Writer misunderstands judicial process

After reading Sana Coleman's letter of Dec. 1, it is clear to me that individuals who are unfamiliar with judicial procedures can make incorrect assumptions.

When the official investigation is begun of an undergraduate alleged to have violated the Judicial Code or other University policy, an advisor is assigned to assist the accused in the presentation of his or her case. All advisors assigned through my office are undergraduates, and nine individuals serve in this capacity this year. When an accused party receives the initial investigation letter from me, the advisor's name and telephone number are included. Students also are advised that they may choose any other member of the University community to serve in this capacity, as long as that person is not a member of the Undergraduate Judicial Board. Additionally, accused parties can receive advising services from Marta Perez, assistant to the dean for student development.

This year, only one student was returning as an advisor and new advisors were not selected and assigned until after Oct. 12. Whenever and advisor is assigned, if he or she or the accused feels uncomfortable with the assignment, either party may request a reassignment and, at that point, the accused may choose a new advisor from the advisor pool or from the University community, or the accused may elect no one. Advisors' names are maintained on file in alphabetical order and are assigned in rotating order.

The Buckly amendment considers and individual student's disciplinary record to be part of the official record and does not allow release of the information without the student's authorization. Duke's Undergraduate Judicial Code has a specific provision that allows the moving party, often identifies as the victim in the case, to be appraised of a hearing panel's verdict and/or sanction. Such notification is routine. There is no mechanism, however, which prevents either the accused or the moving party from commenting publicly on a disciplinary proceeding. Members of the UJB and the office of student affairs are not permitted to comment on the specifics of individual cases unless the accused authorizes such disclosure. All hearing process and individual names are replaced by case log numers. Details concerning cases which involve living groups may be discussed publicly but, typically, discussion is held until the appeal process has run its course or the accused has authorized release of information.

Paul Bumbalough

Assistant dean for student development