Improbable Cause
When accused of wrongdoing, Americans can take solace in one legal standard — that they are innocent until proven guilty. This standard isn’t in place in Georgetown’s disciplinary policies.
Under the university’s Code of Student Conduct, complaining parties must prove that a student has “more likely than not” violated the code. The code itself points out that this approach requires less certainty than that of the “beyond a reasonable doubt” norm used in U.S. courts.
If a student wishes to challenge an initial decision in an appeal hearing, he or she must provide “clear and convincing evidence” of his or her innocence.
The flimsy standard in the first round of the disciplinary process is unfair. It only increases paranoia among students if they can be found in violation of the code of conduct without breaking the rules, especially when they have insufficient evidence to defend themselves.
It also compromises students’ ability to trust university officials. The fear and worry associated with the fact that a student can potentially be punished for a violation for which he or she was not responsible does not foster a healthy relationship between students and administrators.
Students cannot justly be subjected to punishment merely because there is a 51 percent chance that they are guilty.
According to the Code of Student Conduct, the burden of proof in a given case rests on the complainant, who must provide substantial evidence proving the guilt of an accused party; the “more likely than not” standard shifts that burden onto the shoulders of the defendant, because he or she has to provide countervailing evidence of his or her innocence to overcome the accusations imposed upon him or her. As it stands, an innocent student who is charged with a noise violation, for example, will have a limited capacity to defend him or herself since it is unlikely he or she has concrete evidence that guarantees a 51 percent-plus likelihood of innocence.
Some could argue that any standard more stringent than “more likely than not” would be too difficult to put into practice at Georgetown, barring installing recording devices and noise detectors in dorm rooms and forcing students to take breathalyzer tests.
But justice is more important.
We aren’t arguing that students should be able to get away with rule-breaking, nor are we suggesting that disciplinary bodies be required to prove a student guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt.” We are merely suggesting that 51 percent certainty of guilt is not enough to sanction a student. The Election Commission would not call a Georgetown University Student Association election based on a 51 percent to 49 percent vote, so how can we justify sanctioning students based on the same standard?
The university should adopt the same standard for accusers in its initial disciplinary measures as it does for the accused in its appeals. According to the Code of Student Conduct, the “clear and convincing evidence” standard “requires more proof than the standard of ‘more likely than not’ but less than the criminal standard of ‘beyond a reasonable doubt.’” If accusers are held to this standard, innocent students would have a greater capacity to defend themselves, because the accuser would have to provide more proof of the student’s guilt than the “more likely than not” standard. The current policy makes it close to impossible for students to defend themselves. Adopting this standard — and a hearing process along with it — would more greatly favor the accused, as in criminal trials, without putting an impossible burden on the accuser.
The Office of Student Conduct should adopt our suggested alternative in the interest of keeping student disciplinary measures a reasonable and accessible process. Until then, the status quo for disciplinary hearings is unlikely to ensure fairness for students.
To send a letter to the editor on a recent campus issue or Hoya story or a viewpoint on any topic, contact opinion@thehoya.com. Letters should not exceed 300 words, and viewpoints should be between 600 to 800 words.
Oct 16 2009 at 1:52 p.m.
I suggest that you go to law school. The "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard is only used in criminal court cases while the "more probable than not" standard is the norm in every other civil proceeding. I don't assume that the school is deciding on situations of murder, etc. so it seems likely that for the usual problems of vandalism, drinking, and plagiarism that are more likely to be addressed, the school is proper in its standard. 51% is a fair standard and I assume in cases where it comes down to that balance that the school will be more likely to err on the side of reasonable punishment instead of imposing a stricter liability. I really don't understand what your point is or what you are trying to condemn with this opinion. Perhaps if you give some examples of what types of situations have gone on in the past that would prove this standard of the disciplinary board unjustifiable, it would make more sense.
Oct 16 2009 at 11:12 p.m.
The other standard used in court is actually "beyond a preponderance of the evidence" which is significantly different than "more probable than not"
Oct 18 2009 at 9:14 a.m.
Excellent, excellent article, Ed Board. I was really happy to open your webpage this afternoon (it is afternoon here in Jordan at the moment) and find an article about this - I don't know if you'll remember, but a few of us from the GUSA Senate two years ago worked on this very issue and changing this very standard.
It never went anywhere, as "important" things like the alcohol policy change overshadowed it at the time, but this issue is critical. If only there were more editorials and student complaints about it - and your guys' proposed solution is really a great one.
Is there any way whoever wrote this might be willing to talk more about it, even perhaps to the degree of bringing it more directly to administrators' attention? It's something I've been hoping GUSA would get back to since 2007, but as we know, an outside group can be just as effective in getting stuff like this changed (remember the LGBTQ resource center?).
Anyway, I'd love to talk with whoever wrote this editorial. Perhaps my favorite Hoya piece since I started at g-town. My email address is mjwagner@gmail.com if anybody is actually inclined to go into some more detail about what's been done on the issue, how the administration responded, what the next step could be... etc.
All the best from a Hoya-addicted student abroad,
Matt
(GUSA Senator for the past two years, and currently in Amman, Jordan until 2nd semester)
Also, as an afterthought, what's the process for trying to get a spot on your ed board?
Oct 19 2009 at 12:16 p.m.
Devil's advocate:
Although the University might not ascribe to "innocent until proven guilty" and "beyond a reasonable doubt," there are some special benefits from the current system.
Most students get the equivalent of a slap on the wrist. Although people may be adjudicated, from most of the cases seen, little to nothing was meted out in the way of punishment.
Second, what happens in Gtown stays in Gtown. There are so many instances where students' violation probably violated criminal law but never were reported to the DC authorities. So much is swept under the rug.
Fair? probably not. But don't complain that the university is going on hard the students with assuming they're guilty when they mostly get off with a slap on the wrist
Oct 19 2009 at 1:38 p.m.
To Ed. Board and Matt--
Why does a 51% burden preclude an "innocent" student from disproving an alleged noise violation? Georgetown officials and judicial bodies are not out "to get" students. Couldn't the student be found not responsible just by explaining what happened in hopes that the hall director or student panel took his/her word for it?
In my opinion, if a student is involved in an incident for which an RA files a report, then sure, put the burden on the student to disprove the allegation. An RA's report alone does not mean a student is responsible for the violation. If it did, there would be no need to meet with a Hall Director or judicial panel. Yes, an RA's report might catch a few too many fish in the net, but there is a system in place for a student to argue that this was the case. (There is also an appeals system in place should a student think a Hall Director treated him/her unfairly or did not consider his/her version of the story).
Under your "beyond a reasonable doubt" criteria, no student in a dorm would ever be found responsible for a noise violation. Doubt exists all over in dorms--one would only have to raise the possibility that the loud noise the RA heard in the hall on a Friday night came from another room or was the combination of 3 different rooms' noise.
Dec 07 2009 at 4:38 a.m.
Ryan-
One simple question addresses your point. What would happen if a student really did get written up because his room's permissible level of noise combined with those of two other rooms and got him written up? Or if the noise really did come from another room?
Under the current system, this student would most certainly be found responsible because the RA's report of the student's violation and the unrefuted claim that noise was present in the hallway inherently constitute more than a 50% likelihood that the student is in fact guilty. In other words, the Residential Judicial Council would be presented with a choice between implicating the accused as a liar or implicating the RA as a liar, since there is no evidence beyond the words of those two parties.
Whose word do you think the RJC or a hall director would credit more heavily, especially given the thought that "the Ra must have had a reason to write them up?"