Disciplinary Decisions Lack Student Participation

A recent Undergraduate Council proposal calling for student representation on the Administrative Board has sparked fresh debate on an old question: What role should students play in disciplining their peers?

Virtually ignored in this debate, and perhaps with good reason, is the fact that Harvard already has a disciplinary board with student members--the little-known Student-Faculty Judiciary Committee (SFJB).

Presented as an option to all students who face Ad Board action, the SFJB counts six students among its 13 members.

But students who have faced the Ad Board say that although the option exists on paper, administrators create a culture which makes the choice no choice at all.

"The idea that there is a choice is a fantasy," says one student who has been Ad Boarded. "At one point in our case, we leaned in going in that direction. We were stonewalled."

The statistics appear to bolster the claim. According to Secretary of the Ad Board Virginia L. Mackay-Smith '78, the SFJB has tried just one case in its nine-year history.

The Process

In 1987, responding to demands from the Undergraduate Council, the Faculty established the SFJB to hear cases in which there is "no clear precedent or consensus in the community," according to the faculty legislation from April 7, 1987.

When an undergraduate faces disciplinary charges, the accused student is offered a choice between the two disciplinary boards.

If the student chooses the SFJB, the case is sent first to the Ad Board which offers an initial opinion on who should hear the case.

If the Ad Board votes to retain the case, the student may appeal that decision to the SFJB, which then makes a final ruling on which body should take the case.

One student charges that the this appellate system is disgraceful, setting up an inherent conflict of interest: The shuffling of cases between the boards, the student says, can ultimately force a student to be judged by a body he attempted to circumvent, the Ad Board.

"They will obviously think ill of you," the student says. "It poses a dilemma for a student. It doesn't seem worth the risk of upsetting the board that will likely adjudicate your case."

More fundamentally, critics of the process say that Ad Boarded students are advised by senior tutors or first-year deans who are uniformly biased in their recommendations.

These administrators, who themselves sit on the Ad Board, tend to recommend the Ad Board almost exclusively, students charge.

"I chose the Ad Board because my senior tutor said there is no reason why it would be unprecedented," says one student who was Ad Boarded in a somewhat unusual case. "He said that if I petitioned for it I would be turned down."

The SFJB is composed of six students--four undergraduates picked by lot and two graduate--as well as six faculty members and a chair chosen by the dean of the Faculty.

Current students on the board say that the administration expects that the SFJB board will meet rarely, if at all.

"When I agreed to join the board, I was told that the thing never meets," said Jeremy M. Friedman '98, one of the student members.

Another member, Crimson editor Christopher M. Luo '98, said that although he's heard of the SFJB, he has "no idea what the heck it is."

The administration's casual attitude towards the board led the Civil Liberties Union of Harvard (CLUH) to argue that the SFJB was underutilized in a 1993 report critiquing the entire Ad Board process.

In particular, the report cited a lack of proper advising by senior tutors and first-year deans.

"Given that only one in five hundred potential cases has gone to the SFJB, CLUH believes that [advisers] could not possibly be explaining the SFJB to students," according to the report.

While students are supposed to sign a form in which they formally select one body over the other, at least one student said his case was tried before the Ad Board without him having ever signed such a form.

Another student, who ultimately decided to apply to the SFJB but was rejected, said he was only presented with the SFJB option on the day before his scheduled Ad Board hearing.

Leniency?

Defenders of the process say that student's do not choose the SFJB because fellow students are actually harsher in judging their peers.

"In our experience, students when actually confronted with some wrong-doing do not regard the opportunity to be judged by students...to be an incentive," says Dean of the College Harry R. Lewis '68.

The main reason provided by senior tutors for the lack of usage of the SFJB is the simple lack of precedent-setting cases.

"I have yet to encounter a case with a student that hasn't happened before," said Lowell House Allston Burr Senior Tutor Eugene C. McAfee.

Lewis says he thinks there have been a relatively small number of cases where students have considered using the SFJB.

Senior tutors say students are usually better off using the Ad Board because it provides confidentiality and a punishment based on past precedent.

"You can judge the relative severity of things over time," said Mather House Allston Burr Senior Tutor Mary K. Peckham

"I chose the Ad Board because my senior tutor said there is no reason why it would be unprecedented," says one student who was Ad Boarded in a somewhat unusual case. "He said that if I petitioned for it I would be turned down."

The SFJB is composed of six students--four undergraduates picked by lot and two graduate--as well as six faculty members and a chair chosen by the dean of the Faculty.

Current students on the board say that the administration expects that the SFJB board will meet rarely, if at all.

"When I agreed to join the board, I was told that the thing never meets," said Jeremy M. Friedman '98, one of the student members.

Another member, Crimson editor Christopher M. Luo '98, said that although he's heard of the SFJB, he has "no idea what the heck it is."

The administration's casual attitude towards the board led the Civil Liberties Union of Harvard (CLUH) to argue that the SFJB was underutilized in a 1993 report critiquing the entire Ad Board process.

In particular, the report cited a lack of proper advising by senior tutors and first-year deans.

"Given that only one in five hundred potential cases has gone to the SFJB, CLUH believes that [advisers] could not possibly be explaining the SFJB to students," according to the report.

While students are supposed to sign a form in which they formally select one body over the other, at least one student said his case was tried before the Ad Board without him having ever signed such a form.

Another student, who ultimately decided to apply to the SFJB but was rejected, said he was only presented with the SFJB option on the day before his scheduled Ad Board hearing.

Leniency?

Defenders of the process say that student's do not choose the SFJB because fellow students are actually harsher in judging their peers.

"In our experience, students when actually confronted with some wrong-doing do not regard the opportunity to be judged by students...to be an incentive," says Dean of the College Harry R. Lewis '68.

The main reason provided by senior tutors for the lack of usage of the SFJB is the simple lack of precedent-setting cases.

"I have yet to encounter a case with a student that hasn't happened before," said Lowell House Allston Burr Senior Tutor Eugene C. McAfee.

Lewis says he thinks there have been a relatively small number of cases where students have considered using the SFJB.

Senior tutors say students are usually better off using the Ad Board because it provides confidentiality and a punishment based on past precedent.

"You can judge the relative severity of things over time," said Mather House Allston Burr Senior Tutor Mary K. Peckham