CHAPARRAL

Response to
The X, Y, Z Affair

by Des Kilkeary, English Division

I am glad that Roger and I (and apparently everyone else) can agree on one thing, that existing Judicial Board policies are outdated and need to be revised. As Roger states, "...they are currently undergoing a wholesale revision initiated earlier this calendar year." Roger, however, neglected to mention that the revision is underway in large part (one might say only) because of the attention brought to the matter in previous Chaparral articles: without that stimulus it is unlikely that there would be any revision pending at all.

Unfortunately, that seems to be the only matter on which we could reach agreement. Roger took issue with the tone of the article, the argument and its evidence, its biased sources, and the fact that the article was published at all. Clearly, Roger didn't like it. I shall respond to each criticism in order of appearance.

First is the matter of hyperbole which Roger finds troublesome. Well, intentional exaggeration often has a satirical purpose, but like most figurative language it is not supposed to be taken literally. The phrase, "a veritable black hole of jurisprudence such as we find in Guantanamo Bay," pretty clearly refers to the matter of secrecy, and a major thrust of my article suggests that any secret proceedings, whenever or wherever, are subject to abuse if they lack proper supervision (think of the Inquisition).

Second, Roger's comments on the argument and its evidence are somewhat faulty themselves. I agree that the assertion "the JB members were apparently so enthralled with the testimony that they failed to cross examine the witnesses," is an impression (I make no claim to clairvoyance), but it is an informed impression gathered from numerous faculty members who have appeared before the JB complaining that the Chair allowed students to introduce irrelevant "evidence" at great length, which constitutes a regular pattern of behavior, and since none of the JB members objected, it is reasonable to conclude that they were enthralled. But regardless of what one thinks of my conclusion, it is only a minor part of the statement, and even if it is in error, it is of no real significance. To focus on this issue is to miss the mark entirely, which Roger did. The major criticism is that the JB Board members consistently failed to cross examine the witnesses, and this oversight doesn't seem to bother Roger at all. Well, it bothers me, and I assert that it should bother everyone.

While I don't know for sure what's going on in the minds of the board members, I was able to present an accurate account of the proceedings, and the fact is that no cross examination took place by any Board member, nor was the defendant allowed to cross examine the witnesses, and that is the real issue here. Board policy allows the defendant to cross examine his or her accuser, and that right has been systematically abused: none of the 12 or so faculty who responded to my inquiry had been allowed to cross examine their accusers.

Third, even though I am not a historian, nor was my article an attempt to write a history, I too would prefer to get multiple sources representing all points of view if that were possible. However, as I detailed in an earlier article, I was directed by the administration (at the behest of the JB Chair) not to question the Judicial Board Chairperson (and presumably any member of the Board) on matters of Board policy.

Regarding the sources, Roger is right, they were limited, limited to some of the principals who believed that an injustice had been done to them due to a combination of circumstances: the JB Chairperson's faulty decisions regarding some Board policies and her disregard of others, for example, the regulations dealing with a change of grade place the burden of proof strictly on the students; the JB erroneously put it on the faculty members. Big mistake! What Roger refers to as the" attack" on the proceedings because they were unfair and too pro-student accurately reflects the opinions of the dozen or so faculty members who had experience before the tribunal and responded to my e-mail inquiry.

One final remark on the propriety of my sources for this article will employ another figure of speech -- an analogy this time: as a police officer at an intersection has the authority and the duty to ticket drivers running a stop sign, so does a teacher have the authority and the duty to "ticket" a student cheating on an exam. No court in the land is going to question the authority of the policeman ticketing such a driver (the only hope the driver has is that the officer doesn't appear at the hearing); what would prompt the GCC JB to question the authority of the classroom teacher (without proof of wrongdoing), and not just one teacher in this case but two, and a division chairperson as well, unless, of course, there is a conspiracy amongst the three of them to "cheat" the students. Such speculation, I think, departs from the realm of reason.

So, if not history what do I write? I simply write stories (articles), opinion pieces which are often argumentative and reflect, hopefully, an informed opinion whose purpose is to elicit an informed response for the benefit of the general readership. While the Chaparral has an editorial board, the publication does not actually have editorials, so we really don't have op-eds (opinionated pieces which appear across from the editorials). The Chaparral publishes only signed articles, many of which are strictly opinion pieces, and the signatory author takes full responsibility for the accuracy of the material in the article.

Finally, there is the matter of the article being published at all. I am both surprised and troubled at what appears to be Roger's call for censorship, as he put it: "how did this flawed article reach the light of day?" He seems to envision an editorial board that censors writers. Let me take this opportunity to explain the Chaparral's policy. We do not censor the work of contributing writers provided the information is not clearly "libelous, obscene, and/or offensive, or an invasion of privacy." The Editorial Board meets to prior to each issue to recommend and even to solicit articles of interest to the academic community. Susan Cisco and I edit the text as Roger describes for fundamental stylistic and grammatical errors. If we were to find anything we believed to be libelous, obscene, etc., we would bring it to the attention of the writer first, and if the problem could not be resolved, we would bring it to the attention of the Editorial Board before publication. We do not, and never will restrict anyone's right to express his or her legitimate opinions, and criticism of an individual for poor job performance falls within the realm of legitimate opinion. So, the Chaparral welcomes a diversity of opinion, we encourage, we beg for a variety of opinion (see ad, p. 12), and that includes even unpopular opinion.

Freedom of speech achieves its central purpose only when different opinions are expounded. "Thus," as Walter Lippman remarked, "the essence of freedom of opinion is not in mere toleration as such, but in the debate which toleration provides; it is not in the venting of opinion, but in the confrontation of opinion," that freedom of speech is truly exercised.

In that spirit, I welcome Roger's article, and I encourage others who have opinions on this issue to weigh in, to add their thoughts to the collective expression of ideas. &

Desmond Kilkeary , English Division