UA Codes and Judicial Committee

The following comparative report of several universities was requested by the Codes and Judicial Committee and prepared by the Office of the Assemblies.

Location of the judicial administrator or analogous position

UPenn

Office of Student Conduct, reporting directly to Provost

Dartmouth

Undergraduate Judicial Affairs Office, reporting to the Dean of the College (seems analogous to VP SAS)

UMich

Office of Student Conflict Resolution, in Division of Student Affairs

Stanford

Office of Judicial Affairs, reports to Dean of Students

Berkeley

Student Judicial Affairs, in Student Affairs reporting to Dean of Students

Brown

Office of Student Life, with Dean of Campus Life or designee in OSL deciding on disposition

Binghamton

Office of Judicial Affairs, in Division of Student Affairs

PSU

Office of Judicial Affairs, in Student Affairs

Applicability

UPenn

Students

Dartmouth

Students

UMich

Students

Stanford

Students

Berkeley

Students

Brown

Students

Binghamton

Students

PSU

Students

Amendment

UPenn

Proposals from numerous campus community groups, judicial hearing pools, Provost; Approval by Council of Deans

Dartmouth

?

UMich

Proposals from campus governments or administration; Student Relations Committee of SACUA reviews and forwards to President for approval

Stanford

Administrative process for amendment written into code

Berkeley

Proposals from anyone; Administrative process for review and implementation with community feedback incorporated

Brown

Administrative process with approval by President

Binghamton

Proposals from committee of Binghamton Council; Approval by full council; Annual process

PSU

Proposals from Judicial Affairs Advisory Board, administration; Administrative process with approval at Vice President of Student Affairs level

Self-incrimination

UPenn

“are obligated to provide honest and complete statements to the OSC and to the Hearing Panel… fails to.. cooperate with the investigation conduucted by the OSC may be charged with a violation of the Student Code of Conduct.”

Dartmouth

“all members are expected to cooperate fully and truthfully… including participating in hearings as witnesses.”

UMich

Stated right to remain silent.

Stanford

“right not to self-incriminate”

Berkeley

Not required to participate in hearings. “no person is required to testify against him or herself in any disciplinary proceeding.”

Brown

Students must cooperate with inquiries but may refrain from providing information that is self-incriminating.

Binghamton

Right to remain stated as such (verbal conversation with Director of Judicial Affairs office)

PSU

Student may not be compelled to testify again his or herself.