Some Student Code of Conduct violations will be subject to a new judiciary process in one on-campus residence area starting next semester. A student-led Judicial Council will hear alleged minor violations of the Student Code of Conduct due to the efforts of the InterResidence Hall Council. Currently, this judicial process is led by administrators.

“This is a radical change in discipline structure,” InterHall judiciary committee chairman Joshua Holt (SFS ’03) said. “The effect we’re looking for is a culture change, a change in the accountability of students. The intention is that students should be more conscious of the community.”

Describing the council as a comprehensive reflection of the student body able to hold students accountable, InterHall president Heath Carter (COL ’03), said that a council of four students able to adjudicate their peers would be more effective than an administrator.

“It’s powerful for students to say, `This is not right,'” Carter said. “Students are more impacted by peers than administrators. When an administrator says something is wrong, it’s easier to brush off, but when students do it, it has more of a social context.”

The judicial council, composed of three student members, one administrator and one student-at-large, will hear Category A violations of the code of conduct and Category B violations where the student has admitted responsibility. All members vote, with each vote cast weighing the same.

“The administrator is a voting member on the hearing councils, but his or her purpose besides casting a vote is to advise the students composing the council about what violations typically receive which sanctions and so on,” Holt said.

Category A offenses do not normally lead to disciplinary probation and 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. Category B infractions include damage, disorderly conduct, drug use, assault, theft and noncompliance with university rules and officials. The council will not hear first-time violations of the university alcohol policy.

“Extensive sanctioning powers means that hearing councils will have all of the same sanctioning powers as administrators do now,” Holt said. “The word extensive is used to imply this level of complete authority and legitimacy.”

While the council will have some sanctioning powers, it will not be able to suspend or dismiss a student. The council also cannot impose disciplinary probation, a punishment accompanied by a co-curricular sanction dictating that a student on disciplinary probation shall not, for a designated period of time, hold or run for any elected/selected position. A student punished with the sanction also cannot represent the university in any official activity and/or official capacity. Cases outside the test are will be referred to the Office of Student Conduct to be adjudicated according to the current process.

Currently, category A and B violations are adjudicated by an administrator, typically a hall coordinator or area coordinator, who meets personally with a student. The student-led council will replace this meeting with the administrator, assuming all authorities that the administrator currently holds.

“The change in the ratio of student to faculty for the Judicial Council will be a more powerful statement to students that the Judicial Council is a student body, not an administrative one, and that this means students are disapproving of the behavior for which the student facing the council has demonstrated,” Holt said. “Essentially, it is to change the judicial system such that students are holding their peers accountable, not administrators.”

The new council will select three seated members by an application process that will begin before Thanksgiving. Holt said the jurors will be drawn from a pool of applicants who will volunteer at the beginning of the semester.

“The juror functions so that people are still aware in the community of how we are holding each other accountable,” he said.

The council was approved by the Office of Student Affairs to be launched in the spring 2001 semester as a pilot project. Its success during that semester will be evaluated and the program will possibly be modified for university-wide implementation during the 2001-2002 academic year.

“The evaluation will be, `Are we hearing and adjucating cases efficiently?'” Holt said. The Office of Student Conduct meets with a student within 48 hours, and the theory is that the educational impact comes in that time. We’ll talk to the students who go through the process, and see if they are treated fairly, etc.”

According to Holt, Residence Life asked InterHall to investigate the disciplinary process to see if it could be partially turned over to students as it is at other colleges similar to Georgetown.

“This council is a student voice,” Holt said. “A lot of people seem worried that the body will be a tool of the administration, but that’s not what this has been designed to be. The administration has, in fact, been empowering us to form a body that does this.

“University administrators continue to engage in dialogue with students via the Inter Residence Hall Council about their proposal to initiate a Student Judicial Council,” Assistant Vice President for Communications Julie Green Bataille said. “The Offices of Student Affairs and Code of Conduct will continue to address this issue directly with students to determine if it can become a reality on campus.”