Students Accused of UPA Receive Higher Levels of Due Process than Students Accused of Rape
Comparing the Due Process Provided Students for MIP/UPA/DUI/Academic Dishonesty to the Lack of Due Process Provided to Students Charged With Sexual Misconduct
At
the University of Georgia, a student charged with a violation of the UGA’s Code
of Conduct for things like Underage Possession of Alcohol (MIP), hazing, theft, selling illegal
drugs on campus, and damaging UGA property are entitled to a relatively high
level of due process. Specifically, an
accused student must be
(1)
given formal notice of the charges against them;
(2)
advised that no inference of responsibility will be drawn if they remain
silent;
(3)
advised of the procedures that will be used to decide the charges;
(4)
advised that they may have an advisor;
(5)
informed of all “potential witnesses and any information that may be presented
against” them including a list of witnesses and a chance to view the evidence
to be presented;
(6)
presumed innocent;
(7)
given a live hearing before three neutral decision makers (two University Student
Judiciary Members and one Administrative Panel/Faculty/Staff member);
(8)
given a recorded or transcribed copy of any hearing; and,
(9)
permitted to question his or her accuser and other witnesses involved in the
hearing.
The
accused student in these Student Conduct hearings is allowed to have an advisor
that can be an attorney, a member of the Student Judiciary, or any other
person. The advisor, attorney or
otherwise, may not speak for the accused student, something attorney Kim Stephens
believes violates the accused student’s United States and Georgia
Constitutional rights to due process, but can provide preparation, guidance and
support throughout the hearing.
Similarly,
at the University of Georgia, a student accused of violating the Honor Code, A Culture of Honor, by plagiarizing,
copying a classmates test answers, lying to a professor, or even trying his or
her best to submit responses or prove attendance via apps like TopHat that
suffer frequent technical problems, is entitled to due process. Accused students in academic dishonesty
hearings are
(1)
allowed to complete all required academic work, have the work evaluated and
graded;
(2)
given formal notice of the complaint(s) that have been made against them;
(3)
allowed to participate in a facilitated discussion, i.e. a mediation, which
includes the instructor who filed the complaint, the student, and a Facilitator. The
purpose of the of the “facilitated discussion” is to provide a fair and focused
discussion between all parties involved about what may have occurred. The
instructor(s) who reported the matter, the student(s) believed to have violated
the policy, and the Facilitator are the only participants in a Facilitated
Discussion. These Discussions may not be recorded. The instructor and student may reach an
agreement about the matter and, if dishonesty is involved, may determine the
appropriate consequence(s);
(4) if no resolution is agreed upon,
the matter will be forwarded to a Continued Discussion with an Academic Honesty
Panel that will determine the outcome of the allegation. The Academic Honesty
Panel is, at its heart, a hearing on the merits of the instructor’s
complaint. The Panel is comprised of two
faculty members and three student members who decide whether the instructor can
prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the conduct alleged in the
complaint is true and is a violation of the Honor Code, and, if a violation is
found, determines the appropriate punishment;
(5) written notice of the
allegations being made against them;
(6) copies of all evidence to be
used by the accusing instructors against the students including the
instructor(s)’ statement and supporting documents and witnesses;
(7) a chance to provide a written
statement and provide supporting evidence and documents to the Panel before and
during the Continued Discussion;
(8) a chance to question the
accusing instructor and all other witnesses and evidence being used during the
Continued Discussion to show the accused student violated the Honor Code.
The
accused students in these Continued Discussion hearings are allowed to have an
advisor that can be an attorney or any other person. The advisor, attorney or otherwise, may not
speak for the accused student, again something attorney Kim Stephens believes
violates the accused student’s United States and Georgia Constitutional rights
to due process, but can provide guidance and support throughout the Continued
Discussion.
Now,
compare these relatively high levels of due process provided to accused
student’s cases to cases involving allegations of sexual misconduct, a
political “hot button” issue:
(1) The
accused student will be provided with notice of the existence of a complaint
being filed against him or her but is not told the identity of the person
filing the complaint or the specific accusations made by the accuser;
(2) The
accused student may be immediately suspended from the University and barred
from campus while the investigation is ongoing;
(3) The
accused student may be removed from UGA’s student housing and dormitories
immediately and, thus, forfeiting all moneys paid for housing and dining;
(4) The
accuser and the accused student are provided with a copy of the EOO
“non-discrimination” policy which allows the student to “blindly” provide
information to an EOO investigator, provide evidence to the investigator that
may or may not apply to the accusations being made, and submit himself or
herself to questioning by the investigator;
(5) The
accused student is NEVER provided with the identity of witnesses against him or
statements made by such witnesses;
(6) The
accused student is NEVER provided with the identity of favorable, i.e.
exculpatory, witnesses or statements made by them;
(7) The
EOO investigator only discloses information to others involved in the case on a
“need to know basis;”
(8) The
EOO procedures now state that the investigator’s interviews “constitute the
hearing.”
So,
prior to being expelled from the University of Georgia for alleged sexual
misconduct, an accused student NEVER receives a formal charging document
expressly telling him what offense he or she is charged with committing, NEVER
receives a list of witnesses for or against him, is NEVER allowed to review
statements or evidence used to determine his guilt or violation of the EOO
policies, is NEVER allowed a hearing before a panel of three or more hearing
panelists to determine his culpability, is NEVER allowed to question the
accuser in his or her case, is NEVER allowed to question other witnesses or
evidence used against him or her to show guilt or a violation of the EOO
policies, is NEVER allowed to present evidence in his or her defense to a panel
of impartial panelists rather than just to the investigating EOO officer, and
is NEVER allowed to provide a statement to an impartial hearing panel. Apparently, the University of Georgia
believes that students charged with Underage Possession of Alcohol/MIP deserve
greater due process than students charged with serious offenses like rape.
UGA
expels students, usually young men, through a process that provides absolutely
no due process at all. Does that sound
fair? Is that due process?