To most Iowa State students, the Student Information Handbook is just one of the many things they are given upon arrival.

Unless a student is in trouble, he or she is likely unfamiliar with the Student Conduct Code at ISU.

Compounding the ignorance is closed hearings. On page 14 of the handbook, it says cases will not be open unless the accused wishes it to be. Thus, many students are never aware that campus hearings are held.

The student conduct code is a list of 22 types of behavior unacceptable in the ISU community. When people violate the code, they stand before the body known as the All-University Judiciary (AUJ).

AUJ members act as judge and jury for a wide range of violations, including criminal activity. Members can hear cases of sexual assault, academic dishonesty, bribery, extortion and other code violations.

The results of these hearings are often never released to the public. There is currently an on-going national debate wether the proceedings should be open. Journalists and other professional groups are calling on Congress to mandate open proceedings in several circumstances.

Activists argue that the campus proceedings at public universities — since they are run by governmental bodies and can impose stiff penalties — should be subject to the same openness laws as criminal proceedings.

Here’s a look at ISU’s campus court set-up:

ISU’s 36-member AUJ is appointed by the president, but members of the ISU community or the Faculty Senate nominate 10 faculty members; the vice president for student affairs nominates six staff members; the Graduate Student Senate nominates five graduate students; and the Government of Student Body nominates 15 students. Two faculty or staff members and two students are assigned hear each case.

People who are appointed serve a two-year term, unless they choose to extend their services or are removed by the appointing authority.

---

The campus judiciary process

Conduct complaints are sent to the Office of Judicial Affairs (OJA), which stems from of the Dean of Students Office, and is responsible for the judicial process. It enforces the conduct regulations listed in the handbook.

A standard of evidence must be provided with the complaint in order to be considered.

Kathy McKay, dean of students, said the complaint must be based on “a preponderance of evidence,” rather than the more difficult to prove “beyond a reasonable doubt” found in city, state and federal courts.

After the evidence-based complaint is filed, it is reviewed by a representative of the OJA. The student whom the complaint is filed against is notified of the complaint, the AUJ procedures, and his or her rights.

---

Outcomes of the cases

If the case is a minor violation or the accused student admits guilt, it is reviewed by a representative of the OJA. The administrator will determine guilt or innocence and assign the appropriate sanctions.

Vern Hawkins, enrollment services adviser and AUJ member, said punishment is a secondary outcome of the process, but the primary interest is to impose “anything that would help us help the individual avoid that type of behavior.”

“The more serious the problem, the more serious the sanction,” McKay said.

The range of sanctions can be anything from a warning to suspension. However, other sanctions, at times more severe, are considered if they serve educational purposes.

Jerry Stewart, associate director of the Department of Public Safety, said, “Students are bound by the regulations of the university and the state and city as well.”

This may mean the student is subject to higher standards. The punishment from the campus judiciary may be more costly to the student than the punishment from city, state and federal courts.

For example, a student might receive a slight fine and a night in jail from the courts, but the university’s judiciary could expel a student from school and put a hold on their transcript for two years.

But by the same token, the penalty may be less severe than a criminal court would hand down, one of the main objections of national activists. They argue that even a campus court’s maximum penalty of fines or expulsion isn’t sufficient in serious cases, most noticeably, rape.

---

More serious offenses

More serious and complex offenses are sent to the AUJ.

McKay said academic dishonesty and assault are two types of conduct considered serious because they are “violations of what behavior is acceptable in our community.”

In a more serious situation, a hearing will be held by the AUJ within 10 class days upon the arrival of the necessary documentation to the OJA.

The OJA then sends a letter to the alleged violator with a minimum of three days notice before the hearing. The letter will include the specifics about the trial. The student is free to submit a written document of the incident for which the trial is being held.

Although this process is a judicial hearing, it is not identical to a public judicial process. Students may have advisers outside of the university, but the student must present his or her own case and speak for themselves. They may choose to remain silent or not to answer questions.

The person who has filed charges must attend the hearing unless there are medical reasons or other reasons beyond his or her control.

There are no lawyers involved, a stipulation that has many on the national level concerned.

The accused is told of his or her rights and after the presentation of the evidence, the hearing board will decide guilt or innocence. Then, the hearing board will assign a sanction if necessary.

---

Case conclusions

The results of the hearings are mailed within five class days to the accused. The sanctions go into effect immediately unless there are special circumstances.

The handbook includes more specifics about the judiciary process and additional data about appeals which are handled by the AUJ.