KOI ANUNTA/YH

Laying down the law: a look at ExComm

It was a regular Saturday night. Marc Hoffman, ES '00, was at a party in Davenport College with his friends when a group of Yale Police Department (YPD) officers stormed in to break it up. Disturbed by what they saw as the officers' belligerence, Hoffman and a friend started protesting their alleged rough treatment and became involved in a confrontation with the officers. A couple of days later, he experienced a Yalie's worst nightmare. Hoffman received a letter stating that the University had brought charges against him and that he was to appear before the Executive Committee (ExComm), the disciplinary body of Yale College.

Though most undergraduates do not have an in-depth understanding of the powers and procedures of the committee, the mere mention of ExComm inspires images of an intimidating, unsympathetic group of stodgy administrators. "It's a body that is seen as a scary, mysterious group that expels people right and left," Andrew Collinson, PC '99, a former student member of ExComm, said. Stephen,* another former student member of ExComm, insists that though the committee makes every effort to be fair, it can't afford to go easy on students who have violated the Yale College Undergraduate Regulations. "[The hearing] should not be a nice little walk-in. Somebody's been charged with something pretty serious and the University is making a statement that this behavior is not acceptable."

The 10 person committee, consisting of three tenured faculty, three untenured faculty, three undergraduates, and the Dean of Yale College or his representative, makes a statement every year on a number of cases concerning students' actions outside the classroom. In addition to dealing with the mundane charges of plagiarism and cheating that are made by professors, the body adjudicates on a range of non-academic violations ranging from the falsification of student IDs to sexual assault. Last year, alleged non-academic violations of the Undergraduate Regulations constituted 33 of the total 50 cases heard by ExComm, and the year before that 22 of 44 cases were non-academic in nature.

Though the number of non-academic violations that are committed every year usually number between 20 and 40, according to ExComm Secretary Jill Cutler, 95 percent of the cases are not dealt with by the full ExComm. Most accused students opt to skip the hassle of a hearing to get directly to the penalty phase with the Coordinating Committee, which consists of just three members of ExComm. Many of these cases, such as the distribution of alcohol to an underage student, are clear-cut violations that are specifically addressed by the Undergraduate Regulations, carrying penalties ranging from a reprimand to suspension from the College, depending on the mitigating and aggravating factors.

Functioning on rules and procedures that have remained relatively unchanged for 25 years, ExComm now finds itself struggling to resolve a wider spectrum of cases than in years past.

The toughest calls

COURTESY OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS Professor Rogers Smith advocates a separate subcommittee for non-academic violations.

The cases that pose by far the most difficult challenge to ExComm, and which are usually heard by the full committee, are those involving allegations of sexual or racially motivated assault or harassment. Though such cases occurred at most once or twice a year in recent times, according to former ExComm Chair Rogers Smith, a professor of political science, they still cause the greatest confusion for the committee. "[ExComm members] don't know a lot about these types of cases, especially faculty members. Many are just chosen because they are known by the Dean as fair-minded people who represent a range of disciplinary expertise," he said. "The evidence is looser than in other types of cases."

Because such assault cases tend to be emotionally charged, there are separate procedures for filing and holding hearings on complaints of this nature, including allowing an accuser to testify without the alleged attacker in the room. In 1996, the faculty amended the sexual harassment grievance policy to allow a complainant to withdraw the charge up until the day of the hearing, giving him or her more control over the process. As to why these distinctions were

made, Cutler, who has served on the committee for five years, explained, "In other cases, the complaint is born out on paper [by a professor or an official]. These are the only types of cases where the perceptions of the complainant and the accused both matter and have weight." To aid the committee in its deliberations, an expert on sexual harassment and assault issues is brought in to provide insight on the subject involved.

After his experience as chair, what Smith still finds disturbing is that these cases, the most sensitive and detrimental to students, are the ones that play on the main weakness of ExComm—the fact that nothing can prepare a new member for the experience of making such important decisions. "The first time ExComm meets to discuss any case, they can read rules or hear about the past, but they are still a bit at sea about what the rules are and how to handle the case at hand," he said. "Sometimes the first case is a case involving an explosive non-academic issue. The source of my concern is that [ExComm members] are inexperienced with that decision-making process." Collinson agreed, "What can really prepare you for sitting in judgment of your peers?"

Smith pointed out that most members of ExComm, except for the chair, the secretary, and the Dean's designate, are serving on it for the first time, and even then will be a member for just one term. He believes that if more members served multiple terms, ExComm would have an easier time exploring serious issues that are without precedent, and even made a recommendation to this effect when he finished his term as chair. "A lot of people don't have direct experiences with sexual and racial assault and don't feel comfortable dealing with them," he said. "I thought it would be better if we had some continuity so we have people on the committee who have had experience dealing with these cases in the past." But Smith and Cutler both agree that the problem with instituting such a policy is that few people are willing to dedicate more than one year to the time-consuming work of the committee.

Yale College Dean Richard Brodhead, BR '68, GRD '72, believes that though experience is important in the committee, only so much can be expected from the members of ExComm. "Every year we work to achieve as much continuity as we can on the committee, and in making judgments in difficult areas, experience helps," he said. "At the same time, we do not aim to have a group of professional disciplinarians. Our understanding is that all wise members of this community are competent to do the work of judgment."

A jury of your peers?

In addition to past experience on ExComm, the perspective provided by the three student committee members is a valuable asset when deciphering many of the more complex non-academic violations cases. "[Student members] often make it clear what the norms and customs of student life are in the context of that case," Smith said. "Sometimes committee members interpret the behavior of students involved in a way different than other students would."

Some undergraduates believe that the student representatives on the committee, who are interviewed by members of the Yale College Council (YCC) and appointed by Brodhead, don't represent the diversity of the student population—a characteristic which would make it easier to understand the lives of all students, from athletes to actors. Collinson said a common complaint he heard while he was an undergraduate was that the YCC had a tendency to choose one of their own to serve on the committee. This complaint is justifiable—Stephen was on YCC for three years, Collinson was a YCC representative and served on two standing committees before serving on ExComm, and current ExComm member Jim DiTullio, JE '01, is a former YCC representative and a former chair of the Spring Fling organizing committee.

CAYTE PUSHKAREVA/YH The members of ExComm make life-changing decisions at this table in SSS 414.

However, Collinson insists that there really isn't a better method by which students can choose who will represent them on the committee. "This selection process was given to the YCC in the first place since the Administration and the faculty don't know the student body as well as the students themselves," he said. "Students who are interviewing each other have a feel for who they want to have representing them." Stephen believes it's only natural that many YCC members would be chosen to serve because "people who'd usually be good on YCC would be good on standing committees."

Brodhead believes that the most important quality to look for when picking students to serve on ExComm isn't a diversity of interests, but sound judgment. "We choose students for their general judgment and wisdom, and not their representation of particular scenes or subcultures," he said. "If there were strong sentiment in favor of some other selection process, I suppose we would consider it."

Who has the power?

Universities such as Harvard and Stanford have radically different philosophies on the importance of student involvement in undergraduate disciplinary proceedings. At one end of the spectrum is Harvard University's Administrative Board, a 100-year-old massive 30-person committee consisting of the senior tutors in each house and members of the administration and faculty, which has remained nearly unchanged in structure throughout its existence. Harvard's Board completely lacks a student voice.

Thurston Smith, secretary of the Administrative Board, believes that the student perspective would do more damage than good when deciding on serious non-academic matters. "My colleagues across the country say that when students serve on disciplinary committees, they are harder on one another than faculty members," he said. "Students may have a great deal of perspective on what it's like to be a student, but they do not have a great deal of perspective on what it's like to watch students go through four years of undergraduate education year after year. There is value in experience and these are very serious matters that determine people's whole futures."

But Professor Smith, who served as a resident tutor in a Harvard College house before coming to Yale, and was part of the committee that came up with the structure and procedures for ExComm, believes the Board constitutes a poor system of judgment. "I do not think the Administrative Board is preferable to our system, because it is done in a way that has fewer procedural safeguards for students," he said. "I think the potential for administrators to decide what they want to do prevails there."

It is the opposite at Stanford University, however, where students abide by an honor code and undergraduate disciplinary cases are heard by a six-member judicial panel consisting of four students and two faculty or University administrators, with a student serving as chair. Cutler thought that this was a situation in which students' tendencies to pass harsher disciplinary decisions than faculty, particularly on non-academic matters, would run rampant. Stephen believes that disciplinary systems involving student majorities "tend to lose some degree of credibility. In the end, the ultimate authority of the University is drawn from the Administration and the faculty."

Under pressure

Another potentially troubling ExComm policy involves the decision-making process. Though it isn't specifically mandated in the Undergraduate Regulations, the committee traditionally doesn't disband following a hearing until a final decision is made. This creates a risky situation when the committee is deliberating on more complicated, "gray area" cases such as sexual assault. If members are debating for hours about a case and become fatigued, there is the potential that they may just give in to get the majority vote needed to wrap up the case and go home.

Professor Smith admitted that he worried about this issue as chair, but felt it was more humane and practical to make a decision on the same day. "I basically agree, but it is debatable, that once you begin breaking that pattern you open the door to dragging out cases that are emotionally charged," he said. Collinson added, "It's also dangerous to leave those closed doors...[The decision is made] in one sitting so people aren't bullied, the decisions aren't tainted and facts don't become fuzzy." Current ExComm chair and American Studies Professor Jean-Christophe Agnew said that chairs would never allow the committee to sacrifice justice for a quick conclusion. "If the chair felt that the length of a particular proceeding was about to jeopardize its fairness, I cannot imagine that they would not interrupt the process rather than reach a premature conclusion."

Finding a better way

As the nature of the non-academic violations being committed by undergraduates evolves and increasingly tests the decision-making abilities of ExComm, members of the faculty and the Administration realize that significant changes need to be made in the way justice is administered in Yale College. The difficult part is determining whether an innovation will produce fairer decisions.

When he finished his term as chair of ExComm, Professor Smith proposed creating a subcommittee to deal specifically with non-academic violations, with members serving two-year terms. He said the proposal was struck down by the Administration, which "felt there was value in having all the cases be heard by one committee so there would be a rough parity between the penalties in non-academic and academic cases." But Professor Smith doesn't buy that argument and is still a firm advocate of the idea of creating a subcommittee. "I don't find that persuasive, because we have one U.S. Constitution, but we have different courts to deal with different types of cases," he said. "I think it is the type of question that needs to be revisited from time to time."

Cutler agrees with the Administration's view on the matter, claiming an ExComm subcommittee would only create more of a bureaucracy, but she admits that changes need to be made, especially in the committee's handling of sexual and racial assault cases. But change will take lots of time and evaluation. "[The Administration] is aware of the necessity of constantly re-examining what we're doing and think about ways to change it, and these decisions are arrived at in consultation with the University Counsel," she said. "The Executive Committee has to move with the times and be responsive to people's needs."

*Names have been changed to protect anonymity.

Back to News...