Practices, Opinions, Knowledge, and Recommendations from Judicial Officers in Public Higher Education

Abstract

This article reports the results of a national study examining the perceptions, opinions, and level of knowledge of judicial ofice~s~egarding student rights and judicial systems in public highe~education. In addition, student-institutional theories and doctrines aye examined, and recommendations from judicial ofice~s fo~fitu~e practice are discussed.me legal relationship between students and the pubtic higher educational institutions they attend continues to shift and change. me courts have failed to communicate a consistent, clear approach to guide higher education administrators in fiis important area. Greene (1969) wrote fiat the failure of the United States Supreme Court to articulate a clear code and standard regarding student rights "means that a student can receive substantia~y different results in a case involving similar facts and issues depending upon in which jurisdiction the suit is brought" (p. 498). Szablewicz and Gibbs (1987) characterized the directions concerning student rights that the courts and Iegislatires have given to those working in higher education as erratic, broad, and ambiguous. me evolving nature of case law and the murky definition 'of tie level of procedural due process provided to students by the courts make it imperative fiat college

Arrested emotional development: male college students' experiences with a campus judicial process

“…As highlighted by Mercer (1996), judicial affairs has emerged in part to protect the rights of both students and institutions in processes designed to enforce campus policies and procedures. However, some professionals (e.g., Bostic & Gonzalez, 1999;Dannells, 1997;Gehring, 2001;Steele, Johnson, & Rickard, 1984) have argued that this legalistic language and focus complicates the campus judicial process. As mentioned previously, students may perceive this complicated legal process as adversarial.…”

“…In a study conducted by Steele, Johnson, and Rickard (1984), they concluded that those representing institutions of higher education expressed concern that campus judicial systems had become overly legalistic. Bostic and Gonzalez (1999) reported that the respondents of a survey of 541 judicial officers recommended more developmental and less legalistic judicial models as beneficial and desired. Bostic and Gonzalez (1999) also concluded that, "This concern has not been mitigated by the developments of the past decade and remains the primary concern of today's judicial officers" (p. 180).…”

“…Bostic and Gonzalez (1999) reported that the respondents of a survey of 541 judicial officers recommended more developmental and less legalistic judicial models as beneficial and desired. Bostic and Gonzalez (1999) also concluded that, "This concern has not been mitigated by the developments of the past decade and remains the primary concern of today's judicial officers" (p. 180). Gehring (2001) stated, "The disciplinary process on campuses has been too procedural and mirrors an adversarial proceeding that precludes student development" (p. 466).…”

“…Despite the high incidence of "legal-speak," there was also evidence in the examined documents of a move toward a more educational and less legalistic However, if student judicial processes and systems are to become more educational and developmental, some professionals have argued that less legalistic language and processes would be beneficial (e.g., Bostic & Gonzalez, 1999;Steele, Johnson, & Rickard, 1984). A challenge for institutions is to develop judicial processes and systems that protect the rights of those involved without wholesale adoption of legalistic processes, procedures, and language for addressing student conduct code violations.…”

“…With the competing legal, developmental, and empathetic philosophies, students may become confused regarding the trustworthiness and the genuine purpose and motives of judicial systems and processes. Perhaps this is why several researchers and scholars have suggested that judicial programs and services move away from legalistic language and processes to a more developmental philosophy and process (e.g., Bostic & Gonzalez, 1999;Dannells, 1997;Steele, Johnson, & Rickard, 1984). It would behoove judicial affairs professionals to explore how both the legal requirements and the desire for developmental and empathetic process could be married in practices that afford students both freedom and opportunities for learning from behavior.…”