Editorial: Justice served?

Twenty years after its demise, the greek judicial board is returning to campus. This board, rather than the Undergraduate Judicial Board, will hear judicial cases and complaints involving greek chapters. The board's resurrection is disappointing, since the disappearance of the greek judicial board 20 years ago was a good thing, and the University has little reason to revive it today.

The situation is simple: A panel consisting entirely of greek-affiliated students will have the final say on punishment with any case involving a greek chapter. There are at least two ways in which this could result in a miscarriage of justice.

First, the administration expects a board of greeks to sanction other greek organizations. This view is unrealistic, since most of the infractions on which greek chapters are tried can be committed on a regular basis by greek chapters who are not caught. Since greeks will be judging other greeks, they have an incentive to be lenient on each other in repayment for future lenience. Thus, one way the greek judicial board could abuse justice is by giving every greek chapter a get-out-of-jail-free card.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, however, is the possibility that inter-greek rivalries will be played out in the judicial board. That is, if one fraternity has a strong rivalry with another, what will prevent members of the first fraternity from harshly penalizing members of the second fraternity in the greek judicial board? There is a real possibility of harsher punishments based on outside vendetta.

Although these represent two opposite extremes, they are both miscarriages of justice. Most judicial systems are based on the idea that whoever is doing the judging should be as impartial as possible. However, the system set up for the greek judicial board chooses the most biased people possible by making the judges people intimately invested in greek life.

Another problem with the board is that little thought seems to have been given to what its purview should be. The board regulates on-campus fraternities, off-campus sororities, and non-residential fraternities, but not on-campus selective houses. Does it make sense to have a single board governing some selective living groups but not others? And does it make sense to have a single board governing some groups that have housing and others that don't? What is it about naming your organization with greek letters that entitles it to special treatment from the University?

Moreover, the cases that the board hears seem to come in two distinct types. There are those cases that are largely internal and affect only greek organizations-e.g., dirty rushing-and other cases that affect the broader Duke community-e.g., a greek group vandalizing a commons area. A better system would separate the judicial enforcement for these two types of violations, since non-greeks should have a say in regulating greek activity that affects everyone.

This is not to say that more greek input in the system is not needed. It is. Many of the current rules the administration makes greeks follow are ridiculous, and enforcement of the rules in the past has often been arbitrary. But the fact that the current system has flaws does not justify implementing this system. Ultimately, the fact is that this board failed and lost its credibility 20 years ago, and little has changed since then. It could very well fail again now. University officials would be better served by changing their minds and not resurrecting the past.