Mention of the word "JudCo" often draws a vague response about clandestine tribunals for students accused violating college policy on campus.

Far from a menace, JudCo is actually a bastion of self-governance. The trouble, in fact, usually starts when the administration bypasses JudCo.

JudCo is short for Judicial Council, a group of nine or so students selected by the Vice President of Academic Affairs in SGA to adjudicate violations of college policy concerning student life.

Four JudCo members are randomly selected to hear cases at a time and place known only known to JudCo's faculty advisor, the VPAA, and Sheree Andrews, Associate Dean and Director of Student Life. JudCo members, along with a faculty advisor, hear claims made by students and college staff (usually security) over what happened. Following th e proceedings, JudCo members decide on a punishment which is then sent as a recommendation to the Vice President of Student Affairs.

The VP weighs JudCo's recommendation and ultimately decides on a punishment, if needed. It is at this stage of the process that student rights can be threatened. For example, take the article in the February, 29 edition of S&B. Matt Zmudka '11 wrote an article describing two inebriated students that entered a professor's office after hours. Their unauthorized entry warranted an appearance before JudCo.

Zmudka reported that former Vice President of Student Affairs Tom Crady decided to suspend the two for a semester. President Osgood intervened and reduced their punishments so that instead of being suspended, they were forced to move off campus and were barred from campus activities.

Crady never met with either student to hear their side of the story or to explain his decision to hand out such a serious punishment.

In fact, the letter informing the student's of their fate was sent to their homes instead of their campus mailboxes. The two students were informed about the punishment by their RLC the day before winter break.

Had their RLC not warned them, they wouldn't have been able to appeal the decision and would have been suspended for a semester.

Even when they did appeal the decision, they weren't able to confront the issue by questioning the logic of the punishment. Decisions are considered final unless the students bring forth evidence not presented at the JudCo hearing or if rules governing the proceedings were violated.

There is not sufficient accountability on the decision-making process for determining punishments. JudCo needs to be able to do more than write a recommendation, it should be allowed to talk to the VP about a potential punishment.

If we can't make more guidelines for punishing student offenses, we at least need more people involved in the process or the ability to appeal a decision if it proves to be to harsh. JudCo represents the personal attention and student involvement that self-governance is supposed to provide students.

When it is ignored, students are unable to defend themselves because they have no face time with the person actually responsible for deciding their punishment.

If that happens, the lives and future of students Grinnell can be jeopardized, as they were for the two students involved in the incident above.

To be clear, I am not only an observer of JudCo and its policies, but also a friend of the two students who were almost suspended last winter break.