At some point in their careers at RPI, a number of students will find their way into the judicial system for various reasons, whether it is drinking, parking violations, or burning a cardboard box. According to Associate Dean of Students and Senior Judicial Administrator Travis Apgar, this number is not as large as many would think, but as on any college campus, RPI students do break the rules from time to time and go through the disciplinary process. This process can be unusual and confusing at times for newcomers, but there are a few simple ways that you can prepare yourself for working with the Dean of Students’ Office and the Judicial Board. Presented here, along with information on the system, are some tips on navigating it to make the process as smooth as possible.
Obviously, the process begins when a rule is broken. The Institute maintains a list of “Grounds for Disciplinary Action,” which can be violated through action, attempt at action, or soliciting or aiding action. These rules range from violating a federal or state or local law to academic dishonesty to “failure to comply with an Institute official in the performance of his or her duties.” A full list of the GDAs can be found in the Rensselaer Handbook for Student Rights and Responsibilities, a document produced by DOSO and can be found at their office, entrances to the Union, or online at the DOSO website.
Once DOSO has been notified that a GDA has occured, a hearing officer is assigned to the case, who in turn investigates the violation by talking to witnesses and compiling evidence. Once the investigation is complete, the hearing officer works with DOSO and the student to assign an appropriate sanction. Apgar recommends the best thing to do is to make yourself fully aware of the system, primarily by reading the Handbook, and make it easy on everyone involved by being forthright. “I would very sincerely say that students will make out better if they are honest and cooperative with the hearing officer and help them understand the facts of the case,” he said.
Apgar also said that many people often make the mistake of comparing the judicial system to the criminal justice system, and pointed out that it is simply not the case; the judicial system is educational, not punitive. In most situations, demonstrating to the hearing officer that you learned something from the experience will go far toward a lower sanction.
“We want to see students who are not only book-smart, but also good citizens who contribute positively to society,” Apgar said.
Student Judicial Advisors are made available by the system for those who need some guidance through the process, which is the majority of students. Many people misconstrue their role to be similar to that of a lawyer, but that is quite wrong. They merely serve a consultative role, guiding the student through the ins and outs of the system and answering questions when needed.
Once the hearing officer issues their decision, the matter can either end there or the student can choose to appeal the matter to the Judicial Board. This is done by sending a written appeal to the Senior Judicial Administrator in DOSO within three business days of the hearing officer’s decision.
RPI’s judicial process is nearly unique among colleges in that a panel of students has appeal-hearing and decision-making power; on most campuses the situation is reversed. In the event that an appeal is filed and heard by the J-Board, seven students will decide the result, which may include overturning the sanction, lowering it, or strengthening it. If the appealing party is a recognized fraternity or sorority (the organization, not the members of it), then the case will be heard by the Greek Judicial Board, which is comprised of nine students and has the same decision-making power.
Again, those in charge of the J-Boards say that being forthcoming is important. “We try to make the process as easy as possible for the appellants. The appellants should do the same for us,” said Judicial Board Chair Matt Ezovski ’06. He continued that the one thing they always look for is whether the student understands how they affected RPI students, faculty, administrators, and the community as a whole. In addition, he said that one question the Board always wants an answer to is, “If you were in our shoes, what would you do?” Ezovski also observed that some appellants assume the Board will be easy since it is entirely students, but said this may hurt the appellant as the Board tries to be fair to everyone, including the administration.
Another common misconception, Ezovski pointed out, is that the Board has no interest in a legal battle at its hearing. “It’s not a court of law,” he said. “It’s not about who makes the better presentation…Song and dance routines will not help. A more effective presentation will get the facts across more easily.” Students should sit and explain their case clearly, answering questions when asked.
Another point of contention that the Board has to deal with at times is that of lawyers and others inside the hearing room. According to procedure, a hearing is closed to everyone except the board, the appellant, witnesses, and the Senior Judicial Administrator. Others will only be let in at the discretion of the chair.
Once the J-Boards have issued their decisions, the case can once again be appealed (either by the students or by DOSO), this time to the Review Board. This Board consists of two students, two faculty members, and one administrator. Once an appeal is received by the Review Board chair, the Board will decide whether to uphold or modify the decision, to refer the case back to the lower body for further action, or hold a hearing of its own. Once the Review Board issues its decision, either party can then appeal to the President, who will have final determination. These final two steps are quite rare, with the Review Board not convening for months at a time and President Jackson only having considered a handful of appeals during her tenure.
Parking ticket appeals are also heard by student members of the judicial system, this time by the Student Motor Vehicle Court. Chair of the SMVC Tom Boetig ’06 said the best thing for students looking to appeal tickets is to simply calm down and wait for a cooler head before writing their appeal. Letters claiming that “I shouldn’t have to pay this” seldom work, he said, while being reasonable and admitting fault when the situation calls for is far more successful. Boetig said excuses like “I didn’t know” or “The other lots were full” work well (if true) for wrong-lot tickets, while parking without a permit is most easily solved by simply purchasing a permit.
The best thing to do, according to Boetig, is to demonstrate that you have changed your habits in light of the ticket (though they do review past files, so you can’t get away with “I won’t do it again” 15 times). He continued that pictures and diagrams always amuse the board while helping prove your points, but the best thing to do is still to write clearly and legibly.
