One student asked: Student Disciplinary Trials are closed to the public. Do you think this should change and why?
Connors took the lead on this response by stating: "Trials are innocent until proven guilty," and went on to say they should thus remain closed.
Connors has stood firmly on his role as Student Advocate as a demonstration of experience and leadership.
While Connors may or may not be a good Advocate, he does not know fully how the disciplinary structure at X, or any Canadian university, operates. The StFX Disciplinary Code clearly works under the presupposition that all students are guilty until proven innocent. All Canadian Universities operate with this directive. The fact that Connors, a student advocate, does not know this I think partially debunks the foundation on which his claims to leadership stand.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
Did Matt know much more?
I think that this tells a lot about Pat in that he did not know the system of how his current job works. How can we trust that he will understand the Union and the way that it operates if he didn't know the basic principle of how his current job works.
I figured I’d just post this in the current top post on the blog. As a student who enjoys following Union politics closely (one of the few, I think), I feel it necessary to point out to all the voters out there just how many of the “innovative,” or “new” ideas that the Prez/VP candidates have presented in their platforms and at the debates are actually currently in place. A lot of their ideas are really nothing new at all. This might be a little long, but I think it’s worth knowing before your vote. Here we go:
MACGILLIVARY AND CLARKE
The “new idea”: Hold a “Meet Your Union” event at the beginning of the year to be visible get people involved.
The status quo: The same thing was done in this and several previous years.
The verdict: I guess they didn’t notice it?
The “new idea”: Hold social events involving House Presidents and RAs.
The status quo: Already in practice. RAs are required to run events for people on their floors, and R @ X is beginning to host house-wide events. In the majority of cases, the House Presidents are involved in these events.
The verdict: They can do more of it, but it’s not a new idea.
The “new idea”: Create an Activities Advisory Committee including a random first, second, third, and fourth year student to consult when planning activities.
The status quo: The Union’s Activities and Promotions Committee does the same thing and includes the VP Activities, VP Finance, VP Student Relations, 6 House Presidents, 1 Off Campus Leader, the Entertainment Coordinator, and several Councillors.
The verdict: How will creating a second committee with random students be any better than one full of people elected specifically to represent students’ interests?
The “new idea”: Get the Union involved with intramurals.
The status quo: House Councils, under the purview of the Union, include Intramural Representatives.
The verdict: The only way Matt and Julia want to get further involved is to create a new full position within the Union to oversee all intramural sports. No word yet on how they’ll be able to find money to pay an honourarium, or how they’ll do a better job that the people with the same responsibilities in the athletics department do.
The “new idea”: Create an “X Factor” program which organizes volunteering projects and keeps track of students’ volunteering time.
The status quo: Sounds pretty much like X-Project, except that it goes out and asks students who aren’t volunteering already to go do stuff? The VP Union Services already finds volunteers where they’re needed for a large number of events.
The verdict: Don’t we dislike excessive, repetitive bureaucratic waste?
The “new idea”: Under the “Services” part of their platform, they talk about organizing tutoring services.
The status quo: This is already done by the Union. It’s under the portfolio of the VP Union Services. Look it up.
The verdict: There’s no indication of how they’ll do it any better than it’s already being done.
The “new idea”: Run a “Frosh 101” session to help students become acquainted with life at StFX.
The status quo: The same things they plan in their platform are currently done during Frosh week.
The verdict: They’re not talking about improving orientation, they’re talking about repeating it.
The “new idea”: “Promoting students in the community” on their platform seeks to promote students who are active in the community via the website and talks given on campus.
The status quo: Already happens. The Union gives funding to students partaking on volunteer projects, they frequently address societies and other groups of students, their accomplishments have been featured on the website and in the Xaverian Weekly.
The verdict: They’ll do it better somehow? More frequently? No innovation though.
The “new idea”: Matt and Julia indicated in their platform that they will work with lobbying groups CASA and ANSSA and lower tuition and with the administration to improve life at X.
The status quo: These are tasks expected of every President and VP of the Union! Why list them in the platform?
The verdict: I’m waiting to see platform plank #10 – we will hold office hours and attend Council meetings!
CONNORS AND MATHESON
The “new idea”: “Reach out to students” by holding forums to consult students and generate interest in the Union.
The status quo: Forums were once held often, but are rarely used today because people never come out to them. The forum on the yearbook this year was attended by less than 20 students. Pat and Scott would like to use of blogging and streaming video to reach more students, but they’re only really expanding upon the ways these are used. The relative lack of original, innovative new means to communicate to students the ways they can participate is a little unsettling, considering the fact that their platform planks are named Innovation, Communication, and Participation.
The verdict: You need interest in the Union to be present before forums will work, you can’t hold forums and expect all the apathetic students who don’t have the energy to email their Councillor about anything will suddenly get up and participate.
The “new idea”: Hire a professional webmaster to manage the Union site.
The status quo: Council passed a motion a while ago to allow the VP Comm to hire a webmaster using the honourarium money for the student position if no student can be found to fill it.
The verdict: It will be something new if they can find money somewhere to pay a webmaster well enough to get some work done. All they’ve offered to explain how they’ll come up with this money is that they’ll go over the maxed out budget “with a fine toothed comb” and cut out all the “inefficient parts.” Oh, and they’ve also stated they think every position in the Union is important and they won’t be cutting anything. I’m sorry, if every dollar is spent, which it is, then they’re talking about cuts.
The “new idea”: Adopt a tiered system for societies where the societies that benefit the community get what they need.
The status quo: When giving out society allocations, the Budget and Finance Committee already uses a flexible tiered system, and rewards societies which are doing a lot to benefit the community. It’s not officially enshrined in the by-laws, but it can’t really be, because the activity level, needs, and number of societies in different categories is always changing semester to semester.
The verdict: I could probably say more if they explained what they specifically wanted to do, but they didn’t.
The “new idea”: The Union should advertise for societies.
The status quo: The Union already does advertise for societies. Every year hundreds of posters are printed to advertise society events at no extra cost to the societies themselves, and big society events are advertised on theu.ca.
The verdict: I’d be happy if they actually had an innovative new approach here, but they never mentioned one.
The “new idea”: We should publish the budget and the activities of Council.
The status quo: The budget and minutes of Council are already publicly available. If the most recent update isn’t on the website right now, it’s because someone forgot to put it up, not because the Union is a shady secret organization.
The verdict: Learn more about how the Union works before running for President and Vice President.
Well that’s about all I feel like writing. It’s getting a little long, and I have work to do, but I hope you get the point. Remember that you can spoil your ballot if you’re disappointed with both candidates.
I'm sure this isn't written word for word and I actually took that quote to mean that Pat was stating that the trials are run with the presumption that the student is innocent until proven guilty, which they are. I don't see how this would show Pat does not understand the disciplinary process as it clearly states he does.
I'm sure Pat has put in countless hours serving the students in a position that many would not chose to take. Pat, through a position of a student advocate, is clearly someone who has the experience fighting for student rights.
I'm actually really confused for the initial post on this blog. Maybe someone can clarify
PS...I'm publishing anonymously because I don't know how this works. I'm new at blogging
As a former Advocate and a litany of other positions I think I can clarify. The burden of proof lies upon the student to prove their innocence. In Canadian courts this burden is upon the state, and hence "innocent until proven guilty." Canadian universities operate outside of the Canadian Judicial system and model themselves after the British Judicial system where it actually is, "guilty until proven innocent." Unless a student is innocent beyond a reasonable doubt they are guilty.
Ok, wait, I just re-read the whole thing for the fifth time and I guess it's just Monday eyes...
To "everyone's vision"...both british and canadian law is based off of the presumption of innocence, meaning innocent until proven guilty. I don't think you should clarify unless you have the facts straight.
The community code operates on the basis of administrative law and on procedural fairness, which is the right to be heard and the right to an unbiased decision. If a student is entitled to the right to an unbiased decision, then it would not make sense to proceed with a hearing where they are presumed guilty right from the beginning. I believe that would be a bias, which would go right against the process of a disciplinary case.
I am going to try to clear up some misconceptions. Sorry if this is lengthy but important clarifications have to be made.
The St. FX Community Code DOES NOT operate on the presumption that a person is guilty until proven innocent. The Community Code is based off of Canadian Law, which itself stems directly from British Common Law. Both of these systems operate around what is called the “golden thread of common law,” which presumes that one charged with breaking the law is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
The Community Code does not state explicitly one way or the other that a student is presumed innocent until proven guilty but there are many areas where it is heavily inferred. The first place this can be inferred from is Part I, Discipline Code, Section I, General Provisions, subsection 5, which speaks about “the alleged violation” and “alleged offence” (Page 5, Community Code). This demonstrates that a student charged is considered innocent until proven guilty.
The part that might be causing some confusion is what body of law the Community Code is based off of. It is based not on criminal law but civil law. This is unambiguously stated on page 13 of the Community Code, which states: “This practice is based on civil law, not criminal law.”
It establishes that a “Finding of innocence or guilt … is decided on the basis of balance of probabilities or preponderance of evidence, not on the basis of beyond reasonable doubt.” So to determine guilt it only has to be proven that it is more probable than not that a student committed a violation – this is how civil law operates. However, the main point stands: a student is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
To suggest that students are presumed guilty before proven otherwise flies in the face of all Canadian Law, and it is a flagrant violation of ones rights as a student on this campus and in the broader Canadian context.
Further, in each hearing I was involved with this year this has been the conduct that has been followed. The Dean of Students, the RLM, the RLCs, and the Discipline Committee have all proceeded from the basis that the student is innocent until proven guilty.
I have worked hard this year to understand the Community Code, and to learn what the rights of all students are here at St FX. I am no lawyer. But I have developed a firm grasp of what students are entitled to on this campus. In each case I have worked to represent students, and have worked to ensure that their rights are protected, the most basic of which is a fair trial that starts with the presumption of innocence.
Thanks,
Pat
Why “innocent until proven guilty” is not the case under the Community Code:
The Community Code states that “Finding of innocence or guilt … is decided on the basis of balance of probabilities or preponderance of evidence, not on the basis of beyond reasonable doubt.” In the eyes of most reasonable people, I think we can conclude that a balance of probabilities does not constitute “proof.” If you are found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, that is proof of guilt, but it’s not what we have at StFX.
So now we’re down to “innocent until demonstrated more likely guilty than not.” In what circumstances is it presumed more likely than not that a student has committed an offence? When they’ve been written up for it. If you don’t show up to your meeting with the RLC, RLM, or Dean of Students, in almost all cases, you will be judged guilty based on the report. Period. This is the case even if it does not constitute proof of your guilt.
We’re left with the situation that you have to take on the initiative to prove your own innocence, which was exactly what Brian had said. Therefore, when you have been accused of violations of the Community Code, you are, let’s say, “guilty until you demonstrate that your innocence is more probable than your guilt.”
That’s not “innocent until proven guilty,” Pat, and it’s not all that hard to see. You don’t have to analyze the bases of various legal systems to figure it out. Either you think too highly of the quasi-legal system you work within and won’t admit it’s full of flaws, or you’re incapable of properly analyzing what it really is. Or maybe you’re just backtracking to cover what you said at the debate now that Brian called you on it. I don’t know. I think maybe in cases like this an admission of guilt in screwing up is preferable to throwing out more nonsense.
As the chair of the discipline committee I feel I have to say a few words to set the record straight on the comment above by ‘Everyone’s Vision’. Our community code and the discipline committee process are in no way based on a system of ‘guilty until proven innocent’. An underlying principle of our hearings is basic procedural fairness; impartiality and freedom from bias. It is true there are differences between administrative law and the Canadian criminal judicial system, but it is more along the lines of the strictness of rules of evidence and the standards of proof. Basically this boils down to the committee having to meet the criteria of a balance of probability, rather than the highest standard of proof (beyond a reasonable doubt). Let me reiterate this one last time; if you are involved in a hearing at this university you are innocent unless proved otherwise according to the balance of probability, as judged by a committee made up of your unbiased peers, both student and professor.
Jamie,
Who provides the preponderance of evidence?
While this current issue is a systemic problem with the community code the point is that innocent until proven guilty is only words unless backed by something more substantive than decisions based on the preponderance of evidence.
The legal rights that people enjoy are built on each other to provide a safety net against abuse. In the case of STFX this is not the case. You may be innocent until proven guilty but that means nothing when the accusation, the RA writing you up, counts towards that preponderance of evidence. Let see if I can dream up a situation where this "presumption of innocence" falls
Let say there is a person living in residence call with a bottle ban, lets call her Jane. Now lets say Jane's friend comes in with a beer bottle and leaves it in Jane's room. Jane decides to clean up and throw out the bottle. Her RA sees Jane with the empty bottle and writes Jane up.
What did Jane do wrong? Where does the burden of proof lie? In the Candian legal system the burden would lie with the state to prove that the bottle was in fact Jane's. At St FX, it would be up to Jane to prove that the bottle was not hers.
That's the problem, it's called reverse onus if you have a purported innocent until proven guilty system but in Canada it was decided that reverse onus violate the presumption of innocence.
If you don't believe me spend a little time and read this. It's the R v. Oakes Supreme Court Ruling where the reverse onus is deemed unconstitutional.
R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103
Oh, and if you think that this is University and people shouldn't be held to the same standards as criminal justice system then remember you can get kicked out of school for violating the community code of conduct... Tell me how easy is it to get into another institution after being expelled? Think that might affect your chances? Could that have far reaching ramifications to your job prospects and life chances?
I am glad that so many people have educated themselves about the Community Code. "StFX Spoil Your Ballots" has made a great point as to how the practice of the Code really determines its interpretation. Furthermore, they address the important issue of the scope of the Canadian Constitution. University Law actually falls outside the CC while still having to uphold our basic rights and freedoms. For this reason the Supreme Court abstains from involving itself in writing any University Law and only makes judgment on ensuring our procedures are fairly executed according to these rules. This is also why you can be charged under the Criminal Code while also being charged under the Community Code. The judgment of the University, according to the Supreme Court, does not hold in the Criminal Court. Please read the next post on this issue.
As a fellow Student Advocate, I feel now compelled to reply to the most recent post.
First, to the example about Jane: The burden is on the university to prove that the bottle was hers (if that is even a problem, which it isn't in most residences). An RA would most likely not choose to write up anything, based on the facts in this scenario, because there is no proof. If something was written up, it is, from my experience, then up to the RLCs and possibly the Dean of Students to further investigate, in order to gain enough evidence to be able to lay charges. Once charges are laid, if any, the student is still innocent until proven guilty in a disciplinary process.
Let me stress that there have been many cases this year where students have been wrongfully accused of something and have not been sanctioned because they were not proven guilty during their fair hearing. This is because the decisions were based on the preponderance of evidence.
The student advocates and everyone else on the disciplinary side are very committed in ensuring that the students' rights are given much respect. I have seen this and I have made sure of this, including many discussions with the Dean of Students about this.
I am very respectful of the process as I have now studied the system through my work as a student advocate. I would not have chosen to commit myself to this position had I not thought so.
If you, spoilyourballots or anyone else, have any further questions about the disciplinary process, the community code, my personal experiences with it (which is a wide range), or any other issues, please feel free to email me at su_advoc@stfx.ca or come to my office hours on Mondays from 12-2 or Wednesdays from 11-2 or any other time that works for you. I'm in office 425 of the SUB building. There are also two other advocates who would be willing to speak to you as well to answer any questions.
Lauren,
Jane's case is a thought experiment to demonstrate a problem with the system. While the case is minor the principles are the same in any case major or minor.
There is no guarantee that the onus is on the university. In addition to this there is no standard to measure the evidence against. How do you know when the preponderance of evidence sits on one side or the other. You can't! The system does not allow it. Referencing the Jane case, what in the community code sets the onus on the university? The presumption of innocence? No, the presumption of innocence has to backed up by reasoned standards of evidence and clear definitions of where the onus lies.
For innocent until proven guilty to be more than just pretty words on a piece of paper it has to be backed up by something more solid than the grey of a preponderance of evidence. The word of the code is purposefully ambiguous. There is no guarantee that the burden of proof lies with the university, there is no systematic solution that protects students from possible abuse of the preponderance clause by the university.
Post a Comment