The Red and Black

Issue date: 4/24/09 Section: Opinions

JERROD LUKACS [Click to enlarge]

In the past few days there has been much debate surrounding the fairness and objectivity of University Judiciary hearings. We at UJ felt many of the concerns being raised can be alleviated by a brief explanation of the judicial process at the University.

The judicial process is initiated when an incident is reported to the Office of Judicial Programs, usually through police reports, housing incident reports, students and outside referrals. The OJP examines and assigns a hearing officer to all cases in which possible conduct violations occurred.

The student then meets with the assigned hearing officer and has the opportunity to share any information about the case. If the hearing officer finds enough information to move forward with the alleged violations, the case is resolved either informally or formally; otherwise the incident receives no further action.

In an informal resolution, the student acknowledges responsibility for violation(s) of the Code of Conduct and agrees to sanctions assigned by the hearing officer. Most of the cases that reach OJP are resolved in this manner.

During an informal hearing, the hearing officer explains the judicial process to the student and his or her rights to a formal hearing. Furthermore, he or she explains that by choosing to go to a formal hearing, the student may either be found "not in violation" or "in violation" of the Code of Conduct by a hearing panel.

Included in this explanation is the possibility that the sanctions imposed by a hearing panel could be greater than or less than those already proposed.

If a student elects to pursue a formal resolution the case is handed over to University Judiciary. The student is offered a student adviser, who helps the student create his or her case to present before a hearing panel consisting of two UJ members (students) and one faculty/staff administrator.

Meanwhile, a student advocate collects and presents the University's evidence.

After hearing both accounts, the hearing panel deliberates on the facts of the case and delivers their decision.

If the student is found in violation of the Code of Conduct appropriate sanctions are assigned; if not, no further judicial action is taken.

It is important to clear up a few misconceptions. First, it is UJ policy that all members who may hold a bias toward any issue involved in a hearing remove themselves immediately from the process.

At no point during the process is the hearing panel informed of the discussion that occurred between the student and the hearing officer, including that of previously proposed sanctions.

Consequently, if a hearing panel develops sanctions, they are completely unaware of how those sanctions compare to ones previously offered by the hearing officer during the informal process.

In order to ensure objectivity, the panel is prohibited from discussing the case with any outside sources or exposing themselves to media coverage of the case prior to or during the hearing.

The panel specifically is intended to be an impartial moderator whose job is to observe the facts and determine whether the Code of Conduct has been broken. Never is it asked or permitted to evaluate legal issues.

Its decision is an independent conclusion disconnected from ideological bias, outside interference and administrative pressure.

The most troubling accusation made recently is that UJ would hold a prior conception of culpability toward students and punish them for using the formal resolution process.

As a student organization, UJ exists on behalf of students, not against them.

When allegations concerning violations of the University Code of Conduct are made, judiciary facilitates a formal judicial process conducted nearly entirely by peers.

Judiciary does not discourage students from standing up for their rights, but rather encourages them to seek rectitude through our formal process - that is the very purpose and means by which our organization exists. UJ is here for the students.

If students are unfortunate enough to be suspected of violating the University Code of Conduct, we hope they can experience a judicial process that is fundamentally fair and one in which they feel comfortable.

Although I cannot expect everyone to agree with the process and decisions of UJ, it is my hope that when opinions are formed they are done so using concrete facts rather than misinformation and misconceptions.

If you have any questions, please visit our Web site at www.uga.edu/judiciary.

- Jerrod Lukacs is the executive director of University Judiciary.

Page 1 of 1

Article Tools