Through a multi-year and continuing series of reports, the Justice Project will inform both the Stanford community and a broader national educational community of student rights issues at Stanford University.

Our group’s Report No. 1 (the June 2012 Case Study) was originally intended as our last, but the response from Stanford employees and Trustees makes clear more education is needed to protect our students.

In the June 201 Case Study (Report No. 1) we followed an actual case that was processed through Stanford’s Office of Community Standards (OCS). In the 2013 Internal Review (Report No. 2), we provide the background leading up to the 2012 Case Study and the response to the Case Study by Stanford employees and Trustees. A third major report, anticipated by the end of winter quarter 2014, will meticulously document the response of this elite University after it learned of allegations of wrongdoing in the very office tasked with maintaining the academic integrity of Stanford University.

Other reports may focus on specific issues, such as Report No. 3, which examine multiple issues that arose within a single sanction hearing.


Report No. 01
2012 Case Study – June 1, 2012
by Students L C and R, Bob Ottilie, John Martin, and Graham Gilmer

A Case Study of the Operations of the Office of Judicial Affairs at Stanford University – How Three Students Were Deprived of Rights Afforded Them under the Stanford Judicial Charter

This initial report of the Justice Project follows an actual case from June through November 29, 2011. With dozens of exhibits, it meticulously details the wrongs that were inflicted upon three innocent students who were almost convicted despite any evidence. The report highlights many violations of the Student Judicial Charter, which were repeated in other cases. It provides an excellent introduction to the judicial system at Stanford University.

This report is a case study and report of an actual case prosecuted against three Stanford students by the Stanford University Office of Judicial Affairs under Stanford’s Honor Code. The case began with a June 2011 final exam in a Human Biology class. It concluded with an acquittal of all three students at a hearing on November 29, 2011… read more


Report No. 02
2013 Internal Review – October 17, 2013
by numerous authors

This report summarizes the testimony of 24 individuals who have been through the judicial process at Stanford in the last two school years.

The 2013 Internal Review was designed to test the statements of Dean of Student Life Chris Griffith that the 2012 Case Study was an “outlier” and “an anomalous example.” Every participant in the 2013 Internal Review is highly critical of OCS. Their testimonials reflect an indictment of both OCS and those with supervisory responsibility over it.

This report also details what happened from November 30, 2011, when Dean of Student Life Chris Griffith was first put on notice of the problems at OCS, to the present, detailing efforts to work with University employees before and after the 2012 Case Study was published in May of 2013…. read more


Report No. 03
Issues raised by October 2013 sanction hearing – November 6, 2013
by Reid Spitz

In this report, the Student Justice Project identifies issues raised by just a single sanction hearing at Stanford that took place in October 2013. It highlights four major issues that arose in a case where the student admitted fault (DUI) and addressed sanctions only.

Dear Provost Boardman and Dean Griffith: As the President of the Student Justice Project, one of my goals this year is to try to stay abreast of cases and developments in the area of Judicial Affairs all across the Stanford campus. Our group first wants to provide emotional support and volunteer legal help (through alumni) to all students who need it. Second, we want to educate both you and the community as to what actually goes on in judicial cases at Stanford, and do so in real time as each case concludes. This will remove the cloak of secrecy that has existed with our judicial processes and allow us to bring to your attention areas as to which our group sees room for improvement… read more


In Archive