The recent debate over Student Assembly's Committee on Standards Student Task Force Report raises a number of very serious questions about undergraduate judicial proceedings at Dartmouth. The task force, a Student Assembly initiative consisting of seven students, produced a slate of eight recommendations for the consideration of the Dean of the College. While most of these changes were procedural, The Dartmouth Editorial Board found one reform to be particularly contentious -- namely, to allow for the accused student to question the witnesses directly, including the accuser. The Dartmouth Editorial Board enthusiastically endorses all of the COS Task Force's recommendations, with one caveat, which will be discussed below. We urge that Acting Dean of the College Dan Nelson and his future successor act upon these recommendations as a whole to improve the Undergraduate Judicial Affairs Office and to correct the radical departures from due process by which Dartmouth students are currently judged within the Dartmouth community. These reforms are crucial -- not to reduce the number of cases processed by COS, as Director of Undergraduate Judicial Affairs April Thompson suggested in a letter to the editor in The Dartmouth ("Responsible Behavior," Oct. 19), but to ensure that all cases proceed according to a fair and just standard.
In cases of sexual assault, The Dartmouth Editorial Board was unable to reach a consensus as to whether direct questioning of the accuser by the accused was a positive change. Several of us maintained that to preclude direct questioning is implicitly to presume the guilt of the accused. We also held that the current system, by which the moderator determines which of the accused's questions are asked impedes a fair hearing. It was also maintained that opposition to direct questioning was predicated upon an erroneous and sexist idea that sexual assault victims, the majority of whom are women, may be too vulnerable and weak to face such a situation. While this argument by no means attempts to undermine the trauma felt by victims in a sexual assault case, the assumption of weakness was also felt to be offensive.
Some board members also believed that preventing direct questioning allows Dartmouth to circumvent the principles of the American legal system. The Task Force report directly cites the U.S. Constitution, which allows a defendant to confront his or her accuser. Because of the life-altering effects the outcome of a COS hearing can have on individuals, it seems unfair to adjudicate such a case based on a system that does not conform with "real world" standards. Moreover, though we understand that Dartmouth's judicial system is not bound by the U.S. Constitution, we fail to see a good reason why the College would choose not to enshrine the bedrock principles of due process in a liberal democratic society. To do so seems hypocritical.
Others of us held, however, that direct questioning by an accused perpetrator could be emotionally damaging to a victim of sexual assault, and thus could discourage victims from coming forward. Unreported sexual assault is a serious problem both at Dartmouth and in the United States in general. Forcing a sexual assault victim to confront his or her assaulter can be uncomfortable, emotional and traumatic. Additionally, at a school as small as Dartmouth, where the discussions and repercussions of a trial can easily become gossip, precautions to provide a safe environment for a victim to come forward seemed important to the College's sense of community.
There was some consensus around the idea of a modified direct questioning system, in which the accuser's faculty advocate asks the question. This would differ from the current system in that the moderator's discretion would not impede the asking of relevant questions. However, we were unable to reach unanimity. Still others of us believed that perhaps sexual assault cases in general needed to be dealt with under a separate system than the rest of the cases that fall under UJAO purview. Many felt that to try sexual assault and plagiarism cases under the same regime is to commit a gross category error. Proponents of this view maintained either that a new judicial framework should be developed exclusively for cases of sexual assault or that the College should not have any jurisdiction over such cases, and instead punish on the basis of convictions in the U.S. court system.
Despite, or perhaps because of, our lack of agreement, we feel that this issue is something the entire Dartmouth community needs to discuss. Clearly, there are many failures around Sexual Assault at Dartmouth, ranging from how it is dealt with after the fact to how it is prevented. Because sexual assault awareness and prevention was such a huge part of Student Body President Tim Andreadis '07's campaign, we call upon him to provide a public forum for such a debate. A Town Hall meeting with students, faculty, high-ranking administrators and professionals such as Leah Prescott would be a large step toward addressing these issues. Sexual assault is an issue of which everyone must be aware at Dartmouth, and thus, we urge that the COS Task Force's recommendations be taken not only as opportunity to improve the UJA system in general but as a chance to focus on the question of sexual assault more specifically.
