Letter to the Editor: The Community Standards Process needs reforming

Photo via: TNP Staff

The following column is a submitted Letter to the Editor from Zach Donaldson, a senior at Ohio University studying Political Science.

Please note that the views and opinions of this letter do not reflect those of The New Political. Additionally, this letter does not testify to the Students Defending Students’ opinion.

It’s been three months since you screwed up. You’ve dealt with the courts, the police, your professors and you’re ready to get on with your life. 

You check your inbox and you get a sealed letter. You open it. All of a sudden you are up for probation, suspension or expulsion for something you thought you dealt with months ago. You’re reliving the nightmare all over again. 

You’re given a hearing date – a brief charge, and that’s it. You don’t have a right to face, or much less know, the evidence against you until you show up. One person decides your fate, and they only have to deem you did something by the standard of fifty and a feather. 

If this were how we handled criminal and civil offenses in this country – we would call it for what it is: a kangaroo court.  

No doubt, Ohio University has a compelling interest in holding their students to a high standard of conduct, and there are absolutely actions and offenses that should be met in accordance. I truly believe that the folks who work in its office are dedicated to student success and walk in with the best intentions. 

However, as a former student defender and someone who has helped serve as a support person within the system – I have seen firsthand the toll it takes on the students involved, and its failure to achieve its stated goal of “providing meaningful opportunities for students to learn what it means to be a member of the Ohio University community.” 

The Community Standards and Student Responsibility (CSSR) process is laughably, unfair and an unbalanced way to treat student discipline. It primarily ends up contributing anxiety and overcorrection for honest mistakes.  

Students who are suspected of having committed a violation against the code of conduct are notified incredibly late – often weeks or months after an incident has taken place. There is a significant chance they have already paid hundreds of dollars in fines, done community service and gone through all the legal means to rectify a basic youthful indiscretion like underage drinking.  

Rather than bring a restorative approach, CSSR seeks to hold a student’s worst moment over their head for a few more weeks - bringing in another hearing where they must defend themselves, placing them on probationary periods that strip away meaningful academic experiences, and forcing additional hours of work through reflective essays and additional hours of service. 

And for the innocent – it's even worse. 

Students are forced to answer the same circumstance which they were already exonerated for legally. Serious accusations often involve the potential of steep penalties combined with insufficient evidence; like being threatened with expulsion over a third-party report that is riddled with inaccuracies. 

Students have rights in these hearings – but the resources given to them to realize and act on them are inadequate at best. Students are provided little to no guidance from the standards office on the things that would best mount their defense like witnesses and referral letters, often opting to go into cases blind. Clients are generally overwhelmed by information and don’t know how to go about finding someone to speak for them.  

Ohio U is notable for providing its own public defender-like service in Students Defending Students (SDS). SDS is a fantastic volunteer organization full of hard-working and driven undergraduates. However, much like any college student, defenders are spread thin between other obligations and are not compensated for defending what can often be serious and weighty charges that would really need legal representation.  

The presence of a lawyer when someone is answering serious acts should be an accessible right given the consequences that CSSR can incur. Yet given the timeframe, financial and procedural constraints of the system – that is not a realistic option for most clients. 

Students deserve to feel safe and like they are part of a community that cares about their success and well-being. A standards office has to be a part of that. Yet, with the current way CSSR is constructed, it has the opposite effect: isolating and inhibiting students who have already answered for what they did from moving on with their lives. 

It is my sincere hope the administration undergoes a review of what has become a contemporary headache of the student experience and reforms the community standards office so it can live up to its name. 

Respectfully signed, 

Zachary Donaldson