 |
|
Philip Rodney Moon
When MSU students violate University ordinances or commit crimes, they could be called before one of three University Judicial Boards. These boards are made up of faculty, administrators and students. The purpose of the boards is to ensure a fair trial for any student, and punishments can range from warnings to expulsion from MSU. However, ASMSU has discovered that the boards have been violating University rules. What started as an attempt to find out whether the Judicial Boards were following an established code turned up cases of an administrator lying to students, circumventing University rules, exposing protected student information to unauthorized individuals and causing violations of students’ due process rights. I.THE BEGINNING The issue began last semester when ASMSU officials sought to determine whether the Judicial Boards were acting under a code of Operations, as required by the university. University rules state: “Each judiciary shall establish a code of operations…including establishing procedures for determining whether a complaint or allegation appropriately warrants a judicial hearing” -Academic Freedom Report, Article 4.1.2 An initial Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request came back claiming that such documents did not exist. ASMSU officials then told Rick Shafer, the Associate Director of Student Affairs, that they would not confirm any of his nominees for the Judicial Board until a working code was in place. A few months after the initial FOIA request, Shafer said the code did exist, and presented it to ASMSU officials. Student Assembly Chair Mike Leahy said the documents were decades old and on typewriter paper. The age of the documents and the fact that they couldn’t be readily found concerned ASMSU. ASMSU Attorney Brian Jefferies said that that fairness could not be ensured without a code. “It calls into question the fairness of the system. Each case could have been heard differently,” Jefferies said. “It’s a built-in inequity to the system” Eric Hinojosa, Chair of ASMSU’s Academic Assembly, said without using written procedures, the boards couldn’t keep continuity of justice over the years. “There is rapid turnover in the courts. Student representatives usually serve one year or maybe two,” said Hinojosa. “Except for the administrator and a few advisors, there are few people that stay long.” ASMSU officials worked during the semester and created a new code for the boards. ASMSU still had disagreements on some aspects of the code, but agreed to have confirmation hearings and work out the sticking points over the rest of the year. But when the judicial nominees were contacted ASMSU learned that, although Shafer had told them the courts weren’t running, the nominees had been hearing cases all semester. II. Illegitimate Courts When ASMSU spoke with five of the nominees for confirmation, every one of them said that they had not been told they needed to be appointed before hearing cases. Some of the nominees were up for reappointment and when they asked Shafer for appointments, he told them not to worry about it. ASMSU officials also found out that some students were being told they could take an administration hearing or wait until ASMSU approved the boards. Others were told they could have an immediate board hearing. ASMSU attorney Brian Jefferies questioned the procedure and even whether administrative hearings should have been offered before the Judicial Boards were operating. “Most people in that situation just want to get it over with,” said Jefferies. “You can make the argument that until confirmations were properly made by ASMSU, any hearing by the Judicial Boards or even administrative hearings are suspect.” When ASMSU confronted Shafer, he at first claimed that no one had been given the wrong information. He later left a voice message to Leahy, telling him that in one case a defendant was given the wrong information. “He said that he would shred the file personally,” Leahy said. Leahy said he immediately e-mailed Shafer to stop him from shredding the files and contacted Dr. Lee June, Vice President of Student Affairs and Services. “The files have not been shredded,” June confirmed when questioned. June said that an investigation was underway into the incident. Mike Leahy said that Shafer’s action were out of line. “Rick Shafer intentionally lied to circumvent the process that’s solely for the purpose to protect student rights, and when called out on it lied more, and tried to destroy records that recorded the wrongdoing,” Leahy said. Calls to Rick Shafer for comment were not returned. Calls and e-mails to Dr. Denise Maybank were also not returned. III. Student Privacy Rights Violated Another issue that arose from the unconfirmed courts was possible violations of the Federal Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). FERPA protects student records from public view, and only allows certain cases in which those documents can be shown. Without being confirmed by ASMSU, those sitting on the boards could not legally see the documents. “Almost certainly federal law FERPA protections were violated,” Leahy said. FERPA laws are in place for any university accepting federal funding, including financial aid. MSU lists confidential records as academic grades, disciplinary actions, police records, and psychological and medical records. ASMSU attorney Brian Jefferies said that Student Legal Services will listen to cases of students affected. He suggested students who had an administrative hearing or judicial hearing call 517-353-37116 and make an appointment. Questions or Comments? Contact Philip Rodney Moon at moonphil@msu.edu |
|
||