Editorial: Code of Conduct Revisions Sacrifice Right of Due Process

With changes to the Code of Conduct, UC Berkeley students facing hearings before the university will soon have severely limited resources to defend themselves in front of well-trained prosecutors.

Although the new conduct code might be shaped by an idealistic naivete on the university's part, the revisions are completely insidious and will prevent students from opening up conduct hearings to the public and being defended by either an attorney or the ASUC Student Advocate.

The university's justification for these changes is dubious: to make the process more instructive and less confrontational, "consistent with a civil and educational setting." But the decisions passed down during the hearings are very real and their consequences are long-lasting.

To suggest students have something to learn from defending themselves already assumes their guilt-as though the process has nothing to do with finding truth but instead should consist of students helplessly watching the tactics of university's full-time attorney argue the case against them.

In an attempt to level the playing field for all students charged with a conduct violation, the university included a new rule that no student can be defended by an attorney, preventing the rich students from receiving more privileges than the poorer ones. But the logic in this revision is flawed: the university should at least guarantee all students the right to be defended by the ASUC Student Advocate, whose services are available to all on campus.

While claiming to create a more balanced process, the administration has only deepened the gap between the prosecution and the defense-a horrifying reality for anyone faced with charges.

Based on the publicity surrounding many of the conduct hearings, the university's policy that requires students to request a public hearing five days before the scheduled date makes sense-allowing the university to adequately prepare for high-profile cases. But, according to the new policy, the administration does not have to grant consent to that request, making an already questionable process even more suspicious.

Based on outcry from students after the new code was released, the university promised to revisit it before finalizing it.

Perhaps they have no real plans of changing the policy and only hope to temporarily placate the numerous people who have cried out against the revisions. Or, perhaps the university now realizes how imbalanced and unjust the code is and recognizes the need for a change back to a code consistent with due process.

For the sake of anyone on campus accused of a conduct violation, let's hope for the latter.

Tags: