September 28, 2013
The Stanford Judicial Process is not one that seeks the truth, but one that tries to corroborate the assertion made by the Professor. You are assumed guilty from the moment that you enter the process. There is nothing about it that is fair or that even resembles a normal judicial proceeding. To be completely honest, to be put into this system is resembles a lot being bullied.
Before I retained a counsel, I was told that I could not contact witnesses and if I did so, I would have their statement annulled. I was told that I could not have the names of the people that were involved in the process with me. I was also told that I would have a deadline to write the statement, otherwise the case would go to trial without a chance for me to explain my actions. The worse part was that the Judicial Officer never set the deadline, nor would she reply my emails or phone calls, so I was in constant terror that my defense would not be accepted.
If I had not retained a lawyer, I would have been completely lost through the process. The Judicial Officer refused to contact my witnesses since she believed they were not essential to the case. Even though, their statement was my alibi. Since I could not reach out to them, in fear that it would annul their statement, I felt completely lost. I did not know what to do at the time.
My representative has gone above and beyond his functions. He has clarified that I have the right to contact anyone I wish to have as witness. He further enlightened me that I am entitled to all the evidence, which has not been provided to me by the Judicial Officer or the Accusing Party. I feel that going through this process is more of a punishment than an investigation. You are denied of everything; the professor’s word is for some reason taken as evidence. It is very hard to try to prove something that you did not do, the only thing that can do is have your witnesses and the entirety of the evidence. Without a lawyer, I would not be able to attain that.
Attorneys are necessary to assist students through the process of the OCS, since the Officers themselves act as lawyers for the reporting party. What kind of a school does not allow for a one-to-one civil conversation between the reporting party and the student?
I don’t mean to sound rude, but it is rather ridiculous the time length that it takes for the Judicial Officer to conduct the investigation. In my conversation with her, I have noticed she failed to read the files correctly, to reply emails and phone calls, to dismiss absurd cases with no real evidence. In my honest opinion, those people in the OCS are more than unfit to judge and make any decisions regarding the academic future of the students in this school.
Spring quarter 2013 case