CHAPARRAL

"An event has happened, upon which it is difficult to speak,
and impossible to be silent." (Edmund Burke)

     It is difficult to speak of because of the wall of silence (ostensibly invoked in the name of confidentiality) erected by the very individuals who are responsible for carrying out the Board Policy.  It is impossible to be silent because the non-adherence to policy cries out to be heard and rectified.

    Edmund Burke's aphorism aptly describes the story of Professor X, whose  experience with the Campus Judicial Board I characterized (see Part One of the series) as involving a number of policy violations including failure to inform a faculty member of the charges and the names of the complainants before the hearing, entertaining charges which were strictly prohibited by the rules, insufficient notification allowing inadequate time to mount a defense, and subjecting Professor X to the judicial process to deal with a problem that could have been easily handled by a simple petition.

     Had these violations actually occurred?  I had listened to Professor X's story, but was it accurate?  I assumed that it would be easy enough to find out.  I would just ask the Chairperson of the Judicial Board.  I began my quest on March 25th by asking for the written materials governing the Judicial Board procedures. They arrived soon, and as I read through the regulations I noted language which said: "The search for justice requires an orderly, democratic judicial system. It also requires procedural due process of law."  This is encouraging, but the question remained, would the "due process" be observable?  Would it be transparent?

     Having familiarized myself with the regulations, on April 12th I inquired of the Chairperson if the Judicial Board has been following the complete process as outlined in the District Policy?  I didn't hear back.

     Instead, much to my surprise, I received an e-mail from the college president, Dr. Davitt, on April 26th expressing interest in the purpose of the article I was researching and suggesting that we talk "because it's a very sensitive area and the people who serve on the board are given as much anonymity as possible."  I was struck by the contradiction posed by a "democratic judicial system" and anonymity, but the rules stated that the "hearing shall be closed to the public unless the defendant requests an open hearing,"  and in this case the defendant wasn't there to make a choice.  Nevertheless,  if everything was going according to Hoyle, anonymity would not be a problem.  But was it?  That was the nagging question.

     I responded that "the purpose of my article is exactly the same as my purpose in the recent parking articles—to find out if college policy is being followed.  If it is, then it's business as usual and no story interest; if it's not, then anonymity should not be used as a shield to hide behind."

     The one thing that I had learned so far was that I had been incorrect in assuming that we had a strong, dependable, and independent judiciary which would take responsibility for its actions.  It was disappointing to learn that the Chairperson was apparently unable to respond directly and honestly to my questions, but instead turned to the administration for direction.

     On April 29th, I once again contacted the Chairperson requesting a response to my earlier questions.  It had been over a month, and I had no more information than when I began.  I suggested that the lack of response only raised a red flag in my mind.

     On May 1st, the Chairperson informed me that "it is inappropriate for me to meet with you to discuss the particulars of any one case," and stated that it is "patently untrue" that Board members are not following policy.  I concluded that was all that the Chairperson thought needed to be said on the matter, but of course I couldn't agree.

     In my response, I pointed out that I would be happy to hear that the Judicial Board routinely and rigorously follows policy and due process, but Professor X claims that he has been denied due process, and from what I've heard so far, his argument is not without merit.

     If his account is correct then a number of irregularities have occurred on your watch and would be your responsibility.  You claim that all is in order.  I say let the facts settle the dispute.

     I made the following case:  While I agree that ordinarily it would be inappropriate to discuss the particulars of any one case since such matters are generally held confidential unless the defendant desires the hearing to be public, this case is different.  Professor X was not present at the proceedings to address the matter of confidentiality, but since Professor X brought the matter to my attention it is clearly a matter of public concern and this would absolve you from the requirements to maintain confidentiality.

     Regarding anonymity, it is appropriate if the process is followed responsibly and the legal rights of participants are protected, but anonymity is dangerous to the public good when individual rights are abused and the public, that is the college community, is not aware of it because the proceedings are cloaked in secrecy.  Professor X says that he was "bushwacked." I would hate to think that any of my colleagues would intentionally bushwacked another.

     Having read the college policy contained in Administrative Regulations 5101 and 5420, I have found numerous problems with the language which could easily be confusing and lead to error, and believe me, I am not unsympathetic to anyone who has to administer poorly written rules; however, if mistakes were made they need to be acknowledged and rectified.  I ended by suggesting  that the Chairperson's input would be very welcome in correcting problematical language and contradictions between various parts of the policies that need a thorough revision.

     The argument was not persuasive. I received the following response:

Once again I want you to know that I am willing to sit down and talk with you about the Judicial Board process in general in order to help you write an informed article for the Chaparral.  If you, however, want to talk about a particular case that is a different issue.  As Chair of the Judicial Board, it is not appropriate for me to discuss faculty or student's private and confidential matters.

     Naturally, I was disappointed. My "informed" article would have no information in it at all at this rate.  I had to try again.  I wrote: Regarding the "particular case" which you are reticent to discuss, I have not asked you for any information regarding the person, the trial, or the decision rendered.  I have asked you simply if you followed college policy.  This question in no way compromises anything confidential since it does not pertain to the individuals but to the process, as I will make clear in my article.  I respect your decision to keep the identities and issues of the trial and its outcome secret, but I believe that the policy matters of every case are open to scrutiny.  Your message to the college is that the Judicial Board is beyond scrutiny; I don't think that the college will find that acceptable.

     The Chairperson did not write back.

     On May 9th, I received an e-mail from Dr. Davitt stating that he agreed that the Chairperson of the Judicial Board cannot discuss an individual case, especially for publication, unless the individual involved signs a release form.  Professor X immediately approved the solution and signed a release form, and I informed the Chairperson and asked for a meeting to discuss the "individual case."  However, there was no response, only silence.

     On June 3rd, I again requested a meeting with the Chairperson.  Having received Dr. Davitt's approval, I couldn't understand why I hadn't heard anything.  About the same time and in a separate letter,  Professor X asked for "a copy of the formal charges brought against me on December 18, 2001," as well as a copy of the taped record of the proceedings.  It had been almost six months since the trial, and Professor X still had not seen the formal charges, only a summary of the results of the proceedings.  The Chairperson remained mute.

     After more than a month of this silence, I decided to hand carry the release form and deliver it personally to the Chairperson in hopes of arranging the meeting that Dr. Davitt had authorized back on May 9. When I got to the office, the Chairperson informed me that there would be no meeting under any circumstances,  signed form or no signed form, it didn't matter; as a matter of fact, the whole matter had been turned over to the administration, and if I wanted to know anything, I could deal with the administrators, but I would not get any information from the Chairperson, who didn't want to talk to me about any particulars.

     Needless to say, I was more than disappointed.  After weeks and weeks of on again, off again, on again, off again responses, I was no closer to the information I wanted than I had been at the beginning.

     As I contemplated the next step, things took a turn for the better. I received a letter from the acting Vice President, Steve White,  which informed me that all of the documents and information regarding disciplinary proceedings that involve Professor X will be made available to him, and that he can share these materials with you at his discretion.&

Part three of this story will reveal what I found out.

 [back to the top]