Perceptions that Iowa State’s judicial process lacked impartiality and due process have prompted changes in ISU Student Disciplinary Regulations.

Questions as to the fairness of the university process accumulated last year, centering on a case involving a campus bondage and sadomasochism group — Cuffs. The group was found responsible for disciplinary violations following a decision handed down by ISU Director of Judicial Affairs Bethany Schuttinga, who alone brought charges and investigated and decided the case.

Later, the group and student leaders began calling for stricter judicial oversight to combat potential bias, prompting discussion last spring among Government of the Student Body senators, the Office of Judicial Affairs and the Dean of Students Office.

After evaluating the Student Disciplinary Regulations, GSB and judicial affairs officials agreed to revisions during the summer, allowing the Office of Judicial Affairs administrator to refer cases deemed “minor” in nature to be heard by the All University Judiciary — a judicial hearing panel composed of students and faculty.

Previously, judicial affairs cases evaluated as being minor — that is, with less severe possible sanctions — were handled solely by the Office of Judicial Affairs administrator. No minor cases could be heard by the All University Judiciary, which only addressed major cases involving more serious sanctions.

“I think it gives the Office of Judicial Affairs another avenue to address judicial situations and provides a fair process which ultimately benefits students and student organizations,” said Schuttinga, assistant dean of students for judicial affairs.

“It avoids the perception or potential bias by decision-making entities. Both GSB, the Office of Judicial Affairs and the Dean of Students Office are very interested in a fair process.”

GSB leaders as well said they are happy with outcome of their conversations with judicial officials.

“Anything that would eliminate a conflict of interest, especially in a judicial process, is a good idea,” said GSB Vice President William Rock. “In a judicial case you want impartiality, as it’s a standard concept of due process.”

Regulations allow the director of judicial affairs to assume responsibility for any case and to determine which judicial decision-maker should hear the case. In minor cases, the director can decide the case should be heard by a Judicial Affairs administrative hearing — one he or she may administer. The process also allows for the director to investigate any case.

By combining these regulations, the judicial affairs administrator is able to investigate, prosecute and judge a single case, as occurred with Cuffs.

Although these policies haven’t changed, the new policy allows the Office of Judicial Affairs administrator the opportunity to send cases to an impartial hearing board when questions of bias arise. It will still be up to the discretion of the judicial administrator, however, to evaluate if there is a conflict of interest in a case.

Although there is still concentrated control in the hands of one person for minor cases in the judicial process, GSB leaders said they trust the process. Their goal is to do away with unfavorable appearances.

“Usually, this will just be a safety net. Even Cuffs was a unique case,” Rock said.

“I don’t think this is something we’ll have to pull out of the hat every year. If we have a conflict of interest popping up regularly — which I don’t think we will — then we have a bigger problem than not having those cases referred to the AUJ.”

He said none of the GSB justices on the All University Judiciary have had complaints with the way cases are handled.

Student Disciplinary Regulations allow accused students and groups to appeal and submit a written account of the incident and to make a statement in their defense.

In addition, students also have the right to the presence of an adviser; however, that person can only advise and cannot present any part of the case.

The university’s judicial process is separate and distinct from the court.

Congress has passed two key pieces of legislation holding campus judicial processes can be different from the normal court system — the Campus Security Act of 1990 and the Family and Educational Right to Privacy Act.

“Court cases have recognized that within a judicial system of an institution of higher education, college officials who are part of the process often wear multiple hats or perform multiple roles,” Schuttinga said in a previous Daily article.

Dean of Students Pete Englin has also previously said it’s a “misnomer” to compare the university’s judicial process to that of a court system.

“This is not a court system. It is a university administrative process … The misunderstanding comes from viewing the processes as identical and they’re not,” Englin said.

“This is an educational process, not a punitive one … it’s very much designed to be a collaborative process. That’s why it needs to be different.”