Dartblog

Last week Dartblog reported on the College’s new C.O.S. policies—the rules that dictate the investigation, trial, and punishment processes for students accused of some alleged violation of Dartmouth policy or of some alleged actual crime in which the administration, frequently in service of one agenda or another, desires to take action quite apart from the legal process.

The subject of fixing the Committee on Standards came about two years ago when Adam Shpeen and Michael Herman, both Class of 2007, proposed new rules that would institute time-honored procedural protections at Dartmouth. These were simple, viewpoint-neutral proposals: right to an attorney, right to a public hearing, right to question witnesses, &c. Small but bellicose elements in Hanover attacked the two gentlemen, but their cause was quietly reaffirmed by students current and former—and finally a thorough review of C.O.S. was foisted upon Dartmouth’s executives because a petition trustee candidate, Stephen Smith, took up the issue, winning a seat of Dartmouth’s Board of Trustees partly because of his advocacy of—and community support for—revisions to the kangaroo court. The about-face was a loss principally for April Thompson, the director of “Judicial Affairs” who defended the stilted policies; and for niche cabals like Xenia Markowitt’s Center for Women and Gender, which took up the line that questioning witnesses constituted harassment.

We invited Michael Herman to offer a few thoughts about the results of the comprehensive review. He writes:

Thanks for sending me the letter. My bottom line is that the College failed to achieve meaningful disciplinary reform. From the average student’s point of view these purported changes will have no effect on their experience before the COS. When you have a 3 hour hearing in which you are not allowed to question the accuracy of witnesses brought against you, you cannot have a lawyer or adviser assisting you during the hearing, and your fate can be decided by a mere majority vote based on a flimsy burden of proof, you are not receiving adequate procedural protections. It’s essentially impossible to prepare a defense, but that’s probably a good thing in the College’s eyes. It’s clear the purpose is to bring charges, but not to investigate them thoroughly, and to make sure that everyone is not intimidated or put under too much stress when they bring serious charges against a fellow student (except the accused of course). On the other side, it’s far from clear that this is a victory for those interests that lobbied against our proposals. In sexual assault cases, witness participation in voluntary and rape kits are not required. That would make it difficult for a neutral judge to find an accused responsible.

Of course, there are a number of minor positive changes. The alcohol diversion program will be a waste of time but is better than the status quo. Not reporting college discipline is also a positive development.

Another note: I think we failed by relying too much on settled principles of due process found in the U.S. courts system. Those who lobbied against us do not have the reverence for that system that I or others do. It was not a strong argument, for example, to remind them that sexual assault cases in the U.S. court system have to rise to a beyond a reasonable doubt burden of proof as a reason for us to strike an appropriate middle ground of clear and convincing evidence. They do not agree with the criminal justice system’s burden of proof in the first place so this argument appeared to have no effect on them.