In response to Paul Tanaka’s comments from September 11, Tanaka was quoted as saying, “If someone else is speaking for the students, then we have no way of assessing if the student is learning anything, or of getting a sense of what the student’s feelings are and whether or not the student is going to change.” It surprises me that Iowa State’s legal counsel would not only deny a fair representation of the student’s case but forget one is innocent until proven guilty. Tanaka’s quote assumes a student is responsible in the first place. Even if a student’s case is strong, a poor delivery on his part can horribly skew the interpretation of the case. Not to mention the idea that if the student is already considered “responsible,” why bother with the hearing at all? Tanaka goes on to say that the idea of “clear and convincing” evidence would be too hard for people to understand. I would hope the people who judge these cases have the intelligence and training to understand the concept, otherwise I fear for more than just Iowa State’s judicial policy. Universities across the nation, including the University of Pennsylvania, University of Delaware, University of Wisconsin and Indiana University to name a few, have successfully incorporated a “clear and convincing” standard of evidence. Iowa State should be a leader in the protection of student’s rights, not a straggler. Some of my problems with Tanaka’s comments are not just with what he said, but also what he didn’t say. Where was his stance on how an ISU hearing can in fact be in violation of the U.S. Constitution’s “Double Jeopardy” rule? The Seventh Amendment states that “no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States.” This means that the state can’t try you twice for the same crime, but since Iowa State is a land-grant university and thus controlled by the state, a crime that may have already been tried in a criminal court can once again be tried in front of an ISU hearing. Nowhere in the Disciplinary Regulations is there a provision addressing this problem. In reality though, the whole process can be rendered meaningless by the decision of one person, the Dean of Students. The Disciplinary Regulations state that the Dean of Students may either accept or reject the recommendation of the judiciary committee. The judiciary committee actually has no real power at all. A suggestion would be for the Dean of Student only to have the power to overturn a “responsible” vote, similar to a governor’s power of reprieve. These ideas are things that ISU students have a right to. What if you were falsely accused? Would you want to defend yourself in a hearing stacked in the university’s favor? It may seem trivial now, but do you want to be the one who tests these faults? The disciplinary regulations need to be changed. Nathan Ashmore

ACLU@ISU