Last Friday's release of the Committee on Standards Review Committee recommendations to Dean of the College Tom Crady presented the opportunity to air misgivings about the troublesome flaws with our COS processes. But the report contains very few recommendations for substantive changes to the COS process, opting instead for small, housekeeping changes that will have little or no effect on adjudication itself.
The most pressing challenge facing the Review Committee concerned the current standard of evidence. To our dismay, the Committee has recommended that the preponderance of evidence standard stay in place over other possible standards such as 'clear and convincing' or 'beyond a reasonable doubt.' Coupled with the recommendation that COS decisions should continue to be based on a simple three-to-two majority, the probability of a guilty verdict in light of less than convincing evidence is all too high.
Additionally, the Committee has not proposed any change requiring witnesses to testify in COS cases, compounding the likelihood of inaccurate and uninformed rulings under such loose standards of evidence. "We do not believe that compulsory participation in the information gathering or disciplinary hearing process is consistent with values the community places on individual choice," wrote the Committee, but what about individual responsibility?
Because Dartmouth students are less than eager to incriminate their classmates, students guilty of non-academic violations often get off scot-free due to lack of evidence. Faculty members, though, are almost certain to come forward in cases of academic dishonesty -- leading to a much higher likelihood that a student will get suspended for an offense that many would consider to be much less serious than violence or sexual assault.
On the topic of academic violations, there needs to be a clearer enumeration of standards for what exactly constitutes plagiarism. We commend the suggestion to consider intent or lack of information when sanctioning a student for COS violations, but the campus community would benefit from the addition of a more specific set of guidelines in the Academic Honor Principle. This would likely lead to a decrease in the number of academic violations while providing a more clear-cut standard by which to assess them.
To counter criticism down the road, Crady and the rest of the administration will likely point to this review as an example of how they are responsive to student concerns. This claim would be a fallacy. It remains to be seen how many of the recommendations proposed by the Committee will actually be implemented in the coming months. The prospects are bleak: The Committee, which in itself has no authority to implement changes to the COS, has agreed with only one, and partially agreed with three, of the proposals of the Student Assembly COS Review Task Force ("COS review, SA proposal differ," May 21). We hope that any modifications made to the COS will be more in tune with student input. Students are, after all, the constituency bearing the brunt of the potentially grave consequences of a COS hearing.
