Introduction-

Most institutions of higher education in the United States, especially schools with residential campuses, have a code of conduct for their students which addresses both academic misconduct such as cheating, and more serious matters such as criminal activity. The closed and confidential process established on campuses for handling these infractions has created a convenient venue for the diversion by image conscious administrators of serious criminal charges of student on student crime.

While these hearings typically offer a resolution faster than the criminal court system, as well as a lesser burden of proof making a finding of guilt easier, they are generally not open to public scrutiny. Without this scrutiny it is impossible to know if both the victim and accused truly were treated fairly by a potentially biased institutional organization. Additionally and most importantly, the community is not informed about dangerous crimes committed in their community.

The University of Georgia disciplinary system was selected for review because of two 1993 state Supreme Court rulings which found that their system was in fact subject to the Georgia open meeting and public record acts. The public institutions of higher education in Georgia are the only schools with open hearings and UGA is the only school with consistent coverage of its hearings by student journalists. Schools in all other states cite a Federal law known as the “Buckley Amendment” which provides for the confidentiality of grade and financial aid records as an excuse for closing the hearings and withholding information. A July, 1997 decision issued by the Ohio Supreme Court granted limited access, names and other identifying information is redacted, to similar records in that state but not to the hearings themselves.

I visited the UGA campus in Athens from May 21 through 23 of this year, attended two hearings, interviewed three student journalists who have covered these hearings over the last four years, interviewed the director of the Office of Judicial Programs, reviewed files and articles maintained by the student newspaper, and reviewed official OJP documents including case decisions.

History-

The UGA student court was devised in 1968 as a response to Dixon v. Alabama Board of Education (294 F.2d 150 (5th Cir. 1961), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 930 (1961)) which held that public institutions were required to afford due process rights to students prior to disciplinary action being taken. The first case was heard in January 1969, prior to that the Dean alone had meted out punishments for the violation of student rules.

The Red & Black, UGA’s student newspaper, first requested access to these hearings pursuant to the Georgia Open Meetings Law in November of 1990 and eventually filed suit. Two state Supreme Court decisions in 1993 granted access to both the student and student organization courts. Since this time the University has very reluctantly permitted access to all disciplinary hearings, including those concerning both criminal and non-criminal misconduct.

Structure-

According to Procedures of the University Judicial System the handbook of the campus court system, the Office of Judicial Programs is responsible for responding to allegations of violations of student and student organization conduct regulations. There are 15 basic categories of “Conduct Regulations For Students” and 12 “Conduct Regulations For Student Organizations” each with several subheadings. These violations range from academic dishonesty to physical assaults for students and the regulation of dances to hazings for organizations.

The OJP has jurisdiction over currently enrolled students and recognized student organizations. “An individual is subject to the jurisdiction of the University Judicial System if he/she is alleged to have violated a University conduct regulation” while enrolled or between sessions of consecutive enrollment and it is either in, on or within 500 yards of University property or within the jurisdiction of the University police. They also have jurisdiction in cases of either physical violence or illicit drug manufacture or sale where the incident is alleged to have occurred either in Athens-Clark county or any bordering county. In addition, “The University reserves the right to discipline students for extreme acts of misbehavior detrimental to the University community wherever they occur.”

When an accusation is made the director of the OJP determines if there is sufficient evidence to pursue the charges and if so a hearing is scheduled. Each hearing board consists of one administrator from the OJP (typically William Bracewell, the director or Dan Pugh) and two student justices. The University is represented by a student who prosecutes the case and is known as an “advocate” while the accused is represented by a student “defender.” There is also a student present to operate an audio recorder used to produce the official record of the hearing.

During the hearings, the panel sits on one side of a conference table facing the accused, their defender, the University advocate and either a student complainant or campus police officer. In the room used by the OJP, there is room for about two dozen in the gallery which typically includes other witnesses, a reporter from The Red & Black, evaluators from the Defender-Advocate Society and other concerned community members.

The hearing order is established by the handbook and begins with the presiding panel member calling the hearing to order. Participants are introduced, charges are read and the University advocate makes their case followed by the defense. Closing arguments are made in the same order.

Cases-

The two cases I witnessed involved students who had been arrested, one for alleged marijuana use, the other for a simple assault. Although the student accused of marijuana use had confessed the night of her arrest, the confession was retracted in her written statement to the hearing board. In the case of the simple assault, there were also multiple allegations which were only conduct code violations and not crimes including racially-motivated harassment and providing an official with a false name. Presumably he gave a false name to avoid being held accountable for the name calling to which he later admitted to.

Additional case records reviewed included a case where a male threw a bottle at a woman and then began to choke her in a residence hall. He had to be restrained by two other students who were then themselves charged with disorderly conduct. They were found not in violation but he was suspended for two quarters.

As noted by Crystal J. Paulk, one of the first student journalists to cover the open hearings four years ago, the open nature of the hearing removes the motivation to not involve the campus police when reporting criminal incidents. It would appear that either a police officer or police report are involved in most if not all allegations of criminal misconduct brought before the hearing board according to the other reporters I spoke with.

Paulk also notes that typically the student admits to the alleged wrongdoing but through their defender offers reasons why, such as “this is their first offense,” the board should treat them with lenience. Also, these decisions are completely independent of actions taken in the criminal court system which means that findings of either guilt or innocence in one jurisdiction have no bearing on the other.

According to William Bracewell, the director of the OJP, there have been no allegations of sexual assault brought through this process since it was opened in 1993. In his opinion, this is due to the reluctance of the victims to go public. The total amount of rape charges brought through the UGA Police Department has increased 62.5% from 5 to 8 during the three years after the hearings were opened as opposed to the three prior years. [It should be noted that it is a crime to publish or cause to be published the name of any sexual assault victim in the state of Georgia.]

Further, charges are brought and listed by section and subsection numbers. For example, rape would be a violation of the student regulation against “disorderly conduct” or 3.3, “physical assault, including sexual assault, is prohibited.” This would make it virtually impossible to segregate the number of sexual assaults from other types of assaults. They are also listed this way on the schedule calendar in the court office. The only way to effectively determine how many of each type of case is actually heard is to attend each hearing.

The Red & Black is a fully independent daily student newspaper and routinely reports on the campus court system in a section titled “Judicial Watch” and in other articles. Although it appears that coverage varies from quarter to quarter, it is similar to coverage of police reports with front page articles on more serious incidents such as assaults and hazings while other incidents such as thefts and drug cases are covered in a “blotter” type of section. A number of fraternity and sorority hazing cases have received significant front page coverage during the two most recent quarters.

Statistics-

University Continues To Make Access Difficult For Student Journalists-

According to Red & Black staff, the University continues to make it difficult to gain access to both the hearings and written decisions. The OJP posts notices of hearings on a bulletin board calendar in their main lobby, but the information sheds little or no light on what the hearings are about and no names are included. This makes it necessary to attend each hearing to find out what they are about and who is involved. The written decisions, which are to be completed within seven days, are available for review and copying only after a written request has been filed. Each written decision reviews the details of the case, a finding of guilt or not guilty, and sanctions for findings of guilt.

The University has three days to respond to each request. During this time the records are transferred from the OJP to the office of legal affairs which notifies the students mentioned in the records and then makes them available to the requester. The notification is required by the Federal “Buckley Amendment” which is also known as the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and the University charges $10.50 per hour for the notification which usually takes about an hour. The University also charges for copies at a rate of 25 cents per page.

Conclusion-

During my review of newspaper articles I read that despite several very serious crimes including aggravated assaults and rapes the overall crime rate in Athens-Clarke County has decreased in recent years. In the 1990-91 academic year the UGA Police Department reported a total of 1760 criminal incidents, but there has been a fairly consistent decrease to 1079 in the 1995-96 year.

This is attributed in part to the efforts of organizations like Safe Campuses Now but may also be related to the newly opened campus courts. In any event, the coverage of student judicial hearings by the local and student media benefits the whole community and provides them with a better picture of what types of crime occur on and around the campus along with how the school deals with it. Students are then able to make more informed decisions about what safety precautions they choose to take.