|
The Blumstein Report on Proposed Revisions to the Disciplinary
System
The Issue
In the aftermath of the Adam Lack controversy, James
Pomerantz,
the Provost of Brown University, decided that Brown's current disciplinary
procedures (particularly
those related to sexual misconduct) be evaluated. Provost Pomerantz created a
committee, comprised of deans,
faculty, graduate students and undergraduate students, known as the "Sexual
Misconduct Committee."
This committee, after evaluating the relevant issues for many weeks, wrote a
report known as
"The Blumstein Report."
The Blumstein Report contained many controversial ideas, among the more prominent
of which were:
- New, "nonconfrontational" structure, in which the role of
advisors is decreased and all questions are
asked directly by UDC members (although questions may be submitted to the UDC by
either the
complainant or the defendent.)
- Training for UDC members to teach them "appropriate" ways to
question witnesses.
- Greater secrecy and confidentiality restrictions surrounding the process,
including provisions for
more restricted community notification and provisions for prosecuting UDC members
who violate their confidentiality agreement.
- Reserving the right to trial in an individual in absentia, even after s/he
has withdrawn
from Brown University
- More restrictive guidelines for the appeals process
- More lucid definition of sexual assault
- More thorough training of UDC members, including training in the precedents
set by past cases
- Requiring a 2/3 majority in order for the UDC to decline to hear a case
- More efforts to educate the general Brown community about the UDC process,
through videos
and orientation training
Our Stance
Although the Blumstein report contains many positive suggestions that we feel
would be of great benefit
to the Brown community (i.e., more thorough training for UDC members, more
efforts to educate the Brown community about UDC,
more restrictions on declining to hear a case and a more clear-cut definition of
sexual assault) many of the
other ideas represented in the Blumstein report are troubling.
The new nonconfrontational structure, for example, places an extraordinary burden
upon the members of the UDC, insofar
as they must now act as the defense, the prosecution, the judge and the jury for
each case. The lack of a clear-cut
separation of power could easily result in a situation where all the relevant
facts of a case are not brought to light.
Furthermore, the idea that the UDC should be "trained" by the Office of
Student Life in the use of appropriate questioning techniques implies
that many questions will not be asked because they would be
"inappropriate". Thus, the Office of Student
Life may indirectly censor the hearing proceedings. This situation is wholly in
violation of the basic principles of both
the first and fifth amendment.
The increased secrecy around the proceedings will result in rampant confusion and
misinformation about
all UDC proceedings. Furthermore, this secrecy will decrease the general
accountability of the UDC and result in
situation whereby rampant violations of basic civil liberties take place under a
cloak of confidentiality.
A truly just disciplinary system should have nothing to fear from public
scrutiny.
The right to try a person in absentia, particularly after the perosn has
withdrawn from the university, is a blatant
violation of the fifth amendment. All individuals have the fundamental right to
be present at their own trial, particularly
when that trial may have a lasting impact upon their future (as is the case in
UDC proceedings.)
Finally, we at the Brown ACLU strenuously object to any attempt to make the
appeals process more
restrictive. Every individual should have the option of appealing their case to
a higher authority. Restricting
an individual's right to an appeal is a fundamental denial of their right to due
process.
For more information about this report, contact Robert_Letzler@brown.edu.
|
|
