Amidst complaints of procedural violations and its feeling that the Pomona College community does not know its methods of operation, the Judiciary Council is considering making its hearings public.

The move would signify a radical shift from the present system, under which the only person allowed to discuss hearings publicly is the respondent, who has, more often than not, been convicted and punished. Some feel that this has led to a skewed view of the Judiciary Council in the eyes of the community.

"In every case with which I have been involved this year, the students complain that the process is rigged. They feel railroaded, scapegoated, singled out as object lessons. They distrust the entire process," said Professor of Politics John Seery, who has served an as an advisor for several students up against Judiciary Board charges.

"I get the sense that a lot of the perception of J Board being unfair is that people don’t and can’t know the process and can’t know about the decisions," said outgoing Judiciary Council Chair Jeff McKenna ’00. "Their only source of hearing about most decisions is from the respondent, which is not usually, in my experience… correct."

"Even if there isn’t injustice, when there’s the perception of injustice, it defeats the purpose of having J Board because people coming before it won’t think that they’re getting a fair shake," McKenna said. As a result, McKenna has suggested that the administration make hearings more public and open. According to McKenna, both he and incoming Judiciary Council Chair Emily Cross ’01 are currently exploring that possibility, but are "not 100 percent sure."

Respondents who have come forward generally feel that the deans misrepresented themselves or overstepped their bounds within hearings.

According to the Student Handbook, a representative from the Office of Student Affairs is required to sit in on hearings in an ex officio capacity and act as an advisor on process.

Respondents and some Judicial Council members, however, often feel that the deans are acting as prosecutors, and routinely recommend punishment verbally. Some respondents also feel that the Office of Student Affairs wishes to use certain cases to send messages to the community. Several have also complained about the pre-hearing process, which they claim involves little input from those who are being charged and often takes an inordinate amount of time.

"As I understand it, [ex officio] means that you sit there because of the office you hold," said Dean of Students Ann Quinley. "By custom, the J Board Chair calls on the dean to state the position of the community."

"[The dean] is not the prosecutor," Quinley said.

Dean of Campus Life Matt Taylor, who, according to Quinley, handles most of the cases said that, "If we recommend punishment, we do so in a sealed letter to the panel," Taylor said. Making punishment recommendations in the hearing would be overstepping the boundaries of the dean’s role, according to the Student Code.

McKenna sees the actions of the deans differently: "The dean basically acts in the role of the prosecutor," he said. "They put forth the college’s position, which is usually the position that says what they would like to see the J Board do, and why it’s a serious offense or why it’s not so serious." He said that they perform those duties verbally in both Penalty Board and Judiciary Board hearings.

Mike Sung ’00, who was brought before a Judicial Board for a party he hosted, described Quinley’s role as "absolutely [prosecutorial]." Sung, however, felt that "that’s her job."

Marshall Clyde ’03, who was charged after participating in a drinking contest that left his opponent hospitalized, said that Taylor told his Penalty Board that "he wanted a punishment that would teach the entire campus a lesson without affecting [Clyde’s] academics."

"I wouldn’t say that I said quite that," Taylor said in an interview.

Penalty Board hearings such as Clyde’s take place when a student agrees to sign a charge sheet. Clyde was asked to sign the sheet by Taylor; he says that he did so because Taylor told him that he would probably only receive conduct probation.

"I still thought Taylor was on my side," Clyde said. At trial, though, Clyde felt as if "Taylor wanted to get me kicked off campus."

Clyde’s Penalty Board punished him with social suspension and conduct probation, thirty hours of community service, and a visit to a five-college drug and alcohol councilor. Under the terms of social suspension, Clyde is not allowed to attend any registered social event at which alcohol is being served.

"I think the concept of J Board is very good," Clyde said. Nonetheless, he cites the disparity in punishments between himself and the other drinker in the case, Sarah Bird ’03, as evidence that "they handled the situation very poorly."

"My experience was pretty fair, from my point of view," said Bird. "They were totally nice."

Bird was given conduct probation and an undefined amount of community service, along with a meeting with a substance abuse councilor. "It was completely the right thing," she said. However, she was dissatisfied with the handling of her case in comparison with the cases of Clyde and Nick Smith ’03, who poured the drinks. "There was no correlation between what people did and the punishment they received," Bird said.

Smith, who signed a charge sheet acknowledging that he had poured the drinks for Clyde and Bird, was offered a choice: either he could agree to a one semester suspension, or he could move off campus and return only for classes, help Health Education Outreach promote awareness of alcohol abuse, complete 60 hours of community service by the end of term, and meet with a substance abuse councilor. Smith called the alternative to suspension "almost impossible."

The Penalty Board that decided Smith’s punishment was the same Penalty Board that had heard Bird’s case on the same day.

"I asked Dean Taylor ‘Will I receive an independent Penalty Board?’ He said, ‘Absolutely. It will be four different people than Sarah’s.’"

Taylor declined to answer questions about specific cases, saying that doing so would be a violation of the Student Code, which states, "The members of the Penalty Board shall at no time discuss cases outside of the hearing."

Smith successfully appealed on the grounds that the Penalty Board hearing and deciding Bird’s case constituted such outside discussion. The Appeals Board lessened his sanction to conduct probation. "I was very, very lucky," Smith said.

Originally, Clyde and Bird were scheduled to have the same Penalty Board, but due to a schedule change, it was Smith and Bird who had the same Penalty Board, according to Quinley. "I do think that that was a mistake in retrospect," she said.

Four off-campus students held a party at the beginning of the fall term during dry week for which they were only recently brought before a Judiciary Board. At least one person attending the party, which happened in Montclair, was hospitalized later that night for alcohol poisoning.

"We had a couple of kegs of light beer," said Steve Dunkle ’00, one of the hosts. "[The person who was hospitalized] brought his own bottle of rum and drank the whole thing. It was his 21st birthday."

"We didn’t provide any hard alcohol," added Jon McCumber ’00.

The four hosts were originally charged with violating dry week. They were presented with the charges without being interviewed by a dean first.

"They could have saved a lot of time by talking to us first, just to clear up factual things like how many kegs there were," said McCumber.

The original charge was soon scrapped. Next they were charged with hazing, endangering the health of students, and violating the alcohol policy. After subsequent interviews, the hazing charge was dropped.

They still refused to sign the charge sheet, and requested a Judicial Board hearing. Their case, which stemmed from a party in early September, came to trial on February 25, almost six months later. During this time, the case was passed from Quinley, who drew up the original charge sheet, to Taylor.

Taylor, who represented the Office of Student Affairs, remained fairly quiet throughout the hearing, advising only on process, and stating the position of the Office of Student Affairs that off-campus parties are punishable under the Student Code, according to McCumber and Dunkle.

According to the Student Code, "College jurisdiction and discipline extends to…conduct which occurs off campus but constitutes grave misconduct or flagrant disregard for the College community."

Dunkle and McCumber claim that they were prevented from presenting all the evidence in the case. Specifically, they wanted to introduce the full list of charges that had been brought against them and tell the story of what they see as severe mismanagement on the part of the administration.

"I felt like they were put in a position where they couldn’t accurately assess the facts," Dunkle said.

The Judiciary Board found the respondents guilty. The students were placed on conduct probation and told that they must help Taylor engineer a plan for registering off campus parties.

According to Dunkle, a member of his hearing panel told him afterward that the Office of Student Affairs had recommended that they not be allowed to walk in graduation, and, additionally, be placed on social suspension, which would prevent them from being present at college functions at which alcohol was present.

At press time, the report could not be confirmed.

McKenna, who did not speak directly about the case, said that "the degree to which we follow the recommendations varies enormously." Taylor and Quinley both expressed similar sentiments.

Another group facing reprimand this past year was The Student Life. According to Associate Dean of Students Toni Clark, the Dean of Students Office made a decision during first semester that "charges would not be brought" against TSL for the publication of its fall joke issue.

However, Austin Harris ’03, who felt victimized by TSL, wished to press charges. Harris felt that references to him in the fall joke issue constituted harassment. The article described actions with which he had been charged and described him as an "asshole."

"[I felt that] if Austin wished to grieve, we would write a charge sheet," said Quinley. "There was a sense in which Austin was aggrieved and Austin was harassed."

That charge sheet was drawn up by Taylor at the beginning of second semester and presented to the present members of TSL’s fall Editorial Board. Taylor called the students into his office and asked them to sign it.

"We were called into the dean’s office to either deny or accept the charges. We were informed we could bring a witness," said current TSL Editor-in-Chief Megan Purn ‘00.

"I think there were different understandings of what it meant to charge someone," Clark said.

After the spring joke issue, Quinley drew up a charge sheet. "I put [the charges] in writing in the strongest language I could and presented it as a charge to the college lawyer." According to Quinley, he said that it would be a violation of First Amendment rights for anyone to punish TSL.

"I think I was pretty clear that it wouldn’t fly," Quinley said. She also said that she feels that the joke issue is protected speech.

When asked if she thought either of the charge sheets would have resulted in Judicial Board hearings, she replied ,"No."

Purn feels differently. "The Office of Student Affairs clearly endorsed the complaint by drawing up the charge sheet; it’s ridiculous to claim that they were simply acknowledging hurt feelings. They certainly don’t draw up charge sheets for every student that comes into their office," Purn said.