The reforms proposed by the Organizational Adjudication Committee Review Commission represent a positive step toward more consistent and just treatment of student organizations ("SA endorses OAC reform proposal," May 27). Whereas, under the current system, all but the most serious cases are often heard by a single dean, the commission's proposal calls for students to take the lead in making decisions in all cases thus allowing for true peer adjudication, fairness and, ideally, transparency.
Under the proposed system, organizations accused of violations appear before a board composed of five students selected from a larger pool of 45 student adjudicators. These adjudicators would come from diverse backgrounds at the College, and would include elected and dean-appointed representatives, as well as representatives selected from the Greek Leadership Council, the Student Athletic Advisory Committee and the Council on Student Organizations, thereby providing varied perspectives in the decision-making process.
The proposed reforms to be submitted to Dean of the College Tom Crady following revisions based on feedback from the student body are long overdue. This winter's clash between the administration and several Greek houses highlighted the faults and ambiguities of the current judicial process.
While the establishment of true peer review would bring the OAC system closer to the ideals of the American judiciary, we are wary that such a process could devolve into something of a cat-and-mouse game if students are reluctant to hand out strict punishments. The Commission's proposal to have one non-voting faculty member or administrator serve as an adviser on every judicial board is certainly a step toward preventing this potential problem. It may be necessary, however, to empower this adviser with a vote to ensure the administration is satisfied with the punishments handed down, and to prevent a later administrative crackdown.
Most importantly, though, the reformed adjudication system must be more transparent than the opaque one currently in place. The decisions of the proposed OAC student boards should be made public shortly following their enactment. While organizational punishments are released at the end of the year, ongoing, official announcements would keep students apprised of the decisions made by the board, and give board members themselves a comprehensive body of recent rulings on which to base future verdicts. While there may be some instances in which the OAC chooses to withhold details of cases in order to protect students' privacy, the need for this type of restriction will likely be rare.
The OAC Review Commission's proposal is certainly a promising step to heal a distinctly flawed process. It seems we may soon find ourselves with a functional judicial system for campus organizations a victory for students and administrators alike.
