Here we have a perfect example of why Iowa State’s judiciary activities should be open to the public.

After an unauthorized town meeting in Beardshear Hall on Nov. 5, 1996, the university is charging several student leaders who were involved with organizing the meeting with student misconduct.

Milton McGriff, a graduate student in English; Allan Nosworthy, a graduate student in English; Theresa Thomas, a sophomore in graphic design; Meron Wondwosen, a junior in political science; and others pleaded guilty to organizing the unauthorized meeting.

For cases in which those who are charged plead guilty and the Office of Judicial Affairs deems to be of a minor nature, the cases will be heard in an administrative hearing before an OJA representative. In cases deemed to be more severe, the charged will stand before an All-University Judiciary, a.k.a., the infamous AUJ.

Under university rules, students who are found guilty are subject to three types of reprimand: disciplinary reprimand, conduct probation or suspension.

What they will determine in the OJAmeeting is which punishment to give the organizers of the unauthorized rally: disciplinary reprimand or conduct probation. Suspension is not a likely option.

With a disciplinary reprimand, the guilty only go through a probationary period, but under conduct probation, the guilty also cannot serve as an officer in a university-recognized student organization.

Federal laws keep the entire judiciary system private, despite Iowa State’s status as a public institution. The university cannot reveal any information about cases in its judiciary system.

There is one iota of openness in this system: If charged persons wish to have an open AUJ hearing, they may. The catch is that the OJA still can deem the case not serious enough to go before the AUJ.

McGriff, Nosworthy, Thomas, Wondwosen and company have repeatedly asked for open meetings, but they won’t get them because their case will be heard before an OJA administrative meeting, not an AUJ hearing.

It’s a good example of how this judicial system could allow a university to muscle students who go against the wishes of administrators. Of course, the university has a right to do this, but, unlike other judicial actions concerning infractions against publicly funded institutions, officials can do it in complete privacy.

This goes against the whole ideal of an open-courts system, which was set up by the framers of the U.S. Constitution. This ideal prevents government corruption.

The thinking behind this ideal is that if the courts are open, then the people can see if the government officials are acting within their set parameters.

If this was a private university, we would have no reason to ask for an open judicial system.

But since Iowa State is publicly funded as a branch of the government of the state of Iowa, then cases regarding infractions against the rules of the university by students should rightfully be part of public records.

It appears as if the university is trying to railroad these student leaders out of office. But since the actions of the judiciary are not public record, we’ll likely never know if that’s the truth.

Regardless, the university would be wise not to try to dispose of these student leaders, for it would only give students more reason to protest. Wondwosen is the president of the Black Student Alliance. Can you imagine the student protest if the university removes from office the president of the largest black student organization on campus?

In addition, McGriff and Nosworthy are student senators and Thomas is president of the largest Asian-American organization on campus.

Sadly, if Wondwosen and the other campus leaders are removed from their officer positions, university officials will never have to explain their reasons because the system is closed.

That isn’t right.