Letter From the Editor

Aidan Doherty

In light of recent events, J-board policies have come under scrutiny and criticism. One perspective, unfortunately, has been missing from this debate: that of the convict. So as someone who was J-boarded for political reasons, I offer my perspectives on a system that functions as a tool for the college administration, where justice is all but forgotten.

The first political decision takes place when the deans decide whether to charge you at all. If you’ve done something like protest college policy, they might dig through pictures of the protest and pick out Pomona students, as they did last semester. If you’ve violated federal drug law, they’ll probably just let it go. While some may agree or disagree with specific decisions, the point remains: they are made on political grounds. What will look good or bad for the school? What are the behaviors the administration wants to discourage? Who are the students that examples should be made of? Once the administration has decided to J-board you, they all but control your destiny until the trial is over.

Dean Quinley calls you in to intimidate you into confessing. If you resist, the deans then decide whether you will be tried individually or in a group, then set the groups and times. You cannot demand an individual hearing, as some of us tried to do, nor can you demand to all be treated equally by being placed in the same group, as we requested. Instead, you may be divided along political lines - in our case, more visible campus activists were placed together in one group, participation in the specific protest notwithstanding. The administration will claim that the groupings make no difference to the panelists, but deny you the right to choose your own groups.

Why can’t these simple changes be made? They say they don’t want the process to take too long!

Pomona carries the idea of a speedy hearing so far that the “fair” clause is forgotten. You’ll be called with three days notice about your J-board hearing, and told to submit all your evidence and witness lists within the next 24 hours. This could be up to a year after the event occurred, or it could be during finals week, but you still only have one day to secure witness testimony and dig up all the evidence you will use to defend yourself. Take it from me, it’s not enough time. But the administration claims it’s a hassle if things drag on! Excuse me if I’m unsympathetic. If the college is going to try students in the first place, it has to suck it up and deal with the consequences of fair judicial procedure!

But the hearings are not designed to be fair. For one thing, there’s the ridiculous office of the “community representative,” a faculty member who interviews both sides and presents to J-board an “impartial” account of what happened. Though that’s clearly the panel’s job, the system is straddled with this extra filter between the panelists and the truth, a person with their own biased perspective who is treated as truth-teller rather than witness. The potential for injustice is enormous! And if the representative leans towards the defense, be prepared for what happened in my hearing: Dean Quinley accused the community representative of acting as a defense attorney, and used this to justify her own behavior as a prosecutor. Never mind that she made the exact same arguments in the hearing with a more unbiased community rep. She wanted to publicly discredit the professor’s version of the facts by calling him a defense attorney, while at the same time justifying her own aggressive approach.

And the dean IS the prosecutor. Deans represent the college, and they want you found guilty. Having a respected member of the college community go after the defendant will ALWAYS bias J-board towards a “guilty” decision, but the special relationship of the deans with J-board makes it even worse. Throughout the year, the deans function as advisors to J-board. They interpret the student code. They set the schedules. And because of the trusting relationship that develops, the influence they exert is enormous. This is not to say that J-board members are uninterested in justice or know they are being manipulated, but they are, from the moment the dean speaks to the moment