Judicial Board prepares to rule on cases for 2006-2007 academic year

Greg Armstrong Guest Writer

Each year during spring elections, the Vassar student body elects nine students to sit on the Vassar Student Association (VSA) Judicial Board. The Judicial Board hears cases ranging from the conduct of VSA officers and their dispensation of VSA legislation, to the College’s academic honor policy. The Judicial Board is an integral part of the VSA, often proving vital to its ability to function smoothly and arbitrate conflicts.

The Judicial Board is essentially a “constitutional check and balance on the VSA,” according to Judicial Board Chair Jacob Schiffrin ’07, who is serving his third term. Similar in structure and function to the U.S. Supreme Court and open to all Vassar classes, the Judicial Board has the authority to rule on cases “concerning the compliance of VSA policy and legislation with the VSA Constitution and VSA Bylaws,” as stipulated by the VSA Constitution. The Judicial Board also conducts impeachment hearings of Council members after indictment by the VSA Council. One such hearing took place last academic year, when the Class of 2007 Treasurer Nick Hormuth ’07 was charged with “dereliction of duty,” according to Shiffrin.

The Chair of the Judicial Board is solely responsible for deciding which cases will be heard. According to Shiffrin, the Chair approves cases for official hearings about two or three times a year.

During a hearing, both sides are given the opportunity to present their cases and cross-examine one another, and the Judicial Board is able to ask questions as well. The confidential deliberations have no time limit, but generally last no longer than 15 minutes, after which the verdict is decided and posted on the VSA bulletin board in the College Center. To diffuse the tension that often mounts during the hearings, Shiffrin said he usually brings cookies “to lighten the mood.”

Appeals to decisions made by the Judicial Board may be filed, according to the VSA Constitution, “in the case that substantial new evidence exists and/or the procedural rights of the respondent or complainant were violated.”

The Judicial Board was presented with a particularly high-profile case during spring elections last year, when technical malfunctions forced a switch from online voting to paper ballots. One candidate deemed the switch unconstitutional. Ultimately, the Judicial Board ruled that the change to paper ballots was unconstitutional, but also necessary and unavoidable.

“We determined that no new election was needed because there was no reason to believe that the results were biased towards any particular candidate,” said Schiffrin. “All students were potentially disenfranchised equally.” The VSA Constitution was revised to allow for emergency changes to voting to be made in future elections, if necessary.

In addition to reviewing actions of the VSA Council, Judicial Board members are responsible for hearing cases on Vassar students accused of plagiarism. When a student is charged with possible plagiarism, they must sit before an academic panel consisting of three professors and three Judicial Board members. Because these cases are confidential, Shiffrin was not able to discuss the nature of these hearings beyond their basic structure. “There’s not much I can say about them,” said Schiffrin, “except that you shouldn’t plagiarize.”

According to Schiffrin, lack of student awareness about the inner workings of the Judicial Board exists not only in the general student body, but also among students vying for positions on the panel.
“Students forget that major decisions about sanctions are often made principally by students,” said Schiffrin. “Oftentimes, too few students who really have sympathy and understanding for their peers run for [Judicial Board positions].” However, he was quick to except the 2006-2007 panel from that statement, and described the current Judicial Board as “pretty fantastic.”