Replies

In these university “tribunals” there’s not even a pretense of due process. The accused, especially if truly innocent, typically may have no idea who the accuser is, or even if it’s a real person at all. The accused is not allowed to bring a lawyer or counsel to the proceedings (they might be able to bring an academic advisor in some situations). Even if there is an accuser, who may remain anonymous, the proceedings run as if the accused is already guilty — no presumption of innocence.

If the accused is really innocent, it doesn’t matter. The university will want to railroad that person out and avoid controversy. All the university can do is expel the student: they can’t convict them of a crime and jail them.

Most truly innocent students going through this process likely have little to no idea what their options are, what their rights are or how the process works and how it’s not true justice. By the time the university’s decision is reached and the student’s out, it’s too late and they think that they have little recourse, which is true by and large. Sure, they can sue the school, but most students when they begin to figure out what that means are probably going to opt for finding a way to put this all behind them and not seek justice in real courts.

Of course, if someone did commit a crime, then the case should be brought to a court of law, not to a university tribunal. In that case we can only hope that justice prevails and that a person found guilty of a crime in a court of law will be appropriately punished.

But in the case of a falsely accused person, the university tribunals indeed are the kangaroo courts of no law.