The appearance of an ISU official being allowed to play judge, jury and sentencer has some groups debating possible partiality in the university’s judicial system — a system ISU administrators contend is fair.

Groups on campus argue the ruling from a hearing on Cuffs, a bondage club, shows a lack of impartiality does exist. Director for Judicial Affairs Bethany Schuttinga investigated the case, prosecuted Cuffs and administered the group’s hearing.

Government of the Student Body senators have been the most outspoken on Cuffs behalf.

“The problem in this case is … the process itself is not in accordance with the Constitution of the United States,” said Cara Harris, a GSB off-campus senator and senior in liberal studies, in an e-mail sent to GSB senators and the Daily. “[Cuffs] rights under the law were removed due to the university’s own policy.”

According to ISU Student Disciplinary Regulations, the Office of Judicial Affairs administrator can assume responsibility for any case and has the authority to determine who should hear a case. In minor cases, such as Cuffs, the administrator can determine that the case should be heard by a Judicial Affairs administrative hearing — one he or she would administer.

Regulations allow the administrator to initiate an investigation even without a complaint if he or she becomes aware of possible conduct violations. Combining these provisions allows the person to investigate, prosecute and judge a single case.

“It’s basic separation of powers and due process that’s lacking in the university’s policy,” said Dan Christenson, a GSB Graduate Student senator and graduate student in political science.

By acting as both accuser and judge, Christenson said, the university fails to meet the legal principles of impartiality and an independent judiciary.

“For Cuffs to have been found innocent, Ms. Schuttinga would have had to convince herself the charges she filed were wrong,” he said.

In an e-mail message, Schuttinga said she did not have a bias when investigating, charging and issuing a decision in the Cuffs case. She said she made a decision based on being open to listening to the evidence provided.

Congress has passed two key pieces of legislation holding that campus judicial processes can be different from the court system, the Campus Security Act of 1990 and the Family and Educational Rights and Privacy Act, or FERPA.

“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 the e-mail. “The courts have recognized this is unavoidable and appropriate.”

Dean of Students Pete Englin 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 is needs to be different.”

He said unlike the outcomes of court cases, which are intended to punish, the major outcome of the university’s judicial process is education.

Englin said one can keep an open mind through the whole process when performing three roles.

“A fair and impartial hearing, I’m confident, was provided,” he said.

“You can do some investigation, formulate an opinion and through the hearing process gather more information and come to a different conclusion. That clearly is possible.”

If someone feels differently, he or she should take advantage of appeals processes, he said.

Harlan “Duane” Long Jr., president of Cuffs and senior in psychology, said the group will appeal the case, as he and group members believe the decision reached was unfair.

He said he was aware Schuttinga would be performing all three roles, but did not have time while preparing a defense to consider the option of requesting she be removed as adjudicator.

“Perhaps we as a group should have asked for a different adjudicator,” Long said. “Yet, it would have been best for the university to have voluntarily removed Bethany Schuttinga, because then they wouldn’t be facing these accusations of an unfair trial.”