'Page Three, THE HILLTOP, Friday, November 11,1983
')>t may concern:
of Defense of Mars Hill, I
y offer my resignation, effec-
^ 'stely for the following rea-
last
le
t’s not forget
m.
e music of
istroyed.
vorthless. Sort'll W?
nd several
tt'li 3ry
interpretation of the hand-
changed to, noil suit the means and manner of
iditi:
‘inistration. I realize that
IS a private school and ex-
at what cosj^?^ ^ community, but does
"'0 have to leave out some
ethical elements of consti-
W?
they don’t agr^ court system, I have
Otis' nnust strive
at its current r latency in its action. That
tudents? Ifye*’’ feminds me of a quote
1 shame if the^ , writer, “Consistency
Mth its audiefl^
'Soblin of small minds.”
js tlifferent and must stand
1 if this were not true we
bo(j ^nve a court system and
1^1^ 'irVC*’''iis f
Ificgjj “t the same alleged crime.
Ces ^ in this case I feel the
'!” accordingly and well
e editorial pct
necessitates tbi V. Tq appggj ^ decision by
inion and brif^,
i 'Us!'
'1^ jurisdiction for the al-
'ig board
arbitrarily and ca
ts presented ^ ccause of the sanctions
. -(i: 'focp^ disrespectful of the judi-
ed with a visi ^ ss again a mockery of
the student
le students guii*'
'ell as probatif"
suspension).
d the case to tb^
ippeal was
rd was inconsr'
Eivpjj^dents of Mars Hill have
responsibility to judge
peers. By allowing
by administration has tak-
Hiii responsibility to serve
t year. We
dy in this sitH^^
; appealed, bu' t|.
ylPf . *‘1
Dsition of ha''
:d by a sens^l'^.
ure (i.e.
Of
jast years
case in itself**
as aggravate*!'
PP^’
e right to a]
id according'
hearing boaP
It they are
(q encourage the adminis-
, j/^^P^et our responsibility.
'^I'^istration, don’t play
fbe fence.
gj^dan institution I under-
^ particular
bve ^P^ibility. However, don’t
tare ^ responsibility to
'% compassion to help
•Co^ bturlent? What good has
'^bed? ^bi® college has
j'risti/^f’^iisibility to help mold
P'itbf,„'b character. Our
bCi
■ed
;s was corn
ven by the b^^.
:he appeals b
resr
nistration ■-
f Student
Vice-Chan*if,,fOsj
ipeal power **
Letters to the Editor
action of the Dean of Stu-
''clopment has made a mock-
t judicial system of Mars Hill
justice it seeks to serve. This
u Way a personal vendetta
on, to professio* the Dean, but a protest
and his only cd is lack of concern for the
doesn’t care. ^ students attending Mars
lot care just beP ^U'cal of the judicial process in
.respectful for its
ation,” now b- exist. I have no respect for its
N>-
mission
i‘%t {j'boted on page two of
J'^b'eap^'bdbook, is listed as a
itai to nurturing the in-
IC,j ' •
.spiritual, social, and
b*e efjj'^^'oprnent of students
to us... encourag-
biicl g iscover their own iden-
bthef their relationships
y,’> j Persons, with God, and
eti \^^dcss by suspending two
'^ho
showed concern for
we have done our
I
that
Piission. I think not.
berve a position on the
judicial branch when my position means
nothing and my work is erased by the
whims of the administration? I regret
fully and respectfully resign my position
as Chief of Defense.
Frank Porter
cc: Dr. Fred Bentley
Dean Michael O’Brien
Dean Richard Hoffman
Mr. Chris Harrison
The Hilltop Editors
Dear Mr. Editor:
What is Justice at Mars Hill? Before a
recent case which came before the Hear
ing Board, I thought there was justice at
Mars Hill College* It was my impression
that any student at MHC under suspi
cion of an offense has, according to the
handbook, the right to go before Dean
O’Brien or before a Hearing Board con
sisting of his fellow students. The case
was one of visitation with aggravating
circumstances. According to the hand
book, persons found guilty of aggravat
ed visitation are “vulnerable to suspen
sion.” It was my interpretation that in
order to decide upon a penalty I must
consider the circumstances surrounding
the offense and if the circumstances dic
tate suspension jt was my job to issue the
sentence of suspension. However, in my
opinion, I also have the right (due to the
vulnerable clause) to dictate a sentence
less than suspension. It was the decision
of the Hearing Board that in this case
suspension was not imperative. Our de
cision was overturned by Dean O’Brien.
This decision was the result of what I
thought was justice. But there is no
justice anymore at Mars Hill!!! The de
fendant in this case had the right to ap
pear before the Hearing Board instead
of going to the Dean. But why have a
Hearing Board if, when a dedision is
reached as a result of a “hearing” of the
case, it can simply be appealed by the
Dean because precedence was broken. Is
Mars Hill Justice merely a bunch of pre
cedence? The circumstances in every
case are not the same which is why a
Hearing Board is imperative to justice -
to hear and decide. If every decision,
contrary to precedence is going to be
overturned by the Dean, then the Hear
ing Board is of no service and there can
be no justice.
Paul Christopher
Student Justice
To whom it may concern:
As a justice for the Student Hearing
Board I respectfully submit my resigna
tion for the following reasons:
1) The recent action by the Dean of
Student Development has made a farce
of the student judicial system at Mars
Hill and the principles we purport to
represent. This is not intended a a per
sonal affront to the Dean of Student
Development but rather as an expression
of concern for student rights and the
principles this college was founded on.
2) Secondly 1 believe that making a
decision purely on the basis of precedent
is wrong. It is my belief that precedent is
intended as a guideline - not as the only
solution. If it was intended as the only
solution then there would be no need for
student justices, the crime could merely
be punched into a machine and an ap
propriate sanction printed out.
3) I believe the Code of Student Con
duct is too vague. If it is to be inter
preted so loosely as to fit the purposes of
the administration then the students
should be allowed an equally liberal in
terpretation to suit their needs.
4) In conclusion according to the
statement of mission and purpose con
tained in the 1983/84 Student Hand
book we at Mars Hill College are
“...Committed to nurturing the in
tellectual, spiritual, social, and physical
development of the students who are en
trusted to us...” and we supposedly
meet these goals by ensuring these
students a right to “enjoy personal
privacy” and to “develop sexual identity
through meaningful relationships with
both sexes” among other methods. I be
lieve that if we provided more oppor
tunities to have privacy on this campus
without having to resort to the unau
thorized use of dorm rooms or having to
leave campus then there would be fewer
incidents of this kind.
Respectfully submitted,
Laura P. Annis
To the Editor of the Hilltop:
As a student justice of the Mars Hill
College Justice Board I feel a personal
insult has been made to the Hearing
Board. After the recent appeal of a case
decided on by the Hearing Board by the
Dean of Student Affairs, I question
whether or not the Dean has made a
mockery of the Hearing Board. Are the
Hearing Board’s rulings alright as long
as they follow what the administration
interprets as the “right” ruling? Is the
student judicial system simply to keep
the students quiet about being tried by a
jury of their peers? What is the point of
having a choice to be tried by the Hear
ing Board or the Dean of Student Af
fairs if the Dean is going to appeal
everything he doesn’t agree with so
blatantly to the Appeals Board?
It was public knowledge that the Dean
wanted these students suspended for
alleged “aggravated visitation.” The
Appeals Board knew this and decided
the case by precedence. The appeal was
not whether or not the students were
guilty, it was whether they should be
given a fine as decided by the Hearing
Board or whether they should be sus
pended. As stated in the handbook the
Hearing Board has the discretion of im
posing a fine or suspension.
I think the only appropriate appeal
now is whether the Hearing Board is a
“monkey court” or whether it is respect
ed as upholding the Code of Studem
Conduct of Mars Hill College and its
rulings for punishment stand.
Respectfully,
Kelly L. Denton
To Whom It May Concern:
This past week a very significant event
took place in the Judicial System of
Mars Hill College.
A Hearing Board Decision was ap
pealed by the Dean of Students and
eventually by the Appeals Board.
I think there are several reasons stu
dents should be alarmed:
1) The decision made by the Hearing
Board was well within the laws of the
Student Handbook; yet it was appealed.
The option to be heard by your peers is a
right of Mars Hill students. The Dean’s
appeal has rendered the Hearing Board
useless. The underlying statement is that
the Hearing Board decisions only hold
weight if the Dean approves. The ques
tion must be asked: Why have a student
court if the real decision rests with the
Dean of Students?
2) The justification of the appeal was
based on precedence of former sanc
tions. While case precedence is very im
portant (and it was heavily considered in
the student hearing) each case is special
and should stand on its own. If each case
is the same there is no need for trials; all
defendants would merely check out of
school the minute they were caught in an
offense. The fact that we have a trial
system indicates that at one time we
believed that each case was different.
The student handbook states on page
46 paragraph O.. .“Unauthorized visit
ation with aggravating circumstances
shall make the individual convicted of
such an offense vulnerable to suspen
sion.” The words “aggravating circum
stances” and “vulnerable to suspen
sion” are vague. The purpose of their
vagueness would seem to allow for the
possibility of special circumstances. It
seems to me when the student handbook
was written it was,with the intent that
special circumstances be considered in
case hearings. Obviously this attitude is
no longer prevalent.
3) The appeal’s decision was made on
a summary statement by the chief Jus
tice. They (the appeals board) heard no
testimony from the original trial nor did
they choose to listen to any of the tape
from the hearing (which was available).
Basically the appeals decision was based
on previous cases not this one in par
ticular.
4) The Dean of Students who brought
the appeal to the Appeals Board was al
lowed to sit in on the closed delibera
tions of the Appeals Board. Though he
is given this right by the Student Hand
book, it is unethical that the prosecution
be allowed to do this and not the de
fense.
Based on the above mentioned rea
sons and on other circumstances of this
case I find my responsibility as a justice
on the hearing board mocked and ren
dered useless. 1 will no longer participate
in a system that does not respect my
opinion as a part of the office I hold.
Effective on the date of this publica
tion, I officially resign my post as justice
for the Student Hearing Board.
Sincerely,
Tim Moore