The reforms for Student Judicial Affairs recently passed by the Student Government Association are needed and should be implemented as soon as possible.
    The reforms, proposed by Senators Ian A. Mance, H. Dustin Bayard, and Paul A. Funderburk, would include a higher standard of evidence required at judicial affairs hearings, allowing a student representative to address the judicial board and require that the board’s decision on the case be unanimous.
    It is a relief to see SGA finally try to implement meaningful campus-based legislation, something that will help the student body as a whole.
    Karla P. Rusch, assistant director of judicial affairs, has stated some objections to the reforms, saying that they would make the process closer to a courtroom instead of an informal proceeding meant to educate a student.
    We must disagree. Any board that can give a student fines, suspensions, or even expulsion, is punitive as well as educational. Making proceedings on such important matters “informal” only serves to give less assurance that a student’s rights are being protected.
    While Rusch did make the point that standards of due process are more strict in an actual court room because the punishments are harsher, this legislation is not asking for the standards to be the same as an actual courtroom. The new standard of “clear and convincing evidence” is not the same as “beyond a reasonable doubt,” but it does serve to give students that much more assurance that the board must give overwhelming proof that a student has violated the code of conduct before penalizing them.
    Frankly, we do not see much harm in most of the reforms. What would it hurt to let the advocate a student brings address the board on the their behalf? To make sure that their standard of evidence is more than a “probability the student committed the crime?” To present such a case that no member of the board feels any reservations about their decision?
    The only consequence would be that the board would have to work hard to prove their case against a student, which they should be doing anyway.
    SGA senators like Justin W. Moore, who stated some reservations about the legislation acknowledged “I think everyone has a judicial affairs story.”
    Why do they? Students should have the maximum possible assurance that their rights will be protected.
    It may be possible for administrators to view the purpose of the board as purely educational.
    For the student, working toward a degree, who faces the possibility of expulsion or suspension for something they may not have done, the consequences are seen as far more severe.
    If the university believes that such life-changing consequences are needed, it had better prove its case. These reforms are a step in that direction.