Closing hearing
sets bad pattern

An appeal hearing was scheduled for Wednesday for an SUUSA officer currently on social probation, and the University Journal wasn’t there. We didn’t miss it because we thought it unimportant or because we were asleep at the switch. We missed it because we were told our reporter could not attend.
The officer — Clubs & Organizations Vice President Spencer Koelliker — was arrested and charged with aggravated assault in connection with an incident at an off-campus party last November. He was released from the Iron County Jail on bond and now awaits a preliminary hearing on March 12.
Before Wednesday’s hearing at a protest in his support, Koelliker said he is fighting social probation, in part, because of a lack of due process. Whether he is right or wrong is the subject for another editorial. What concerns us is that we never had a chance to hear or report on the arguments made in the hearing on either side.
That’s because we were barred from the hearing. As representatives of the public — as your eyes and ears on campus — we can offer several reasons why these proceedings should have constituted an open meeting and why we should have been granted access.
When hearings are closed, the accuser and the accused cannot be assured the fair and equal treatment that result from public scrutiny. In this particular case, the Journal is aware of a potential conflict of interest harbored by one of the student members of the University Disciplinary Committee. However, we were not allowed to witness the proceedings, so we were unable to monitor whether that member of the committee was fair to the accused and faithful to the process.
Open proceedings foster greater awareness of alleged crime in the campus community and assist in creating a safer environment for students. Students who are aware that crimes occur on or near campus take precautions to avoid becoming victims.
Open disciplinary proceedings also facilitate students’ trust of campus judiciary systems and their officials. Closed-door hearings foster mistrust and suspicion. Students who understand campus disciplinary proceedings and how they function are more likely to have confidence in their results than those who are excluded from the process.
Unfortunately, experience elsewhere has taught us that when the public gets a peek behind the closed doors of a campus court, the picture presented encourages anything but trust.
Charges of favoritism for student athletes, student government

 

leaders or other “select” defendants, charges of inept administrators, and charges of the cover-up of serious criminal activity abound.
Whether these charges are true or not, the climate of secrecy that surrounds closed campus disciplinary hearings encourages rumors and undermines the public trust.
Finally, it seems to us illogical and inequitable that the alleged criminal actions and subsequent discipline of a student could remain secret through closed campus disciplinary hearings, even though that information would be public if the actions were committed by a non-student and prosecuted off campus.
In this particular case, Koelliker will also be adjudicated in off-campus court proceedings, but what if he were not? The very act of closing this hearing sets an unwelcome precedent for future proceedings in which public information may not be available.
Despite claims to the contrary, examples abound across the country wherein allegations of criminal conduct were heard only in on-campus disciplinary hearings, without ever being referred to outside law enforcement agencies. Nowhere else in America does such a system of secret justice remain in existence — and with good reason.
The opinion expressed above is based in part on information provided by the Student Press Law Center in Washington D.C. It represents the collective perspective of the University Journal’s editorial board. The editorial board meets every Tuesday at 6 p.m. in Room 172 of the Sharwan Smith Center. Visitors are welcome.