Judicial Board standards clarified

In response to Matt Gillum’s column (“Deans gone wild,” April 6), I think it is important to clarify that the University’s standard of evidence for a finding of responsibility for all allegations of undergraduate misconduct—including sexual assault—is “clear and convincing.”

While many universities use a lower burden of proof such as “preponderance of the evidence” (or “more likely than not”) and some use the criminal court standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt,” the “clear and convincing” confidence level enables us to protect the rights of accused students while allowing for the developmental and educational approach we take in our disciplinary process.

Members of the Undergraduate Judicial Board take their responsibilities very seriously and do not approach any decision of responsibility lightly. In sexual misconduct cases especially, hearing panelists carefully weigh the information presented and deliberate extensively in reaching their conclusion—a process that usually takes many, many hours.

To make a grand statement that the University is “satisfied with getting it right three quarters of the time” makes great fodder for a campus newspaper—but is offensive to those (including the students, faculty, and staff of the Undergraduate Judicial Board) who strive to effect a campus of integrity, responsibility, and respect for the rights of others.

Stephen Bryan

Associate Dean for Judicial Affairs