CHAPARRAL

X, Y and YOU could be Z

by Des Kilkeary, English Division

This is the fourth in a series of articles dealing with Judicial Board Procedure—the workings of a semi-secret body, which convenes judicial hearings involving students, faculty, counselors and administrators who have had grievances filed against them.  The articles will continue as long as the Judicial Board proves to be dysfunctional.

            For our new readers, I should explain that the case of Professor X, which involved a number of GCC Board policy violations, was extensively reported in last year's Chaparral.  The violations included failure to inform the faculty member of the charges and the names of the complainants before the hearing, entertaining charges which were beyond the scope and authority of the Judicial Board (hereafter JB), insufficient notification, inadequate time to prepare a defense, and subjecting Professor X to the judicial process to deal with a problem that should have been handled by a simple petition.

            The good news is that the old and poorly crafted grievance procedure governing faculty, administrators and counselors is currently undergoing extensive revision which should bring it into line with the more recently revised regulations governing students.  This should help to alleviate some, but not all of the problems with the JB procedure which have come to light in this publication during the last year.

            Before that the JB problems had been wallowing in a veritable black hole of jurisprudence such as we find in Guantanamo Bay, where suspected terrorists are kept in the dark and tried in secret because the U.S. Constitution somehow does not apply there.  I wonder if it applies at GCC.

            Our court is not really part of the campus shared governance process and, consequently, it has no direct oversight, no real supervision, and no public review of its conduct whatsoever.  Any and all violations of GCC Board policy are unknown simply because of the practice of confidentiality which has governed the procedure, and errors have disappeared into the black hole.  Not only errors, but institutional data that might be useful to the college has been lost: nobody knows how many cases are tried annually, nobody knows how many teachers are censured, how many students are expelled—and for what reasons.

            I won't say nobody, but few people know of the case involving Professor Y which I will introduce with an apt quotation from Samuel Johnson: "I hope I shall never be deterred from detecting what I think a cheat, by the menace of a ruffian."  

            Johnson's quote eloquently reflects the resolute spirit of Professor Y prior to a rather nasty experience before the Judicial Board, the ruffian in this case and many more as I came to learn.  I'm not so sure that the professor feels that way now.

            The story began last semester when Professor Y caught two students cheating on a test.  Admonishing the misbehavior, the professor decided to give the students a second chance to complete the course successfully provided, of course, that they never cheat again. To avoid the temptation to cheat, the students were directed not to sit next to each other in class, not during a test, not even during a lecture—never!   At this point they could have dropped the class, gone to the division chair, or filed a grievance.  They didn't. The students agreed to accept the teacher's conditions, thereby conceding the point that they were guilty.

            All went well for a while until Professor Y took a bereavement leave following a death in the family.  A tenured colleague filled in during the absence, and while administering a test caught the same two students cheating.  The substitute teacher, who had no idea that the students had been prohibited from sitting next to each other or had cheated before,  wrote on the student's examination papers that the exam results had been compromised when one student copied from the other.

            Upon return, Professor Y, after consulting with the division chair and in accordance with the college Policy on Academic Honesty which states (in part) "When a student engages in academic dishonesty, faculty have the options...of assigning a lower or failing (F) grade in the course," decided that the students, who had ignored the instructions not to sit together during a test, had cheated twice and had been caught by two different instructors, should receive an F in the class and informed them of the decision.

            It needs to be clarified here, that according to both California Education Code and the GCC Board Policy, once a teacher records a grade it is final subject to an appeal process similar in both sets of regulations.  Students have a right to appeal, but the appeal is limited. In the GCC Policy, the student must prove that the grade was prejudicially, capriciously, or arbitrarily assigned.  

            The students' response was to file a grievance against the instructor claiming that both instructors "had a certain attitude toward them"; whatever that meant was not clarified in the grievance. It seems to possibly suggest that the instructors were prejudiced.  To me, it suggests that the teachers wouldn't condone cheating.  In any event, the case unfortunately went all the way to the Judicial Board for resolution.

            The first problem here is obviously a breakdown in the screening process that would allow a case with no merit to advance to the hearing level, but that's exactly what happened.

            The second problem involved a breakdown in the judicial process at the hearing. The students' defense was elaborate and well thought out. First, they declared that they hadn't cheated; however, they failed to produce any evidence whatsoever that the grade had been given prejudicially, capriciously, or arbitrarily. Second, they introduced a witness.

            They brought in a star character witness. No harm in that, everyone is entitled to a character witness, but this was really a character assassin who began her testimony by saying, "I don't know anything about cheating, but...," and then launched into what can best be described as a twenty-minute character assassination of the instructor.  The testimony proved to be nothing more than a scurrilous indictment of the teacher proving only that the witness didn't like the instructor, but loved the students.   The fact that the "testimony" was irrelevant to the cheating issue was apparently lost on the Judicial Board, which allowed the "testimony" to ramble on for a lengthy period of time without interruption.  When I say the Judicial Board, I really mean Jessica Gillooly, its chairperson, who has the responsibility to run the hearing "according to the provisions of due process" which include fairness to all concerned parties, and that includes teachers.  But the JB members were apparently so enthralled with the testimony that they failed to cross examine the witness, who continued to rant.

            To everyone's surprise, the instructor’s division chair rose to the occasion and interrupted the proceedings, declaring that the testimony was not only irrelevant but demeaning and suggesting the board was way out of line entertaining this diatribe which simply did not amount to credible evidence.  He, believe it or not, was silenced by Dr. Gillooly, who apparently wanted to hear more of the uncorroborated statements, to protect the student's right to make uncorroborated accusations, and the student, emboldened by the Chair's support, continued on the attack.

            At last, when the student was finished, Dr. Gillooly asked Professor Y if she had anything to say, which turned out to be a particularly interesting question because of the way it was framed; it was clear that she expected the instructor to address the JB and not the student. Now according to Board Regulations, Professor Y should have been given an opportunity to cross examine both her accusers and the hostile witness (see Board Reg. 5101, B,3), but Dr. Gillooly did not allow direct cross examination as she should have. Regrettably, she just doesn't seem to fathom the regulations very well as was clearly demonstrated in the case of Professor X, where she made numerous procedural errors—not this one, however, since Professor X was not even present at that trial.  At her behest, he was tried in absentia.

             Incidentally, one faculty response to my query addressed to those who had experience before the JD stated that the respondent was summoned to appear before the JD, but refused to participate.  This teacher was not tried in absentia; instead, the case was dismissed. Which brings up the obvious issue of fairness.  How is it possible that one member of the faculty who refused to participate on principle is excused, and one who asked for a postponement is tried in absentia and convicted?  The answer is Guantanamo style justice!  Anything can happen in secret.

            Now to return to our story.  When Professor Y began to rebut the witness, she was told by another member of the JB (an administrator) that her explanation was irrelevant.  Professor Y asked how could that be when the statements of the witness had been welcomed and even accepted by the Board as not only relevant but apparently as gospel truth.  Perhaps shamed by the logic of the instructor, the administrator shut up, and the teacher managed to get in a few words of rebuttal.

            There the case rests.  As we go to print, and after more than a week of JB deliberations and administrative consideration, I can report that there has been no "final" decision on the resolution of this case.

            Before you make up your mind, consider the following:  the faculty responses to my query regarding experience with the Judicial Board can best be summarized by the following quote: "Too much freedom is given to the student."

             Regardless of the charge and the outcome, a number of teachers complained that the basic student defense on the issue of grade change is an attack on the instructor.  Others complained, "the charges were meritless and wasted a lot of time."  Most respondents felt that the JD experience was both traumatic and demeaning, and there was a general consensus the Judicial Procedure was broken and needed mending.  I will end this installment, appropriately, with a comment from Professor X, which represents the collective sentiment of most of the instructors who responded to my query:

  "Nothing justifies in my mind the treatment I was subjected to at the hearing."

            Having heard the tales of Professors X & Y, keep in mind that the old rules still prevail with all of their inadequacies, and that a Judicial Board chaired by Jessica Gillooly still reigns supreme and could well preside over your case if you should be unlucky enough to become Professor Z.  If you are concerned about the problems with the Judicial Board, weigh in by contacting your academic senator.

P.S.  Professor X is on administrative suspension with pay pending an arbitration hearing set for early December.  &

Back to top