The Brown University Disciplinary System
The Issues
Over the past fourteen years, the ACLU has put a tremendous amount of time and
effort into urging the University to reform the University disciplinary system, and
especially the University Disciplinary Council (UDC), which adjudicates
serious offenses. We have submitted lengthy
proposals, distributed petitions,
organized student coalitions, and have had numerous meetings with deans,
professors, and past University presidents on this issue.
Our proposals spell out in detail the threats
that our disciplinary system poses to
students' civil liberties. What follows is a brief synopsis of these
threats and our recommendations for change.
Increased Student Involvement
Over the past fifteen years, the University has
reduced student involvement in the disciplinary system from an integral role to
a minor, weakened power. This reduction in student involvement means that
students have little or no control over an important element of our lives at
Brown. To reverse this disturbing trend, the Brown ACLU
proposes two new student-faculty-administration committees: a Disposition
Committee that decides whether individual cases should be routed to
dean's hearings or the UDC, and a Committee on Disciplinary Oversight that
oversees the overall disciplinary process. In addition, the Dean of Student Life
presently has the power to override the student government's choices of student
representation on the Council. This power should be removed -- student
representatives should be selected solely by their peers.
Open Hearings
Under the current system, all disciplinary hearings are closed to
the public. We believe defendants should be given a choice between an open
and closed hearing, as a more open disciplinary system maximizes the accuracy
of information both for involved parties and the student body as a whole.
Sentencing Guidelines
Because the UDC has been widely criticized for being
inconsistent in their application of penalties, we believe the integration of
sentencing guidelines into UDC hearings to be of critical importance.
In the past, there have been instances where, for example, harassment has
been treated more harshly than forcible rape. [See the Doug Hann case, in
which Hann was expelled for shouting racial slurs. Contrast this with the April 13, 1992 case in which a male Brown student
was given a two-year suspension for non-consensual intercourse (Offense III)].
In addition, the UDC has on at least one occasion given a sentence on a
victim-specific basis, not a violation-specific basis (see the Michael
Weisser case). In other words, the UDC set the length of dismissal to
coincide with the length of time that the victim would be at Brown with only
secondary regard given to the severity of the violation.
The ACLU supports clear and specific sentencing guidelines that affirm the
principle that the nature of the crime, not the victim's graduation date,
should guide sentencing.
Expanded Community Notification
Community notification of the outcome of disciplinary matters, currently under the
sole discretion of the Dean of Student Life, must be expanded to make the
disciplinary system more accountable to the students it serves. We propose
regularly scheduled notification detailing the actions, penalties, and reasoning
behind each case's decision.
This will not only facilitate intelligent and informed
debate over the proper nature of the disciplinary system, but it will also lend
legitimacy to a system that has become almost universally distrusted by the
Brown community.
Right to Legal Counsel
With the exception of "capital/life" offenses, under the present system
prosecuted students do not have the right to consult legal counsel during UDC
hearings. Because evidence and decisions produced during a hearing can be
used against the student in the civil courts, we believe access to legal counsel
should be expanded to all UDC hearings involving offenses that could
be considered a felony or misdemeanor.
Direct Questioning of Witnesses
Since 1997, direct questioning of witnesses, a mainstay of the legal system,
has been removed from the UDC for being too "adversarial." We
believe this questioning should be reinstated to strengthen the truth-seeking
ability of the UDC.
Conclusion
We believe that the institution of the above reforms will make the disciplinary system
more accountable to the students it serves and more respectful of their
rights, and we hope that you will support our efforts to change the system.
For a more complete explanation of our proposals for disciplinary system
reform, please look at our proposals page.
