Duke Student Government President Paul Slattery has shared with The Chronicle a document he compiled revealing that the University grants fewer procedural rights explicitly in "The Duke Community Standard in Practice: A Guide for Undergraduates" than both Duke's policy in the 1999-2000 academic year and the judicial codes of several peer institutions.
The document lists 71 elements of judicial procedure-such as the right to cross-examine witnesses and the necessity of probable cause. It shows that the 2007-2008 edition of the DCS Guide guarantees 15 of the 71 rights included in the policies listed. The 1999-2000 DCS Guide contained 25.
Of the nine peer institutions included, Stanford University affords its undergraduates the most rights, with 36.
Slattery, a senior, said he pored over the judicial guidebooks of Duke and the nine other universities in order to compile the information for the document. He said his aim is to facilitate discussion among students about the state of judicial affairs.
"This is a big deal," Slattery said. "This is fundamentally what it means to be a member of the Duke community."
Stephen Bryan, associate dean of students and director of judicial affairs, said the apparent changes in Duke's judicial policy from the 1999-2000 academic year to now reflect the administration's effort to phase out the legalese of earlier policy guides and focus on educating students about their violations and not a curtailing of student rights.
"There's been a general movement to move away from the legalistic language because it is an impediment to the educational message," he said. "We want to develop citizens that are going to represent Duke in the future.... In the real world, the costs are much greater."
Bryan added that the primary purpose of the Office of Judicial Affairs is to reinforce the "educational mission" of the University and help students understand why certain actions are in violation of the Duke Community Standard.
Slattery, however, said emphasizing the educational purpose of a judicial system undercuts students' growth by restricting liberties and ignoring the external consequences of a person's actions.
"The claim is that if you have procedural rights, the focus becomes 'getting off' and that stands in the way of the educational process of admitting that you're guilty," he said. "Judicial Affairs shouldn't have a self-contained educational mission. It should serve the overall educational mission by resolving conflicts and disincentivizing destruction or disruptive behavior."
The document also includes a column noting which rights Duke claims to practice during a judicial review, even if such rights are not delineated in the DCS Guide. Slattery said these "Duke in Practice" rights-as they are referred to in the spreadsheet-need to be written into the policy.
"You can't just take 'Duke in Practice,'" he said. "It needs to be articulated so students know they have that right and they can exercise that right."
Bryan said many of the rights Slattery listed under the "Duke in Practice" column are given to students during a judicial hearing, but were excluded from the DCS Guide to make the manual more concise and readable.
"One could say that it's not written down, there's no accountability, but there's no way you can write down every policy," he said. "My God, the thing would be 10 times the thickness it is now."
One of the differences between the 1999-2000 judicial policy guide and the current one is the exclusion of the words "probable cause." Instead, the 2007-2008 guide explains that a case can be referred for disciplinary action if "there is sufficient information to believe that a policy violation may have occurred and that the alleged individual/group may be responsible."
Bryan said although the current policy is worded differently, probable cause is still required for a hearing to be held.
Slattery, however, said the absence of the term gives the jurors leeway to hold a hearing even if probable cause is not found.
"'May' means it's possible that a policy violation occurred," he said. "The only way to not meet that standard is, one, if it's not physically possible for that to occur, or, two, if you have objective information. 'Possible' isn't a standard."
Another change made since the 1999-2000 DCS Guide was the elimination of the "Fundamental Standard," a policy which Bryan called a "catch-all clause."
"Basically, if someone is contrary to the Fundamental Standard of honor, integrity and respect for the rights of others, you could be thrown out of the University," he said. "To me that's preposterous. You will find that nowhere in the 2007-2008 policy and procedures. We don't want anything so broad that it's at the whim of the administration."
Dean of Undergraduate Education Steve Nowicki said he looks forward to introducing the spreadsheet into conversations regarding how to review Judicial Affairs.
"I've been talking to Paul about this issue for awhile, so I knew it was coming," he said. "I think that it's really great that Paul has done this background work to see how things are at Duke.... What it will lead to is a thorough discussion."
Slattery said he plans to work with DSG and other student outlets to gauge student opinion regarding the state of Judicial Affairs. He said he hopes to pen a bill of rights that could give Duke students the rights included in the policy guides of peer institutions.
"We need a drafted bill of rights to discuss, which I could write myself, but I wish there was a process that involved more than one student," Slattery said. "The spreadsheet organization of judicial policy of Duke and other institutions makes it possible to imagine other judicial policies that could work here. I could start this conversation, but I can't finish it."
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.