Committee on Standards Student Task Force Report

PDF Version: http://www.dartmouth.edu/%7Ebelinsky/COS.pdf

DARTMOUTH COLLEGE STUDENT ASSEMBLY

COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS
STUDENT TASK FORCE REPORT

October 10, 2006

Adam Shpeen ‘07, Chair
Amanda Brown ‘07
Christopher Chen ‘09
Kacy Gordon ‘06
Michael R. Herman ‘07
William Rollins ‘07
Sherry Zhao ‘07

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In the spring of 2006, the Student Assembly established a task force under the
direction of the Academic Affairs Committee to examine the current rules and regulations
of the Committee on Standards and to provide a set of recommendations to the Dean of
the College. The recommendations were intended to focus on specific issues that arose
out of our research of the Committee. The recommendations are listed below. The task
force strongly endorses these recommendations and hopes that the Dean of the College
will consider amending the rules and regulations of the Committee on Standards
following our advice. If nothing else, the task force deeply believes that the current rules
and regulations of the Committee on Standards warrant further review and analysis by a
committee of students, faculty members, and administrators under the auspices of the
Dean of the College.

INTRODUCTION

For the past several years, the Dartmouth College Student Assembly has noticed
an overwhelming amount of interest within the Student Body regarding the Committee on
Standards (COS). Poll after poll conducted by the Student Assembly reveals that
students are unaware of and concerned about the policies and regulations that govern the
Committee’s actions. The COS is a perennial campaign issue that arises every spring
when Student Assembly candidates for President or Vice-President speak on the subject.
In the fall of 2005, Karan Danthi ’07, Student Assembly Vice President for Student
Organizations, organized a mock COS hearing to educate Dartmouth students on the
procedure and operation of the Committee. The mock hearing attracted dozens of
students.

Students are intrigued by the COS because of the tremendous influence it can
exert over students’ lives here at Dartmouth. The COS is trusted with an enormous
responsibility, and students are fearful that, if this responsibility is mismanaged, their
experience at Dartmouth could be ruined by the unjust outcome of a COS hearing. The
Student Assembly, as the sole organization that represents and advocates for student
views, feels obligated to act in response to these concerns. The Student Assembly
recognizes that the COS is an important instrument of adjudication at Dartmouth, and the
Assembly realizes that the COS model has been both effective and fair in the past. Still,
members of the Student Assembly feel that a thorough and unbiased examination of the
current rules, regulations, and procedures of the COS by members of the student body is
necessary.

At the beginning of the spring term, 2006, a blitz was sent out to all members of
the student body urging interested individuals to apply to be on the Student Assembly’s
first Committee on Standards Task Force. The Task Force was to be comprised of four
individuals, chaired by the Student Assembly Vice President for Academic Affairs, and
was designed to undertake a review of the COS. April Thompson, the administrative
head of the Undergraduate Judicial Affairs Office, supported the Student Assembly’s
decision to develop a Task Force and encouraged the Student Assembly to engage in

well-research review. Within a week after the email was sent, 41 students had applied to
be part of the four-person Task Force. In response to this expectedly high level of
interest, the Task Force was expanded to six students.

On April 21, in an article entitled “COS Task Force Empowers Students”, The
Dartmouth reported that “while the Task Force hopes to add student input to the COS
process, the level of student discontent with the College's disciplinary procedures might
make the Task Force's mission difficult to fulfill.”1 Nearly five months later, the
Committee on Standards Student Task Force is proud to have proven that forecast wrong.
Below is a set of seven recommendations that the Task Force urges the Dean of the
College to enact. For weeks, the Task Force has interviewed students, administrators,
members of the COS, and individuals outside of the Dartmouth community. The
recommendations are the result of thorough research and reasoned judgments. A
description of each recommendation follows, along with relevant research information.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. Change Dartmouth’s standard of proof from “by a preponderance of
the evidence” to “by clear and convincing evidence.”
2. Provide a fair framework in which those accused of violating a college
rule are allowed to ask lines of questions directly to the witnesses.
3. Place the Undergraduate Judicial Affairs Office in charge of keeping
track of the demographic information about individuals who sit on the
Committee and individuals who go before the Committee.
4. Formally adopt the guarantee of a speedy trial as a fundamental right
of the accused in all Committee on Standards hearings.
5. Provide students with the summary of precedent cases that is provided
to members of the Committee on Standards.
6. Standardize the precedent cases that are compiled and presented to
members of the Committee on Standards prior to hearings.
7. Create alternatives to exclusively “closed” or “open” hearings.
8. Eliminate the restriction on service in the Committee on Standards
dealing with prior disciplinary history.

1. Change Dartmouth’s Standard of Proof from “by a preponderance of the evidence”
to “clear and convincing”

The purpose of a standard or burden of proof, the U.S. Supreme Court has held, is
to “instruct the fact finder concerning the degree of confidence our society thinks he
should have in the correctness of factual conclusions for a particular type of
adjudication."2 The choice of which standard to use “reflect[s] a very fundamental

1
Christine Paquin COS Task Force Empowers Students, THE DARTMOUTH. Apr. 21,
2006 at 1.
2
In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 370 (1970).

assessment of the comparative social costs of erroneous factual determinations.”3 There
are three commonly used standards of proof in American jurisprudence: beyond a
reasonable doubt, by clear and convincing evidence, and by a preponderance of the
evidence.

Beyond a reasonable doubt, the highest standard of proof, is reserved for federal
and state criminal proceedings. That standard of proof is used in criminal proceedings
because the American legal system believes in the presumption of innocence for those
accused of a crime and that the government must bear almost all of the risks in
prosecuting an individual. The Task Force feels that the beyond a reasonable doubt
standard is not appropriate because Dartmouth’s disciplinary system is an informal
administrative hearing, not a formal criminal proceeding.

On the other end of the spectrum is the preponderance of the evidence standard
that is currently employed by Dartmouth’s Committee on Standards. This standard is
used for typical civil litigation in which there is a monetary dispute between two parties.
The U.S. Supreme Court has held that this standard has evolved for civil litigation
because “[s]ince society has a minimal concern with the outcome of such private suits,
plaintiff's burden of proof is a mere preponderance of the evidence. The litigants thus
share the risk of error in roughly equal fashion.”4 The Dartmouth community does not
have “a minimal concern with the outcome” of its COS hearings. The Task Force
concludes that the stakes inherent in Dartmouth’s disciplinary proceedings are too high to
have them be subject to the low burden of the preponderance of the evidence.

Between these two standards of proof is an intermediate standard most commonly
called “clear and convincing evidence,” which has become increasingly prevalent. This
standard encompasses “that measure or degree of proof which will produce in the mind of
the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction as to the truth of the allegations sought to be
established.”5 The Supreme Court explains that this standard is employed in civil cases
involving some alleged “quasi-criminal wrongdoing by the defendant”6 and that the
intermediate standard is employed because “[t]he interests at stake in those cases are
deemed to be more substantial than mere loss of money.”7

Dartmouth’s disciplinary system employs the preponderance of the evidence
standard for all cases that are heard by the Committee on Standards (COS). In
Dartmouth’s Student Handbook, this standard of proof is explained as follows:

In order for the COS to conclude that a student has violated a College rule,
the COS must be persuaded that a preponderance of the evidence supports
such a finding. To find a violation under this standard, the COS must

3
Id.
4
Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 423 (1979). Emphasis added.
5
State v. Addington, 588 S.W.2d 569, 570 (Tex. 1979).
6
Id. at 424.
7
Id.
5
conclude that it is more likely than not that the student committed the
alleged violation.8

There is no written justification as to why Dartmouth employs this particular standard of
proof. Our conversations with college Deans, Administrators, and Legal representatives
have all provided us with the same justification: the preponderance of the evidence
standard is what most other universities use. While the majority of colleges and
universities do use the preponderance of the evidence standard, both Harvard and
Princeton employ the beyond a reasonable doubt standard and Stanford uses clear and
convincing. Therefore, while Dartmouth’s standard of proof matches that of most
colleges, it provides fewer due process protections than other leaders in higher education
provide for their students.

This Task Force recommends that Dartmouth should change the burden of proof
for COS hearings from the preponderance of the evidence to clear and convincing
evidence. The clear and convincing evidence standard provides due process protection
for students without overburdening the disciplinary process.

The clear and convincing standard for college disciplinary proceedings has been
endorsed by the Courts and legal scholars. U.S. Courts have recommended that the
standard of proof used in college disciplinary action should be the clear and convincing
standard. In Smyth v. Lubbers, for instance, the Court wrote: “The 'clear and convincing'
standard would be consistent with the general proposition that 'school regulations are not
to be measured by the standards which prevail . . . for criminal procedure,' and would not
be so strict a requirement as to cripple the disciplinary process.”9 The preponderance of
the evidence standard is too low, the Court remarked, because of “the nature of the
charges and the serious consequences of conviction” inherent in university disciplinary
proceedings.10 Legal scholars have also argued that the clear and convincing standard
should be employed in college disciplinary proceedings.11 One legal scholar wrote:

[T]he preponderance standard on campus inaccurately treats the accused
student and the institution as equals . . . . [T]he "clear and convincing"
standard weighs the balance in the student's favor while not placing an
undue burden of proof on the institution.12

The clear and convincing standard therefore best accommodates all of the interests
inherent in Dartmouth’s disciplinary proceedings. The interests at stake during COS
proceedings are unquestionably more substantial than the mere loss of money for one
party. The Dartmouth community should not be comfortable with a student being

8
DARTMOUTH COLLEGE, STUDENT HANDBOOK, 73 (Hanover, 2005).
9
Smyth v. Lubbers, 398 F. Supp. 377, 799 (W.D. Mich. 1975). Internal citations omitted.
10
Id.
11
See, e.g. Nicholas Trott Long, "The Standard of Proof in Student Discipline Cases," 12
J. COLLEGE & UNIV. LAW 71 (1985).
12
Id. at 80-81.
6
sentenced with a punishment as severe as a suspension or a separation from the College
when that student presented to the COS 49% of the evidence attesting to his or her
innocence. Preponderance is not an appropriate standard because the stakes are too high
in Dartmouth’s disciplinary proceedings. The standard of clear and convincing evidence
gives students the due process protections that are warranted by the gravity of the cases.

2. Provide a fair framework in which those accused of violating a college rule are
allowed to ask lines of questions directly to the witnesses.

Those who appear before the COS accused of violating a college rule are not
permitted to ask witnesses questions directly. The current procedure allows those
accused to ask the Chair of the COS to pose a question to the witness. The Chair can
choose whether or not to pose that question. The ability of the accused to question
directly his or her accuser is a fundamental element of procedural fairness in the
American legal system. While we recognize and appreciate that a Dartmouth COS
hearing is not a formal legal proceeding, this particular element of procedural fairness is
necessary in order for the COS to determine the truth.

The U.S. Constitution provides for criminal defendants the right “to be confronted
with the witnesses against him.”13 According to the U.S. Supreme Court, “Confrontation
means more than being allowed to confront the witness physically... [the] primary
interest secured by it is the right of cross-examination.”14 Cross-examination is essential
because it is the principal means by which the credibility and believability of the
witnesses can be ascertained.

The ability of the accused to question witnesses directly is especially essential to
finding the truth in proceedings in which one student accuses another student of
wrongdoing. Those cases are often dubbed “he-said-she-said” cases, because it is clear
that both sides cannot be telling the truth; the fact-finders must ascertain which party is
more believable. If the accused believes that his or her accuser is lying, the accused
should be permitted to establish lines of questioning with the accuser in an attempt to
show inconsistencies in the accuser’s testimony. These questions would, of course, be
subject to rules and limitations, and the accused would not be permitted to ask harassing
or badgering questions.

In our discussion with Dartmouth’s legal representation, we have been told that
the reason that the accused is not permitted to ask witnesses questions directly is that
Dartmouth does not want to put the accuser in a position where he or she would feel
intimidated. The college should not, proscribe the direct questioning of witnesses

13
U.S. CONST. amend. VI.
14
Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 315 (1974). Emphasis added. See also, Nelson v.
O'Neil, 402 U.S. 622, 626-27 (1971); California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149, 157-58 (1970);
Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 126 (1968); Douglas v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 415,
418-19 (1965); Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400, 404-05, 407 (1965).
7
because witnesses might feel intimated by such questions. Many other universities have
provided a framework by which those accused may ask appropriate questions to the
witnesses that do not result in intimidation. Stanford, for example, allows the accused to
ask witnesses questions directly, provided that they are “conducted in a manner that is
courteous to all participants, that is devoid of intimidation and harassment, and that limits
discussion to information relevant to the facts and issues of the case.”15 We believe that
such a framework provides reasonable protections for the witnesses while allowing the
accused the important opportunity to present his or her best possible defense.

3. Place the Undergraduate Judicial Affairs Office in charge of keeping track of the
demographic information of individuals who sit on the Committee and individuals who
go before the Committee.

Dartmouth College “strongly supports a diverse and pluralistic community as an
educational benefit to all students.”16 With such a commitment to diversity, the
Dartmouth Admissions Office has established great accountability and transparency with
regard to the creation of the “mosaic of [the] student body.”17 Each year, Dartmouth
creates a “class profile” to portray the true diversity of the undergraduate class; the
College uses demographic information—sex, geographical origin, status as a student of
color, high school, high school rank, and academic interest—to profile each incoming
class. In this manner, Dartmouth recognizes the importance of demographics and
recognizes that it is essential to keep a record of this information. The Judicial Affairs
office, however, chooses not to make this information a matter of public record. By
placing very little value on, and never disclosing, demographic information, the
Committee on Standards continues to jeopardize its accountability with members of the
Dartmouth community. After meeting with Deans, students, members of the Committee
on Standards, and many others, this task force has concluded that, in the interest of
promoting diversity and public confidence, the Committee on Standards should be
challenged to track demographic characteristics of the students that go before the
Committee as well as those of the people on the Committee.

Transparency is critical to an academic institution. Transparency implies honesty,
communication, and accountability. The College does maintain the records of all judicial
hearings and sanctions of Dartmouth students; however, it fails to profile each case
demographically. By failing to do so, the Committee on Standards risks compromising
its accountability to members of the community—people will continue to have concerns
regarding the fairness of this judicial process because there is no record kept of statistics

15
Stanford University. By-Laws to Student Judicial Charter by the Board on Judicial
Affairs. Available at:
http://www.stanford.edu/dept/vpsa/judicialaffairs/judicialprocess/by-
laws.htm#nonharassment.

16
Class Profile, 2006, Dartmouth College—Admissions and Financial Aid,
http://www.dartmouth.edu/apply/generalinfo/profile.html (last visited May 14, 2006).
17
Id.
8
that could reveal systematic bias, should it exist. In the interest of maintaining
accountability, this Committee should advocate for complete transparency in the judicial
process—from the Committee members to the accused and accusing students. It is
difficult to promote diversity if the judicial mechanisms shield information from public
scrutiny and thereby inhibit further assessment of the system’s fairness;. The College
prides itself on its diversity, and should be able to illustrate that its judicial processes are
not biased against minority students. It would be useful to maintain records of the
demographic characteristics of the Committee members and the students that go before
the Committee so that systematic studies of issues pertaining to diversity could be
conducted. The public is entitled to this information because it fosters a greater sense of
accountability, and the Committee on Standards must be held accountable at all levels of
its process.

The Dartmouth College Admissions Office claims that the diversity of the
Dartmouth student body contributes to its success, and it consistently seeks opportunities
to disclose its diversity statistics. President Wright recently affirmed that there would be
a one-year project that specifically focuses on diversity at Dartmouth. Diversity is
constantly under review, and the College works diligently to maintain this information as
public record. The Judicial Affairs Office should be held to a similar standard. Records
of demographic characteristics should be kept for public review; this will ensure that
diversity issues can be assessed at all levels of the judicial process. The more complete
the collection of statistical information pertinent to diversity, the better. It is difficult to
promote diversity if accurate demographic data are unavailable to document exclusion.

Diversity is consistently assessed by Dartmouth College, and the Judicial Affairs
Office should take this into consideration. The College has established the Office of
Institutional Diversity & Equity to focus on “supporting, assisting, and enhancing
Dartmouth's commitment to learning and pluralism.”18 The office was created to foster a
greater appreciation and capacity to understand our complex community; the Judicial
Affairs Office should also respond to diversity concerns. Maintaining demographic data
as public record has proven to be an effective response to such concerns.

The college should evaluate diversity at all levels, including the Judicial Affairs
Office. It should be noted if people of certain demographic groups are going before the
Committee for similar offenses, and it should also be noted if all members of the
Committee are of certain demographic groups. This information is important for the
College to respond effectively to a problem of bias, should one exist. For example, after
reviewing past judicial reports, it became apparent that a majority of COS cases are
violations of the academic honor policy. As a result, the College has placed a greater
emphasis on ensuring that all incoming students learn about the academic honor policy.
In this way, the College has become more accountable to the student body by making
sure that students who were at risk of violating the honor policy instead know and
understand it. Demographic data would function in a similar fashion. If students of a

18
Our Mission, 2006, Dartmouth College—Institutional Diversity and Equity,
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~ide/about/mission.html (last visited, May 13, 2006)
9
certain demographic group are called before the COS more frequently, there should be
efforts made to better serve these students with preemptive education about college rules
and regulations, or an investigation into why students of certain groups are
disproportionately accused of or found responsible for certain types of violations.
Likewise, if the students who hear COS cases belong to the same or different
demographic groups as the accused or the accusing student, evidence of bias may emerge
Such assessment and evaluation is essential to improve the judicial process and will allow
the College to respond in a positive, effective manner. This type of assessment and
evaluation, however, can only be done if the Judicial Affairs Office maintains a record of
demographic information that is open to the public for review.

The Committee on Standards is a reflection upon Dartmouth and therefore should
be accountable to Dartmouth students, families, faculty, and administration. The
Committee itself and the alleged student offenders should reflect the Dartmouth
community and the decisions should reflect the concerns of the Dartmouth community.
Therefore, it is the recommendation of this Task Force that the Committee on Standards
and the Judicial Affairs Office maintain record of demographic data for public review.
Each academic year, the Judicial Affairs Office creates an annual report, and we
challenge this office to extend this report to include demographic information. By
enabling greater assessment and evaluation, demographic information is critical to the
continued development and accountability of the judicial process.

4. Formally adopt the guarantee of a speedy hearing as a fundamental right of the
accused in all Committee on Standards (COS) hearings.

Guarantee of a speedy trial is a fundamental right given by the United States
Constitution in the Sixth Amendment of the Bill of Rights. It specifically states that “in
all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public
trial...”19 This provision serves a threefold purpose outlined in the following manner:

(1) To effectuate the right of the accused to a speedy trial; (2) To further
the interests of the public, including victims and witnesses, in the fair,
accurate, and timely resolution of criminal cases; and (3) To ensure the
effective utilization of resources.20

The system serves to protect both the victim and accused while maximizing efficiency. It
is ''an important safeguard to prevent undue and oppressive incarceration prior to trial, to
minimize anxiety and concern accompanying public accusation and to limit the
possibility that long delay will impair the ability of an accused to defend himself.''21

19
U.S. CONST. amend. VI.
20
American Bar Association, Criminal Justice Standards (2004) Available at
http://www.abanet.org/crimjust/standards/speedytrial_toc.html (Last visited May 21,
2006).
21
United States v. Ewell, 383 U.S. 116, 120 (1966).
10
Extended duration between the event and the trial may lead to the loss of witnesses due to
various reasons and the blurring of recollections.

The Task Force recommends that Dartmouth College formally adopt the
guarantee of a speedy hearing as a fundamental right of the accused in all Committee on
Standards (COS) hearings. The proposal is in the best interest of both the committee and
the parties involved. Currently, under the Rights, Rules and Responsibilities subheading
in Student Handbook, it states that:

The student is entitled to reasonable written notice of the substance of the
allegations against him or her. The student is also entitled to a reasonable
period in which to prepare his or her case; a reasonable period is generally
defined as five calendar days from the date of delivery of the letter of
allegation. A student who needs additional time to prepare his/her case
may request an extension of time from the Chair.22

While this provides students with a rough timetable during the preparation phase, it
remains up to the Undergraduate Judicial Affairs Office (UJAO) to schedule the hearings.
A COS proceeding brings with it a tremendous amount of anxiety for the accused—the
time period following notification and before the actual hearing is often the most difficult
experience for many students. The Task Force urges the UJAO to institute written
guidelines in regards to the scheduling process, especially for cases that occur near the
end of a term. Currently, many students who are accused of suspension-level charges
near the end of term have their cases deferred to sometime at the beginning of the
following term. Students are forced to leave for breaks without knowing how much time
they will have before their hearing once they return, which makes preparations difficult.
Having to go before the COS is difficult for everyone involved. Specific timetables
would help remove part of the uncertainty and anxiety for students and streamline the
process for the rest of the committee.

5. Provide students with the summary of precedent cases that is provided to members
of the Committee on Standards.

When a Dartmouth student is asked to appear before the COS for a given
violation, the Undergraduate Judicial Affairs Office prepares a document for committee
members informing them of any relevant case precedents which may apply to the
upcoming hearing. For instance in sexual assault cases, the UJAO will provide COS
members with a brief outline of previous cases which, in the opinion of the UJAO, are
similar in circumstance. The outline will also include a list of punitive actions taken
against the previous student(s) by the COS. If no such precedent exists, no such
document is provided to the committee. The goal is to ensure consistency and fairness
during the post-hearing deliberations and, if necessary, punishments.

22
STUDENT HANDBOOK, supra note 8 at 70.
11
The Student Handbook states, “... the COS or the dean, in imposing a penalty,
may consider the penalties imposed at the College in other cases.”23 In response to the
matter of fairness of penalties, the deans we spoke with brought up the emphasis the COS
places on reviewing precedent cases before arriving at a decision. If this is indeed the
case, there is a twofold reason as to why summaries of precedent cases should be
provided to students. In the Preparation section of the Student Handbook, it is clearly
stated that:

A student alleged to have violated the Academic Honor Principle or
Standards of Conduct is obligated to become familiar with the rules and
regulations governing COS hearings and to keep himself or herself
informed of developments in his or her case through frequent contact with
the UJAO. Failure to do so is at the student’s own risk. 24

Consulting precedent cases not only plays a role in the development of the student’s own
case, but also governs the decision in the hearing. It is therefore in the student’s best
interest to be aware of precedent cases in order to prepare better for the hearing.
Secondly, providing precedent cases to the accused student will help to ensure that a fair
outcome is reached. If the student feels that the penalties enacted against him deviated
greatly from previous cases of similar nature, he would have a chance to make a request
for reconsideration.

6. Standardize the precedent cases that are compiled and presented to members of the
Committee on Standards prior to hearings.

The process, discussed in the previous recommendation, of assembling a
collection of cases to serve as precedent for the committee members raises a number of
important questions. While the purpose of the precedent process is to seek fairness and
consistency in decisions, the selection/exclusion of cases which are given as “precedent”
to committee members inherently influences—at the very least—the punishment phase of
deliberations.

This is easily remedied if the UJAO adopted a policy of providing all accused
students with the same “precedent docket” provided to committee members. This
additionally would help students to gain a better perception of what the potential, specific
punishments would be if found responsible for the given violation based on the
precedents provided to the committee. Also, students could have the option of petitioning
to include/exclude a different case in the precedent docket if they feel it is more /less
applicable to his or her case

23
Id. at 69.
24
Id at 70.
12
7. Create alternatives to exclusively ‘closed’ or ‘open’ hearings.

In advance of a student’s hearing, he or she is given the option of making the
COS proceedings “open” or “closed.” An open hearing is one in which any member of
the Dartmouth College community can attend (students, administrators, professors etc.).
A closed hearing is one in which only the committee members and the parties directly
involved can attend In a closed hearing where criminal charges may be possible, a
lawyer can be present.

Many students opt out of the open hearing option because of the potential media
attention their case might receive. If a student’s hearing is open, The Dartmouth has the
right to send a reporter to cover the case. Valley News and other media could also report
on the case by interviewing people who attended the hearing.

We recommend that students have the option of inviting certain members of the
Dartmouth community—friends, professors, deans, coaches, etc.—who will provide the
accused students with moral support, without opening the hearing to the entire Dartmouth
community. In cases in which a student has accused another student of a violation, we
recommend that both accused and accuser be allowed to invite supporters (so as not to
intimidate the accuser, as the case might be if only supporters of the accused could attend
the hearing).

8. Eliminate the restriction on service in the Committee on Standards dealing with
prior disciplinary history

According to the website of the Undergraduate Judicial Affairs Office, students
who have been subject to college disciplinary proceedings in the past are ineligible for
membership on the Committee.25 The Task Force believes that this restriction is unfair
and is antithetical to the notion that Committee on Standards student members represent
the full range of students on Dartmouth’s campus.

The Committee on Standards should limit its student members to only those
individuals who have junior or senior standing with the college. The restriction in place
irrelevantly penalizes students for past actions. Under the current restriction, an
individual who was apprehended for alcohol abuses only twice could be ineligible to sit
on a case involving sexual assault or plagiarism. The Task Force believes that there is
little evidence that would indicate that students who have been issued a sanction from the
college in the past would make substandard members of the COS. Additionally, the
knowledge and perspective gained from the experience of undergoing a college
disciplinary proceeding would be a valuable asset when deciding the outcomes of critical
hearings.

25
Dartmouth College. “Committee on Standards – 2006 –’07 Student Application
[www.dartmouth.edu/~uja/docs/cos_application.doc] (Last visited October 10, 2006)
13

INDIVIDUALS CONTACTED BY THE TASK FORCE

Jacob Crumbine ’07, member of the Committee on Standards
Matthew Slaine ’06, member of the Committee on Standards
Gail Zimmerman, Dean of First-Year Students
Lisa Thum, Upperclass Dean
Carolynne Krusi, Upperclass Dean
Teoby Gomez, Upperclass Dean
April Thompson, Undergraduate Judicial Affairs Office
Robert B. Donin, Dartmouth General Legal Counsel
Robert Shibley, Vice President of FIRE
Samantha Harris, Programmer Officer of FIRE
Dr. Alan Kors, The George H. Walker Endowed Term Chair and Professor of History at
the University of Pennsylvania, and Founder of FIRE and co-author of “Shadow
University”
Harvey Silverglate, Founder of FIRE and co-author of “Shadow University”

CONCLUSION
The Student Assembly Committee on Standards Student Task Force strongly supports the
implementation of the seven stated recommendations. The Task Force asks that the Dean
of the College provide a formal reply to this report by January 1, 2007, documenting the
actions taken by the Office of the Dean of the College in response to this report. While
some recommendations may be more difficult to implement than others, the Task Force
hopes that the Dean of the College takes each recommendation seriously.