Student Judiciary

The Student Judiciary is a panel composed of sixteen students elected by the student body from among nominees of the Student Government Association (see also Article IX of the Student Government Association Constitution). Incidents of violation of College policy or other misconduct on and in some cases off the campus are heard by this panel when responsibility and/or sanctioning are in question. A separate process from that of the Student Judiciary hearing exists for on-campus judicial action related to sexual assault. (See Sexual Assault Policy in the section on Risk Management Policies of this Handbook.)

The panel’s purpose is to determine responsibility or lack of responsibility and to recommend sanctions for student offenses that are brought before it. For cases in which an individual or group admits responsibility in a particular situation, it is typical that the matter will be handled by the Dean of Student Life or the Associate Dean of the College with the agreement of all parties directly involved. The students who serve on the Student Judiciary for the 2022-2023 academic year are:  Ben Scott (Chair), Weston Brown (Secretary), Emma Ridener, Imani Smith, Joey Johnson, Makena McMurtrey, Phoenix Staten (seniors); Temi Haastrup, Catherine Cox, Roxana Popa, Hailey Finch, Roma Desai, Erin O'Leary, Sarah Foropoulos, Andrew Huff (juniors).

The Student Judiciary at Centre has three purposes or functions. First, wherever possible, it is to determine whether the accused party is responsible or not. (The accused, of course, is always considered not responsible until proven responsible.) Second, when responsibility has been admitted or has been determined, the judiciary, at the request of the appropriate Dean, is to recommend the sanctions for the violation. Some of the sanctions are fairly standard, but the circumstances of each case may cause the sanctions to vary in severity. The judiciary has the right to recommend the suspension or expulsion of students. Third, the judiciary is also a body, which can function as a sounding board or a hearing place for students, administrators, or members of the faculty. Acting as such, the judiciary may provide guidance, when behavior is questioned, about what is appropriate and acceptable behavior in the community. If something or someone is being abused, the judiciary may be requested to provide advice and suggestions in dealing with the situation.

The Student Judiciary at Centre is the students’ judiciary. It is not a court of law. Although students have the right to the advice of another individual from among students, faculty and administrators at Centre College, there are no lawyers involved. The idea of the Student Judiciary is for its members to gather as much information as possible about the situation in question in order to make an informed decision. Only by learning what really happened can the judiciary deal justly and fairly with alleged offenders.

Student Judiciary will also designate one person each year to serve as judiciary advisor to the accused. The advisor, chosen from among the Centre community, will be eligible to sit in on hearings to become acquainted with procedures and practice even if the hearing is closed.

The accused is not responsible until proven responsible, but determining whether behavior was inappropriate and whether it needs to be corrected is most important. Using technicalities to incriminate someone or to avoid sanctions is out of keeping with the purpose of the judicial system.

A student who is being cited for either an academic or a social offense is given a copy of the following rights to a fair process in advance of the hearing. He or she then signs a statement indicating understanding of these rights.

1. Citations shall be issued at least 48 hours prior to the judicial hearing, although the student may waive the time limit to have a more immediate hearing.
2. The accused party and the person(s) bringing the charge shall have the right to obtain the assistance of an advisor from anyone chosen from among students, faculty, and administrators at Centre College. The official judiciary advisor will be designated by Student Judiciary early in the year to serve in an advisory capacity to the accused party if the accused party so wishes. Furthermore, the accused party and the person(s) bringing the charges shall have the right to hear all of the testimony, to call witnesses, to cross-examine witnesses, and to produce evidence.
3. Persons who testify at a hearing, except for the accused and the persons bringing the charge, cannot be present for testimony other than their own.
4. No person can be required to give testimony that would incriminate him or herself.
5. Only the accused may decide to permit the presence of spectators at a hearing. The accused will be asked if he/she wants the hearing to be open or closed. If the hearing is declared by the accused to be open, spectators may attend. The chair of the judiciary can remove spectators from the hearing should they be unruly. If a large group appears at an open hearing, the chair of the judiciary has the right to ask that representatives of the group be chosen to stay so that the hearing is not impeded. Spectators are not allowed to speak, to record, or participate in the hearing in any way.

During judicial hearings, witnesses may be presented but witnesses cannot be subpoenaed. Students and the College do not have the machinery, the time, or the skill for technical investigations and research, as in the legal court system. The Student Judiciary must depend upon what people say for its information, and it can only assume that what people say is truthful. In this student judicial system, all parties concerned must live by the judiciary’s decision (or, if the appeals process is used, by the decision of the review board). Non-compliance will result in an automatic recall to the Student Judiciary. It is clearly the hope and objective of the student judicial system that all considerations and decisions made by the judiciary will make Centre a better, more orderly, and safer place to live and grow.

As a general practice, the Dean of Student Life presents cases of infractions of social regulations and policies and the Associate Dean of the College presents infractions of an academic nature to the Judiciary. At the time the case is presented to the Judiciary, the accused is asked to plead responsible or not responsible to the charge. Next the Dean, in the presence of the student, describes the nature of the offense. The latter is then asked whether he/she agrees with the presentation. The student is afforded an opportunity to present his/her side of the case and any circumstances he/she believes to be mitigating. The student may call any witnesses on his/her behalf, and may cross-examine any witness presented by the Dean.

Either or both parties in the dispute may make a closing statement. The Student Judiciary then enters upon its private deliberations. All of the proceedings, except the private deliberations, are recorded for the benefit of the review board and the student in case the student chooses to appeal the decision.

Appeals of Judicial Decisions

1. The accused may appeal the decision of the Judiciary to the board of review, through the office of the Dean of the College, in writing, with reasons specified, within 48 hours of the Student Judiciary’s decision. If the student does not appeal within this time frame the recommendation of the Student Judiciary stands.
2. The only grounds of appeal are if the accused believes that a) proper procedures were not followed, b) he/she received inordinate punishment, or c) he/she did not receive a fair hearing. The board will not rehear the case or hear any new evidence. If new evidence has come to light that could materially affect the decision, the case shall be sent back to the Student Judiciary.
3. The proceedings before the Student Judiciary will be recorded. This recording is available to the accused the next day in the office of the Dean of the College. The accused cannot copy or remove the recording from the Dean’s office.
4. The review board consists of a member of the judiciary who did not sit in on the hearing, and who serves as chair, the Dean of the College, plus one other Dean who was not involved in the hearing.
5. Decisions in such appeals are reached by consensus rather than majority vote thus allowing the student chairperson to play a dominant role. Failure to reach a consensus results in the case being referred to the President for a final decision.

Refer to the Policy Violations in the Risk Management Policies section of this Handbook for possible minimum fines.