Upcoming NYT Magazine Ethicist: U Disciplinary Bd
This weekend's NYT Magazine will contain "Student Confidential," (TimesSelect subscription required) the latest in The Ethicist (Randy Cohen)'s regular columns.
I could probably post here the entire question without copyright problems, since it was submitted for a public response (although probably not the answer), but I'll summarize instead.
The person who submitted the question, a (student) member of the disciplinary body at a university complains of a practice by the prosecuting body.
During the (quasi-judicial) proceedings, when the accused is not present, members of the administration (equivalent to the prosecutors or the complaining victims, depending on how you see it) have made "nasty comments" about the defendants. The submitter says this prejudices the proceeding.
An internal disciplinary proceeding in a school does not require many of the protections we associate with criminal prosecutions. There's usually no right to counsel, no right against self-incrimination, and only the most basic of procedural guarantees. And, the most severe punishment that can be meted out is usually expulsion.
Nevertheless, as Randy alludes, the school's counsel might take an interest in preventing students from getting railroaded. That's because a grievously flawed process could give an expelled or otherwise punished student a reason to complain. Ex parte communications (ones directly between one of the parties and the arbiter or judge, when the other party is not aware, not present) look bad, particularly when it's a defendant fighting to avoid punishment. (See ex parte communications at the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission - a truly random link, but it presents a good clear description of what they are and when the Commission does and doesn't allow them)
(Not all ex parte communications are improper. In the context of settlement, for example, both sides may need to communicate privately with the Decider - the judge, acting as mediator, or the arbitrator.)
But in this case - face it. Students are litigious (Google search proving my point; see also Overlawyered Schools category; older archive). Ex-students perhaps doubly so (Google search also proving my point).
[A note on my arithmetic; the second search had "about 1.4 million" results. The first had "about 1.95 million." Why don't I retract my (rhetorical) point? Because the entire second group was within the first. If Google results for large numbers were reliable (they're not) then only .55 million of the first search's results would _lack_ the word "former."]
Also see: Christian Student sues for right to hate speech (the Onion).
I could probably post here the entire question without copyright problems, since it was submitted for a public response (although probably not the answer), but I'll summarize instead.
The person who submitted the question, a (student) member of the disciplinary body at a university complains of a practice by the prosecuting body.
During the (quasi-judicial) proceedings, when the accused is not present, members of the administration (equivalent to the prosecutors or the complaining victims, depending on how you see it) have made "nasty comments" about the defendants. The submitter says this prejudices the proceeding.
An internal disciplinary proceeding in a school does not require many of the protections we associate with criminal prosecutions. There's usually no right to counsel, no right against self-incrimination, and only the most basic of procedural guarantees. And, the most severe punishment that can be meted out is usually expulsion.
Nevertheless, as Randy alludes, the school's counsel might take an interest in preventing students from getting railroaded. That's because a grievously flawed process could give an expelled or otherwise punished student a reason to complain. Ex parte communications (ones directly between one of the parties and the arbiter or judge, when the other party is not aware, not present) look bad, particularly when it's a defendant fighting to avoid punishment. (See ex parte communications at the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission - a truly random link, but it presents a good clear description of what they are and when the Commission does and doesn't allow them)
(Not all ex parte communications are improper. In the context of settlement, for example, both sides may need to communicate privately with the Decider - the judge, acting as mediator, or the arbitrator.)
But in this case - face it. Students are litigious (Google search proving my point; see also Overlawyered Schools category; older archive). Ex-students perhaps doubly so (Google search also proving my point).
[A note on my arithmetic; the second search had "about 1.4 million" results. The first had "about 1.95 million." Why don't I retract my (rhetorical) point? Because the entire second group was within the first. If Google results for large numbers were reliable (they're not) then only .55 million of the first search's results would _lack_ the word "former."]
Also see: Christian Student sues for right to hate speech (the Onion).
Posted by Eh Nonymous on
Friday May 19, 2006 at 9:27am
*Not all comments welcome. Flippant, facetious, fierce, or fatuous, fine. Fraudulent, felonious, fabricated, facially insufficient, and farkin' futile, fuggeddaboutit.