College judicial boards lay down the law Recent events demonstrate increased focus on transparency and student involvement

Author: Tess Russell

"A riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma" - Winston Churchill may have been referring to Russia when he coined this expression, but here at Middlebury, it could just as easily refer to the College's judicial system and its inner workings. While students seem to be aware of the judicial boards' existence and have some sense of their importance, most have only a vague idea of how they actually conduct hearings.

The system consists of three distinct bodies: the Community Judicial Board (CJB), the Academic Judicial Board (AJB) and the Judicial Appeals Board. Theoretically, the boards handle only cases in which the alleged offense is, according to the College's handbook, worthy of suspension (it is worth noting that many of Middlebury's legal codes are purposefully general to allow for situational interpretation).

Each Monday, the deans of the College review the previous week's incident reports filed by the Department of Public Safety and decide what response best fits each infraction. After the deans have deliberated, "accused" students meet with Dean Karen Guttentag, the judicial affairs officer for the College, at which point they have the option of either accepting the proposed sanctions or bringing their cases before the CJB, which deals with all disciplinary cases outside the academic realm.

CJB's eight members, who include four students as well as one dean, two faculty members and one staff member, have blocked out a hearing day on their schedule each week, but may convene more or less often based on need; the AJB differs in that it does not have a predetermined meeting time or a staff representative, and that an accuser (usually a professor) must bring his or her case before the board directly. Prospective student members of both judicial bodies are invited to apply each spring and the selection process is notoriously competitive.

Board members are typically notified of hearings at least 24 to 48 hours before they occur, and are given multiple opportunities to recuse themselves from the proceedings (a suitable substitute will be chosen from a pool of alternates) in the event that they have some sort of prejudice or personal involvement with a case that could prevent them from acting impartially. The accusing and accused parties have the same opportunity to ensure fairness, and are thus provided with names and photos of all board representatives in advance.

A typical judicial board hearing begins with the distribution of evidence: an official charge letter precedes relevant documents that can range from Public Safety reports to selections of academic work (in a plagiarism case, for example). Once the case is underway, opening statements are delivered by both parties, followed by a series of questions - opponents can address each other through the chair of the board, but cannot engage directly - and, usually, panels of character witnesses. Defendants have the opportunity to retain and consult with a silent "advisor" (often a Commons dean) throughout this process, before they ultimately make their closing statements.

The board's primary deliberation concerns simply a verdict - guilty or not guilty, with a guilty verdict requiring a 7-1 majority in the CJB and a 6-1 majority in the AJB. Only after an accused party has been found guilty is his or her judicial record released. Previous infractions, then, should not influence a verdict, but can certainly and rightfully influence a sentencing.

Technically, hearings can be open - in other words, accessible to the public - or closed, but with the rise of the internet, open hearings have essentially ceased to exist. In all cases excepting those dealing with sexual assaults, both accuser and accused must be physically present. (Assault victims are permitted to participate via phone or video chat, if they so desire.)

Indeed, one of the biggest issues the judicial boards have faced recently is that of student involvement. Andrew Ruoss '10, a member of the CJB, explained that the concept for the boards was originally advocated and executed by the student body, back in 1966, but that there is a pervading sense among both students and board members that the system has somehow unintentionally distanced itself from the community at large. Ruoss cited the significantly revised Honor Code signing ceremony this fall as one attempt to bring students back into the fold of the judicial system.

"It was a great opportunity to incorporate students into our process in a positive way," explained Ruoss, "because it sometimes seems like that interaction is only there during tough situations."

In the past, the student co-chair of the AJB had delivered a lengthy speech about notions of honor, but this summer, Guttentag and some of the student board members reevaluated this tradition and settled instead on involving a number of different student reprsentatives in the ceremony - both first-year counselors and MiddView leaders were included with the intent of giving incoming freshmen the feeling that the Honor Code was something they could connect to personally.

Alex Schloss '09.5, co-chair of the AJB, spoke briefly about the concept of "fairness," but explained that her words were those of a Middlebury senior and not of an AJB representative. She said she did not want first-year students to feel like the Honor Code was something simply being handed down to them from above, but instead hoped they would view it as something in which they should take an active interest.

"We tried to make the process feel more inclusive and accessible to new students," said Schloss, "to give them a sense that there is really community ownership of academic integrity here at Middlebury."

Other efforts have been made to reestablish this direct connection to students, and even to achieve greater transparency in proceedings, most notably through the judicial boards log that can now be accessed on the deans' Web site. A few years ago, a movement for a "social" honor code (in the spirit of Davidson College's famous manifesto) seemed to be garnering support, but has quieted down since then. Ultimately, the challenge with transparency is always respecting the privacy of individuals while still providing students with enough good, frank information that they have an incentive to stay above the fray of gossip and speculation, which is all too tempting at a school as small and quiet as Middlebury.