Sept. 13, an existing policy was clarified: Students' off-campus conduct will definitely be investigated and punished by on-campus authorities. Before administrators get too ahead of themselves, I wish they would consider one thing about our judicial process: It. Doesn't. Work.
Indeed, although academic infractions are down sharply since the implementation of the Duke Community Standard, non-academic violations-particularly those involving alcohol-have skyrocketed during the past 10 years. In its current state, Duke's judicial philosophy is wholly unsuited to reduce alarming levels of binge drinking and out-of-control partying; simply expanding the jurisdiction of the Office of Judicial Affairs is not an answer.
This is primarily because our Undergraduate Judicial Board is more akin to a clandestine military tribunal than a legitimate judicial body. The Board's membership is secret, the regulations it enforces are subject to change without notice and its agenda is set by administrative fiat, proudly unbound by our student-ratified constitution. Indeed, Stephen Bryan, associate dean of students and director of judicial affairs, told The Chronicle that "[Duke students] are contractually owned by Duke University."
Because Bryan is correct, students should be acutely alarmed at the prospect of being subject to University punishment for off-campus offenses. For one thing, Duke's court system uses a "clear and convincing" standard of proof, which is less than the "beyond a reasonable doubt" threshold mandated by criminal courts. Additionally, the procedure for admitting evidence is quite different, eliminating a "technical advantag[e] that exists in the criminal process." You could plausibly be found innocent in a court of law and yet be guilty by Duke's standards.
What's more, Bryan is asking students to trust the Office of Judicial Affairs' discretion in deciding which off-campus offenses to punish. He went on to cite limited resources as the primary reason why "less serious" violations will (probably) not be pursued.
In reality, this promise will either lead to a remarkably inconsistent application of the policy, or it will invite inequality and opportunism in its enforcement. Is it fair that a student offense committed in California is less likely to be prosecuted than one in Chapel Hill? Or is this simply a way for administrators to reserve the right to punish whatever crimes they deem "serious," leaving us all vulnerable to the caprice of policy makers?
A recent controversy underscored these objections after the Undergraduate Judicial Board significantly increased, by precedent, the penalty for driving while intoxicated, but failed to communicate the change to the student body. This lapse guaranteed that the policy's value as a deterrent was not recognized. More importantly, our judicial protocol was revealed for what it really is: A trickle-down theory of enforcement that accords the student body very little access and even less influence.
The considerable difficulty of navigating Duke's judicial process only compounds these concerns. Only "members of the community" are allowed at Undergraduate Judicial Board hearings, which means that parents and attorneys (among others) are barred from attendance.
Moreover, although both the Fifth Amendment and the DSG Constitution outlaw double jeopardy, Bryan made it clear that administrators will not recognize that prohibition. Since Duke is a private institution, administrators are well within their legal rights to mandate this, but they are unwise to discard student input so blatantly. This adversarial approach only delegitimizes the judicial process in students' eyes.
There is a better way. Institutions like Skidmore College and the University of Colorado at Boulder-which has experienced its own crisis involving athletics and campus culture-recently embraced an approach called "restorative justice," which brings together the offender, the victim and members of the community to discuss the consequences of a violation.
Inside Higher Education magazine reported that these colleges have seen a reduction in "recidivism.[and restorative justice] is widely perceived by offenders and victims as fair and better able to meet their emotional and material needs than traditional retributive responses." Given that a large number of Duke students take responsibility for their crimes, an approach like this one might be an excellent improvement to our existing mediation protocols.
Furthermore, administrators should extend this community-focused paradigm to the larger judicial process, inasmuch as privacy and ethical regulations allow. As a first step, the identities of Undergraduate Judicial Board members should be made publicly available; the student body's interest outweighs Bryan's concern for members' privacy in this instance.
Additionally, the process by which University regulations are formulated and altered should be made more democratic; as things stand, the Appellate Board and Larry Moneta are principally responsible for these changes, and yet it is students who must abide by them.
Lastly and most importantly, administrators need to respect our student constitution and embrace this community's consensus. If they want to make the case that students should be punished twice for one crime (and I believe that they can), then let them. Otherwise, stop masquerading administratively driven policy as a legitimate student judicial process.
Kristin Butler is a Trinity junior. Her column runs every Friday.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.