EMail This Page - Print

Laura Teegarden Daily Egyptian

The Agility and Efficiency Task Force Report criticizing Student Judicial Affairs was a complete surprise to Terry Huffman, coordinator, who was not even contacted about the issues before the report's release.

"It's not correct," Huffman said.

Many of the issues addressed in the report could have been answered by the Student Conduct Code, which is what determines Student Judicial Affairs actions, Huffman said.

"I really don't know what they are suggesting," he said. "They don't really give any recommendations for changing."

One of the matters brought up by the report is the request for greater transparency in the Student Judicial Affairs judgment process and the elimination of double jeopardy.

"I don't know how we can have greater transparency," Huffman said. "I don't even know what they are talking about."

The request to address double jeopardy stems from when students are forced to deal with the courts as well as Student Judicial Affairs for the same case. Some consider this double jeopardy, which is being tried for the same offense twice.

Paul Biggins, a sophomore from Oak Park studying business, was sentenced to community hours through both the court system and judicial affairs after an incident that took place last year.

"It was stupid," said Biggins. "We got in trouble with the court already."

Huffman said the difference is that judicial affairs is responsible for educating them about their behavior, not punishing the students.

"The reality of double jeopardy is that jeopardy only applies to criminal cases," Huffman said. "We don't adjudicate criminal cases, that's left up to the courts. What we look at is student behavior."

He said the difference between the courts and judicial affairs is like apples and oranges. "Do we take into consideration what the state court does? No," Huffman said. "Do they take into consideration what we do? No."

The task force's report also questioned whether Student Judicial Affairs should pursue action against a student if local authorities decide not to pursue an alleged infraction.

"It doesn't matter whether they prosecute or not," Huffman said. "What matters is whether we are going to address the behavior at this level."

There is a difference in the standard of proof between the courts and institutes of higher education, he said.

Courts must prove something beyond a reasonable doubt, and universities, such as SIUC, must simply have a preponderance of evidence.

"Simply put, it's whether it's more likely than not, that's our standard of proof," he said.

The task force also recommends the formation of an appeals board comprised of students and faculty instead of having one University administrator responsible.

However, Huffman said there is already an appeals board in place at the second level of the appeals process in cases involving suspension or expulsion.

The Chancellor's Advisory Review Board has eight members: two faculty, two staff, two undergraduate and two graduate students that hear the cases.

"They only hear cases involving suspension or expulsion because the student has the most to lose," Huffman said.

Larry Dietz, vice chancellor for student affairs and enrollment management, or his designee, is the hearing officer for other cases, but Huffman said the most that can happen in those instances is probation.

Huffman suggested that he find a way to educate the community about what actually occurs in Student Judicial Affairs to avoid misconceptions.

"We're not punishing," Huffman said. "We're educating them about their behavior."

Reporter Laura Teegarden can be reached at laura_teegarden@dailyegyptian.com