Imagine you’re a college student, no longer a child, but not yet a fully-formed adult. Imagine you aren’t perfect.
Imagine you don’t know exactly what .08 ACE feels like. You weren’t driving recklessly, and you didn’t hurt anyone, but suddenly you’re being charged with OVWI. You know this looks bad, and you’re rightfully concerned about your future, but you also know you’ve never been in trouble with alcohol before.
Now imagine you get a letter from the university informing you that your OVWI arrest suggests you’ve committed Personal Misconduct. Furthermore, because the university regards all drug and alcohol offenses as “safety” issues, it turns out you’ve violated the same section (Part II, section I.2.b) of the Code of Conduct that covers arson, rape, and participation in group violence.
Imagine this same letter also informs you that the university is starting with the assumption you deserve to be suspended. The letter offers you two options: accept responsibility for the charges, or request a hearing. You don’t like the idea of being lumped in with violent sexual firestarters any better than you like the idea of being suspended for a semester. You request a hearing.
Imagine you can have an “advisor” present at your hearing (Procedures for the Adjudication of Allegations of Personal Misconduct, Article VI, section F). The advisor is allowed to hold your hand, but he may not speak on your behalf. Imagine your academic future is on the line, and you have to stand up to the university hearing commission all by yourself.
Finally, imagine the hearing proceeds by the numbers. Is there any other way it could go? With the school already expecting to suspend you, the result is a foregone conclusion.
The preceding description may be a surreal nightmare of counter-intuitive bureaucracy, but it’s also 100 percent accurate. This is how it works at IUPUI:
Step 1. The university receives word that you may have violated the Code of Conduct. (For the university’s purposes, it doesn’t matter if the alleged misconduct occurred on-campus or off—Part II, section I of the Code is flexible enough to tie almost anything to the “security of the university community,” the “integrity of the educational process,” or “safety” in general.)
Step 2. An anonymous student conduct officer decides—before any kind of hearing—whether the alleged misconduct is likely to result in a warning/probation (Tier I) or suspension/expulsion (Tier II). See Procedures, Article II, sections P and Q. This Tier I/Tier II designation creates a presumptive outcome for your case before you even know the disciplinary process has started.
Step 3. You receive a letter informing you of the charges against you and their presumptive outcome (either Tier I or Tier II).
Step 4. You have your official university disciplinary hearing, at which “your advisor may whisper to you or write you notes . . . but he may not speak on your behalf at any time.”
Step 5. Both the hearing and the commission’s decision conform to the inevitable result originally predicted (created?) back in Step 2.
The Tier I/Tier II distinction isn’t based on conduct—it’s based on a university employee’s unilateral assumption that your case will go one way or the other. It’s bad enough that this assumption is made before your disciplinary hearing; what’s even worse is that it functions as a self-fulfilling prophecy. The pre-hearing rationale (This case is Tier II because it’s likely to result in suspension.) is inverted and passed off as post-hearing analysis (This case results in suspension because it’s Tier II.). The implicit reasoning couldn’t be more circular.
Part I, section H of the IUPUI Code of Conduct includes a sub-heading called “rights of the student charged.” This Code section, however, is a dead letter. Its promises are empty. What good is the guarantee of “the right to a fair and reasonable process” when the university’s idea of “fair and reasonable” includes the lose-lose choice between groveling for mercy and attending a sham hearing with a pre-determined outcome?
The IUPUI administration treats its students with less respect than the state treats criminal defendants. If you or someone you love is facing charges of student misconduct, don’t just hope for the best. Call the Marc Lopez Law Firm at 317-632-3642, and remember—always plead the 5th!
