Skip to: Content
Skip to: Site Navigation
Skip to: Search

The rules of justice are different when the court's on campus

By Samar FarahStaff writer for The Christian Science Monitor / May 16, 2002

It wasn't that long ago – the early 1980s. Ed Stoner happened to be in the admissions office of Duquesne University in Pittsburgh, when a student approached the dean's secretary and asked for a copy of the school's code of conduct.

Skip to next paragraph

Without a word, the secretary opened a top drawer in her desk and smartly pulled out a 3-by-5 file card from a large stack apparently intended for such situations.

In neatly written letters, it read: "Whatever the dean says goes," recalls Mr. Stoner, a lawyer who frequently represents colleges and universities and is the author of a model code adopted by many schools.

The gesture smacked of the sort of Sahara-dry wit deans are known for. In the 20 years since that moment, campus justice systems have remained clearly distinct from the courts outside the walls of academe. Nevertheless, increasingly legalistic and politicized campus procedures – often featuring alcohol-related charges and career-shattering expulsions – leave few willing to crack jokes.

Changes in disciplinary proceedings have profoundly shifted the notion of in loco parentis: Gone is the omniscient dean whose word is law, replaced with an often-secretive judicial board.

But that shift has not satisfied those looking for a clearer road map for campus justice. Board members argue their focus is educating rather than severely punishing students in trouble. Critics fault a murky system and invoke the example of Medieval England's Star Chamber, as students are found guilty of serious charges behind closed doors on the basis of sometimes flimsy evidence.

Anger at campus courts reached fever pitch a couple of years ago, when Columbia University in New York changed its policy, reducing the rights of the accused in sexual-misconduct claims.

About the same time, Prof. Alan Kors of the University of Pennsylvania and Boston lawyer Harvey Silverglate formed the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), a grass-roots group that investigates student claims of civil-rights violations. Reversing Columbia's policy became one of their first causes.

Today, FIRE hasn't relaxed its campaign to bring its idea of fairness to campuses. This year, it's received 600 cases, 300 relating to matters of due process, such as the right to an impartial jury.

In this atmosphere, Harvard University, which has had a rash of sexual-misconduct complaints, announced last week a new approach to disputes between students. Claims brought to the Harvard Administrative Board will now be screened instead of automatically triggering a hearing. Only with "sufficient independent corroboration" will the board investigate.

Some say this ivory-tower version of a grand jury wrongly molds school disciplinary procedures after criminal ones, turning an educational process into a legal brawl better suited to "Judge Judy." Others worry that in cases of sexual misconduct, where physical evidence is often lacking, victims will suffer most.

Whether many schools will follow Harvard's example is still unclear, says Sheldon Steinbach, general counsel for the American Council on Education. Ultimately, though, Mr. Steinbach expects that Harvard's "innovative" policy may go a long way in helping universities answer a now-controversial question: What are appropriate standards of justice in campus proceedings?

At most schools, disciplinary proceedings are as much a part of tradition as football rivalries. Harvard's "Ad Board," for instance, was established in 1890. And, administrators say, procedures don't vary much from school to school. Most have a presiding officer and a hearing board of faculty, administrators, students, or some combination of all three.

Courts generally take a laissez-faire attitude toward justice on campus. Essentially, schools set their own rules; law requires only that they be consistent. In fact, beyond the ABCs of trial fairness – that the accused be informed of the charges and allowed to respond – schools have no legal obligation to ensure due process.