The Residential Judicial Council, a student-run disciplinary body, has been discontinued for the academic year in an attempt to improve its inner workings and to provide more leadership opportunities for participating students, according to Office of Residence Life Associate Director Ed Gilhool, who served as adviser for the program last year.
“Although we have heard a couple [of] concerns [about the hiatus], overall the involved students saw this as a valuable opportunity,” Gilhool said in an email.
But in the absence of a peer-run board like RJC, some students feel their voice in disciplinary issues is being silenced.
“I think it is kind of disappointing that there is a lack of voice for the students,” Anna Highberger (COL ’13) said.
Tyler Holl (COL ’13), a member of the Honor Council, is disappointed in the lack of perspective without a group of students overseeing the types of disciplinary issues RJC RJC heard Class A violations of the Code of Student Conduct, which include defacement, disorderly conduct, minor drug offenses, ID card offenses, noise violations, violation of the guest and party registration policies, failure to meet deadlines of any disciplinary sanction and other infractions generally associated with housing rules.
The council also heard some Class B violations in which the student accepted responsibility for the offense. The Office of Student Conduct deals with more serious Class B and C violations.
“It’s very important to have peers judging peers. . We have a different perspective as youth. It is good to have a dual perspective when there are both students and adults [overseeing these matters],” Holl said.
“I think it’d be one thing if they emailed the student body, but I never heard about it, and that’s really upsetting.”
The Residential Judicial Council launched during the 1999-2000 academic year as a way to foster responsibility and accountability by decreasing friction between the student body and the administration, according to the Residence Life website. Their mission professes a forum for students to appear before peers instead of an administrative hearing officer.
“The reason for the temporary hiatus is two-fold. First, RJC has never undergone a review and based on feedback from past members, it is clear there are opportunities to improve its structure and role in the student conduct process. Also, coming into this year, membership was low,” Gilhool said.
In the past, the council consisted of one student chair, three permanent representatives and one administrator, usually a hall director. RJC in the past worked as a full council for four nights a week.
“Coming into this semester, membership was such that we could not operate one full council night. In addition, no involved students expressed interest in the RJC administrator position – the student who recruits and trains all members, schedules all of the meetings and manages the overall operation of the organization,” Gilhool said.
“With low membership numbers and an absence of an administrator, combined with the desire to review the current program, the decision was made to take a year to evaluate and develop a strategic plan for the organization.”
Gilhool said he has met with students who are interested in overhauling the program.
The Office of Residence Life said that it hopes to bring back the council next fall with a focus on bringing students more into the conduct process.
Nevertheless, the program is not in effect this year.
“Students that came before the RJC could at least expect a judgment from individuals facing similar pressures, living situations, and demands on their time,” Shea Houlihan (SFS ’13) said. “RJC lent empathetic understanding to rulings. It also called on students to be accountable and `own’ their living spaces – that is a level of personal investment that Georgetown could use more of.”
