SGA Judicial Branch blame advisers for lack of cases handled this year

Despite Student Government Association President Duncan Kirkwood's appointments of students to serve on the SGA Judicial Branch, the justices have yet to hear one case.

Six associate justices and a chief justice were approved by two-thirds vote of the student senate, but according to Kirkwood, they are facing some major challenges with the university's administration.

"I'm happy with my appointments," Kirkwood said. "But it is their advisers, Mr. Drake in particular, that is shutting the judicial branch down and not allowing them to hear any cases. The justices are trying to win an uphill battle, which is very difficult."

The advisers that Kirkwood refers to are Associate Professor of Humanities Derryn Moten, PhD, and Assistant Vice President for Student Affairs Ricky Drake, both of who were appointed by the president of the university upon the recommendation of the Vice President for Student Affairs Charles Smith, EdD.

Chief Justice Alyssa Hayes believes that the advisers' decision not to assign the judiciary any cases is taking away from the authority that is stated in the constitution.

"If you're going to have a Judicial Branch you need to utilize it," Hayes said. "Mr. Drake will not allow us to hear any criminal cases because he doesn't want us to see the students' files. We are not concerned about files, all we care about and want to hear is both sides of the issue so we can make a ruling of recommended discipline."

Article VI, Section 4A3 of the constitution states that the Student Judicial Court shall have jurisdiction over "certain conflicts between students, student groups or organizations with exception or organizations that fall under the jurisdiction of the Pan-Hellenic Council."

Associate Justice Chris Parham agrees with Hays and believes students are being "placed in a box" once again by Drake's arbitrary decision.

"Other schools' judicial branches hear cases, everyday dealing with drugs, sexual assault, and guns but for some reason we are not allowed to," Parham said. "I could understand if he had said, I would rather you guys not hear hard criminal cases, but it is fine to hear academic dishonesty cases or other misdemeanors such as fighting or illegal weapons, but he has treated us as if we are children."

Moten knows that the justices are unhappy about the lack of duty.

"I think some of the justices thought they could adjudicate matters if a crime occurred on campus," Moten said. "If a crime occurs on campus it's a criminal offense so the Department of Public Safety and Student Affairs handles that. I know that some of the justices have complained to me, but I can't do anything about it."

He believes the justices have not been given the chance to sink their teeth into any real issues.

"I would say I am dissatisfied with what the justices have been allowed to do so far," Moten said. "You can only take up matters as they become available and we also have to remember that these justices are students foremost."

Associate Justice Stanley Giles believes the whole purpose of the judiciary is for students to be able to govern themselves.

"We have met several times with our advisers in hopes of convincing them that we are ready to hear cases," Giles said. "Even if we had to start off hearing some 'popcorn cases' that's fine, but we need to start somewhere."

He continued, "I feel more of a connection to Dr. Moten than I do to Mr. Drake. I believe certain administrators believe we shouldn't be informed of the cases that arise on campus, much less adjudicate them."

Officials at the U. S. Department of Education were contacted regarding the legality of students hearing disciplinary cases.

"FERPA (Federal Educational Rights and Privacy Act), which was known in the past as the Buckley Amendment does not prevent an institution from opening disciplinary proceedings to the public," said David A. Longanecker, an official with the Dept. of Education. "The Department of Education has formally declared that the law (FERPA) cannot be used to prevent public access to campus disciplinary hearings, even if the records of such hearing are off-limits. Now some universities will argue that if education records are discussed in a disciplinary proceeding, then FERPA requires the closure of the proceeding to avoid the release of the records. However, if that were true, any school that allowed any student to attend disciplinary proceedings, whether as witness or judge, would be violatng the law by their presence."

According to Longanecker, "any administrator or student officer who refuses to allow the public admittance to such hearing would be violating federal and some state laws and be liable for fines and attorney fees."

Kirkwood believes when the justices move past this hurdle, the task will be simple.

"We are going to have to sit down and iron this problem out," Kirkwood said. "Other universities across the country are allowing their judicial branches to hear cases. These are the kind of things that help students to prepare for the professional world of work, so the university should be promoting this activity, not stopping it. It is inevitable that we are going to have to sit down with Dr. Smith and bring closure to this matter."

Kirkwood believes that the justices have done everything that they could do, and now the decision is left to the administration.

"They are doing all they can do," he said. "They come together every week to study the constitution which I think is excellent. I am sure in the next few weeks someone will get disqualified from the elections and then they will have a case to rule on."

Regular sessions of the student judiciary court should be called by the chief justice no less than two times each semester, however, no meetings have been conducted this semester and Parham has a problem with this irregularity.