Last winter, after a series of clashes between Greek houses and the administration, voices across campus called for reform of the College's organizational adjudication process ("Five Greek Orgs. May Be Placed on Probation," Jan. 30). In the spring, the Organizational Adjudication Committee review commission proposed changes to the committee's structure including the formation of a student board to oversee cases in which organizations had allegedly committed minor infractions ("SA endorses OAC reform proposal," May 27).
This week, it was announced that the new board will begin actively hearing cases this winter ("OAC Student Board to Review Minor Cases," Nov. 2). At a time when other administrative initiatives such as alcohol policy reform and BlitzMail replacement appear to be stalled or losing momentum, it is encouraging to see that at least some meaningful progress is being made in Parkhurst.
Still, although we initially endorsed the formation of such a board (Verbum Ultimum: Adjusting Adjudication," May 29), we have distinct reservations about its potential composition. As it stands, the student board will be comprised of 50 members. Half of the board's membership will be selected by Student Assembly, and the other half will be chosen by acting Dean of the College Sylvia Spears.
We admit that the Assembly when compared with other campus organizations probably has the most robust system in place for leading such a formation process, and may therefore be the logical choice for this purpose.
Nonetheless, while epithets such as "Club SA" may be overstated, the Assembly is notoriously unrepresentative of the student body at large. Giving the Assembly the power to select half of the OAC student board will jeopardize that board's potential to accurately represent the student body.
If the student board is to successfully serve the interests of campus, its composition must reflect that constituency. Two-thirds of the board should be Greek, half should be men, half should be women and so on.
Our concerns, then, are that those students who apply to the group through the Assembly may not accurately represent campus and that the Assembly or Dean Spears, seeking diversity, will craft an unrepresentative board. While a board boasting equal representation across all sectors of campus might, on the surface, seem fair, judgment by such a group would be anything but.
If the first round of the selection process does not yield results that allow the creation of a representative board, both the Assembly and Dean Spears should actively seek out promising candidates in the deficient areas be they Greek or non-Greek, drinkers or non-drinkers, athletes or non-athletes until such representation is achieved.
If the Assembly, or Spears, sacrifices representative composition of the board in the name of some other virtue, a major step toward a funcional judiciary and improved relations could instead bring more of the same discord.
