.

The Task Force has made it clear that they have found the COS to show little respect for the individual rights of the students who face it. Four of the eight recommendations deal with the rights of the accused. The reasons for the changes are far-reaching. The charges required to prompt a COS hearing are all significant, including (but not limited to) sexual abuse, physical violence, and multiple events of aggravated conduct while intoxicated. As presented by the report, these issues should hardly be taken lightly, but neither should an innocent student be stigmatized for being suspended from College. The College has little to gain by applying sanctions to students who don’t deserve them. By requiring convincing evidence before doling out six-term suspensions the COS gains the trust of the students far more readily than by examining demographics or placating diversity higher-than-thous.

Nevertheless, some have gotten the ludicrous idea that this new standard will result in fewer women reporting when they are sexually assaulted. Indeed, we can expect just the opposite. As it stands, sexual assault is very infrequently addressed by the COS—just four cases last year. Taking one’s sexual assault case to the COS is already a difficult process for victims, one which takes no small amount of will on their part—this much is undeniable. However to think that these same women wouldn’t back down upon being asked to provide some strong evidence of their claim before condemning students to six terms suspension and a lifetime of explanation.

It should be noted that out in the real world one has to prove sexual assault beyond a reasonable doubt in the court of law, a standard above “clear and convincing.” The “preponderance of evidence” standard we apply to all cases, from plagiarism to raucous intoxication to sexual assault, is only used in the American legal system for civil lawsuits. How does it make sense that the same proof of guilt for a purely monetary lawsuit (not involving criminal activity) is valid to mark someone for life with a sexual assault charge? The decisions handed down by the COS do not disappear in June of your graduating year.

The second important change the Task Force has requested affecting the nature of COS hearings is for the UFA to “Provide a fair framework in which those accused of violating a college rule are allowed to ask lines of questions directly to the witnesses.” Absurdly enough, the COS currently allows for questioning of witnesses, but the accused must ask the Chair, who then decides whether to ask the witness the question or not. As one ‘07 put it, “That’s retarded. It seems like something Brown [University] would do.” The accused is definitively on the defensive; even their questions may or may not be arbitrarily denied. Simply put, this is a mockery.

Again, although it is absolutely clear this recommendation is valid, feminists have come out of the woodwork to oppose it. Decrying the suggestion that one accused of sexual assault might ask his accuser (or her accuser...okay, just kidding) direct questions and thus intimidate her, they completely ignore the basis of the report’s argument. The report reads: “These questions would, of course, be subject to rules and limitations, and the accused would not be permitted to ask harassing or badgering questions.” Were this recommendation to be enacted as written, the idea of intimidating a witness through cross-examination is no more feasible than in an American criminal court. If the UJA (Undergraduate Judicial Affairs) intends to construct better courts than our nation’s, by stripping the accused of any rights or powers, it’d take a steam shovel to get their heads out of the sand.

Let’s not forget that in a sexual assault hearing the accused must still provide testimony as a witness. Enacting this recommendation doesn’t change that. It merely allows the accused student to defend himself properly, as one would naturally expect. There is no reason why a student accused of plagiarism should not be allowed to directly ask his or her professor questions regarding the accusations. The report clearly specifies that intimidation can and would be easily disallowed from COS hearings. Again, the College has nothing to gain by forbidding direct questioning; the accused student merely gains an opportunity to clarify the charges against him, and the witnesses are still protected. The arguments against this recommendation are purely vacuous.

The eight (seven excluding number 3) recommendations provided by the Task Force will significantly contribute to the individual rights of students involved in serious discipline charges at Dartmouth. If our freshly-picked Dean endorses the report next year, the COS will represent a far more respectable judicial body, enabling those accused of wrongdoing a fair chance to redeem themselves. There is no legitimate excuse to deny the students the liberties afforded by enacting the recommendations afforded by the Task Force’s report. To do so would be an insult to the very idea of justice.

COS Reform: In Pursuit of Due Process

Article Tools

Related Articles