|
by
Des Kilkeary, Professor of English
(This
will be the first in a series of articles dealing with Judicial Board
Procedure - the workings of a semi-secret body which convenes judicial
hearings involving the conduct of students, faculty, counselors and
administrators who have had grievances filed against them. This
court is not part of the campus shared governance process and,
consequently, it has no direct oversight, no supervision, and no
review of its conduct whatsoever. It is guided by two sets of
regulations: one poorly crafted set applies to faculty, counselors and
administrators [there is no appeal in this process] and another much
better written set applies only to students.)
"...equal
and exact justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion."
(Thomas Jefferson)
The spirit of Jefferson's words is
faintly echoed in Board Regulation 5101 which states that the
"Chairman of the Judicial Board...will conduct formal hearings
according to the provisions of due process." One can find
academic due process defined on page 46 of the Full Time and Adjunct
Faculty Handbook which states: "the search for justice requires...
procedural due process of law. Academic due process is intended to assure
a fair resolution of disputes and grievances within the college
community." Keep the key words "fair resolution" in
mind as you read the following account.
Imagine you return to campus on Monday morning, teach one or more
classes, and then, during your office hour you check your e-mail only to
discover that a formal Judicial Board Hearing has been scheduled for the
following day, Tuesday, at 11:00 a.m., and you are expected to be there.
To be sure, the notice specifies the time and the place of the
hearing, but it neglects to identify either the charges against you or the
name of the person or persons who is bringing them. It does,
however, direct you to bring the Course Overview and "any
information" that you might have regarding a certain class that you
teach.
Having a serious medical problem, you have an appointment scheduled
for that Tuesday with your doctor, and you inform the chairperson of the
Judicial Board that you are unable to be at the Judicial Board Hearing at
the indicated time; nevertheless, you receive a notice that the
Hearing will be convened with or without you, "according to our
Student Grievance Procedures." You keep your medical
appointment.
Three months later, you receive a letter from the Administration
informing you that a Judicial Board Hearing had been held as scheduled,
the charges brought against you upheld, and that you have ten working days
to respond in writing.
You might think that you are dreaming, caught up in a nightmare
like
Joseph K, in Franz Kafka's novel The
Trial, who awakens one morning to find himself accused by a
mysterious legal authority of an unnamed crime of which he knows nothing.
You remember his many fruitless attempts to obtain justice from an
authority with which he cannot effectively communicate, culminating in his
utter frustration, his complete loss of human dignity, and his cruel
death. You can't believe that anything like this can happen in real
life. You will yourself to wake up, only to find the letter is
still in your hand.
This bizarre tale is not imaginary; it recently happened to one of
your colleagues (whom we will hereafter refer to as Professor X) just as I
described it, except that there is much more to the story than I have
revealed so far.
How is it possible in this day and age to find oneself charged and
convicted without knowing for what kind of behavior and by whose
accusation. Professor X isn't told anything until three months after
the proceedings when an official letter arrives summarizing the events
leading to the Judicial Board's judgment that Student X could
petition for a "W" if the student felt that a final grade in
your class is unsatisfactory. I need to add here that the hearing
took place during final exams, and Student X was not aware of the grade to
be received but believed it would be less than the grade desired.
While not the only complaint, the "W" grade was foremost
in the student's mind. When asked by the Chair of the Judicial
Board what was wanted from the Board, the student declared it was a
"W" so that the class could be repeated.
While it is somewhat disturbing to find out that a student can use
the judicial process to effect a grade change, it is even more shocking to
discover that the student had been encouraged to use the judicial process
for this purpose by an administrator when a much simpler, and more
commonly used option was available - a petition to waive college
requirement was available as a first option. The folks at Admissions
and Records tell me that this is the first step, a fairly simple and often
used process which is detailed in the college catalog under the
WITHDRAWAL/ COURSE DROP POLICY. "Upon petition, students may
drop or be dropped subsequent to the designated deadlines for extenuating
circumstances." The policy requires that the petition must be
received by the chairperson of the Petitions Committee within the first
semester following the semester or term in which the course was scheduled,
but it can be effected earlier, I was told, even before the class ends and
a grade is received.
Extenuating circumstances include "circumstances beyond the
control of the student" which can mean almost anything, including
dissatisfaction
with a grade due to incompatibility with a teacher.
Such withdrawals or drops shall be recorded as a "W".
The petition option is something that the administrator should have known
about and should have informed the student of its availability.
However, this is just one of a number of mistakes or poor decisions
made by this administrator and the chairman of the Judicial Board.
When revealed, the facts of the case will show what amounts to a
travesty of the judicial process in this case including a number of policy
violations which range from failing to inform a faculty member of the
charges or the names of the complainants before the Hearing (as required),
to insufficient notification (leading to an insufficient amount of time to
mount a defense, assuming one knew what to defend), to an inappropriate
venue (it turns out that the student complaints lie outside the
jurisdiction of the Judicial Board and are strictly prohibited by its
rules), to a finding or remedy which could more easily have been
accomplished through a simple petition. What does this have to do with
"justice" and a "fair resolution"? Well, you be the
judge.
When I first heard the details of professor X's case, I couldn't
believe my ears; something struck me as being altogether wrong with the
process. How could Professor X not have known that there was a case
was pending until so late in the process when the notification to appear
before the Judicial Board arrived. Some years ago, I had served on the
Judicial Board, so I was fairly knowledgeable about how things should work
unless, of course, some of the rules had changed (they hadn't). I
remembered that the regulations had some built in safeguards that, had
they been followed, would have alerted Professor X that there was a
problem and this might have led to an easy resolution.
The safeguards that I referred to are contained in Administration
regulation 5101 which governs student grievances against faculty,
counselors, and administrators which involves a three part process. First,
if the policy were being followed the student would attempt to resolve the
problem with the teacher. The teacher, thereby put on notice that a
problem exists, could attempt to remedy or
resolve
it. Second, if the informal discussion does not produce a satisfactory
solution, the student may take his/her complaint to an informal hearing
with the appropriate Dean who is responsible to arrange a meeting with the
persons involved, to engage in fact-finding, and try to resolve the
problem. This would allow a second opportunity to find a fair
solution, and again the teacher would know the process is underway and
could respond.
Third, if the person making the complaint is not justified with any
proposed solution, then he or she can submit his signed complaint in
writing to the Chairman of the Glendale College Judicial Board — the
point being that everyone is aware of the process and there are no
surprises.
Professor X informed me that steps one and two had never taken
place, and I determined to find out if this were true. Had the
people who were involved in the Judicial Process followed the policy or
not? This quest was to lead me on a not so merry chase. It would
take a lengthy period of time, and involve a large number of
communications, e-mails, letters and interviews until suddenly an iron
curtain descended, well actually a wall of silence, when the
principal players in this drama disappeared behind the confidentiality
veil, asserting that they could only talk about policy adherence
in a general sense. The official response always went something like this:
"It is inappropriate for me to meet with you to discuss the
particulars of any one case. On the other hand, if you are interested in
meeting with me to learn more about our Judicial Board process, I am happy
to meet with you to discuss my understanding of the process."
This response reminded me very much of the character Major in Joseph
Heller's novel Catch
22. You could only make an appointment to see him when he
was out, and of course when he was in his office, you couldn't see him.
That's one example of catch 22.
Part two of this story will relate my attempt to breach the wall of
silence to find out if Board Policy was indeed being followed in every
case—you can probably guess the answer by now, and I will reveal the
next chapter in the remarkable narrative of Professor X's experience with
the Judicial Board. &
[back
to the top]
|