[386] in Discussion of MIT-community interests
Re: Disciplinary hearing openness
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Christopher D. Beland)
Tue May 1 02:13:42 2001
Message-Id: <200105010613.CAA10995@Press-Your-Luck.mit.edu>
To: Ray Jones <rjones@pobox.com>
cc: mit-talk@MIT.EDU
In-reply-to: The events that comprise the history of the universe.
Date: Tue, 01 May 2001 02:13:16 -0400
From: "Christopher D. Beland" <beland@MIT.EDU>
> In a word, yes. See page 29 of "Covering Campus Crime",
> http://www.splc.org/resources/ccc/cccindex.html
> (Citations to the Federal Register on just this question are in that
> document.)
Thanks for the pointer; that document does an excellent job of
summarizing the relevent law, especially for campus media.
So it seems that while lobbying Congress to require more open hearings
might be a good long-term goal, MIT has no legal excuse not to open
its disciplinary proceedings.
Personally, having been a victim of some minor abuse of that system, I
think I would have appreciated some amount of public scrunity of the
fairness of the people running it. (Though all the people I dealt
with in that particular incident were more than fair, as my recent
post about Neal Dorow points out, not everyone who has ever served in
the administration is entirely trustworthy.)
-B.
