Judicial board aims to protect community

Every Thursday at 3 p.m., time is set aside for a Community Judicial Board (CJB) hearing. On some weeks, no trial is scheduled; on others, the board may hear a case for a couple of hours; and on other weeks, members of the board may sit to hear the case of an accused student until past midnight or even for more than a day.

“It’s draining,” said Assistant Director of Alumni and Parent Programs Susan Levine, a staff representative on the CJB.

“It can be very hard.”

Middlebury is unique among peer institutions in possessing such a judicial body.

The CJB is comprised of one staff, two faculty, and four student members, along with a staff co-chair, Matthew Pacholec, a student co-chair, Andrew Ruoss ’10, and alternate members, who serve when a conflict of interest exists between a board member and an accused student or respondent. The board reviews cases in which a student stands accused of violating a Middlebury College Handbook policy and in which disciplinary probation, suspension or expulsion are possible outcomes.

CJB cases include, but are not limited to, alleged vandalism of College property, violence against another individual, disrespect of College officials and sexual assault.

The CJB structure, as part of the Honor Code, was first voted into existence by students in 1965 and reaffirmed last year in another campus-wide vote.

“That’s the source of our authority,” said Ruoss.

“We are supposed to represent the community’s interest. You have to remember that the accused person sitting in front of you is a member of the community, too.”

This aspect of the judicial process makes the College’s system unique is that a body representing the community resolves policy violations affecting the community.

The CJB is not a court of law. Its jurisdiction is over each student’s membership in the private community of the College and his or her corresponding accountability to College handbook policy.

“We’re trying to do what’s best for the community,” said Levine, who, having served for over seven years is the current board’s longest-serving member.

“I think we keep the community safe.”

The judicial board is “specifically designed to protect the community,” said Ruoss.

“It’s the community’s way of protecting itself and ensuring the safety of its members.”

There are two ways a student can be accused of a policy violation: by an individual accuser or by the College. The process by which the College brings charges against a student is somewhat complicated.

Public Safety documents the majority of potential cases using incident reports; each week, the commons deans meet with the Judicial Affairs Officer — Derek Doucet, acting for Karen Guttentag, who is on leave — to go through the reports and determine which cases are egregious enough to go to trial and which may be resolved via individual deans’ discretion. Students may petition for disposition without a hearing, and in some cases, the Judicial Affairs Officer may offer a student a specific sanction.

If the student accepts, the case is resolved; if he declines, a hearing is scheduled.

“This may sound surprising, but I find that working with students who are responding to charges has been some of my most meaningful and rewarding work as a dean,” wrote Guttentag in an e-mail.

“I’m often in the position of helping students to understand the impact of their choices … and learning that they are still important, valuable people with something more to contribute to Middlebury.”

Members of the board receive no information about the case prior to the hearing. Upon entering the room, each member receives a packet of information relevant to the trial, prepared in advance by the Judicial Affairs Officer.

The respondent has the opportunity to make an opening statement, at which point any discrepancies between the respondent’s statement and the Public Safety incident report are addressed.

Witnesses are called and questioned. The respondent has the right to question witnesses and to call a character witness; he also has the right to an adviser, who may be a student, professor or dean.

As the hearing concludes, the respondent may make a closing statement and then submit his cell phone number to the Judicial Affairs Officer, at which point he is dismissed and the board withdraws to deliberate.

The board first deliberates guilt.

Unlike typical courts of law, in the CJB guilt is determined by a preponderance of evidence — that is, more likely than not to be guilty, or 51 percent. If more than one board member finds the respondent not guilty, all record of the hearing is destroyed.

The board next deliberates over sanctions, or what punishment the respondent will receive. At this point, the board reviews the respondent’s cumulative disciplinary record, which will help determine the sanction received: a student with a clean disciplinary record will be punished more lightly than one with previous infractions. Sanctions can range from a letter of reprimand to expulsion. Students have the automatic right to appeal to President of the College Ronald D. Liebowitz, who can overturn a board decision.

“The judicial board is a fully autonomous body,” said Ruoss.

“The administration does not dictate to the board what it should find … A common misconception of the board is that it’s kind of this ‘Star Chamber’-like, prosecutorial body, and it’s not that at all.

“The student members of the board are not the ‘golden children,’ so to speak,” he continued.

“There’s no expectation of superhuman perfection. Everyone’s a member of the community. Everyone’s a college student. There’s a certain understanding of the realities of college life. We come to it as college students.”

“It’s a very difficult thing for students to do, to judge their peers,” said Levine. “I think it’s a wonderful experience for them … It’s great to see the students evolve.”

Ruoss has been involved with the CJB for three years, and like other members of the board, he joined because he believed in its premise: members of the community working together to protect the community as a whole.

“This is a group of people who have dedicated a significant amount to preserving the safety of all members of the community,” he said.

Beyond the time dedication necessary to be a board member, however, the task of balancing the needs of a large and diverse community can be personally taxing.

“It’s both extremely challenging and extremely rewarding,” said Guttentag.

“Because the consequences for students who are charged with policy violations can be so serious, this work requires a great deal of attention to detail … at the same time, you need to be able to see the big picture and the broader themes of a situation to make sure you’re responding appropriately.

“One of the most frustrating aspects of many of our cases is the fact that so many of the students who are found guilty of policy violations often share with us stories of the tremendous personal stress that contributed to their actions,” she continued.

“While this context certainly helps the board to understand why certain actions occurred, and even to sympathize, it does not tend to excuse them.”

Serving on the CJB for an extended period of time, as many board members have, affords an opportunity to notice trends in student behavior. Many CJB board members noted that within the past couple of semesters they have perceived a certain increase in violent cases — students behaving in verbally or physically violent ways toward other students or toward Public Safety officers.

“I feel like I’m seeing a little bit less respect that the students have for security,” said Levine.

“Interestingly, while the circumstances of cases have not changed — same situations, components, etc. — we still see this distinct trend in behavior,” said Ruoss.

Guttentag emphasized the severity of this issue.

“It’s important for students to understand how very, very seriously we take this issue,” she said.

“When students fail to respect the authority of the Public Safety staff, they may be very directly compromising the safety of others, and the board tends to have very little tolerance for this.”