AIRAN SCRUBY
News Editor
About 10 percent of the Seaver College population will have contact with the Student Disciplinary Committee this year, for offenses ranging from lighting candles in residential areas to drinking on campus.
Of these, most will be sent warning letters. Some will have private hearings with Resident Directors or Student Disciplinary Committee (SDC) members. A few will go before the committee for a formal hearing, where they will be given an opportunity to present their side of the story to two faculty members, two staff members and two students, according to the Student Handbook and SDC officials.
Some students who have pleaded their case, however, say they feel the committee asks to hear what happened from the student’s perspective only as a formality.
“I feel like the minute you get into that room, it doesn’t matter what you do,” junior David Kob said. Kob was given a semester’s probation for an alcohol-related offense.
Kob said he has also dealt with the committee because his fraternity, Beta Theta Pi, was suspended from campus for alcohol abuse. His experience with SDC has made him feel that he wants little to do with Pepperdine after graduation.
“I don’t really see myself giving anything back,” Kob said. “I’m kind of bitter about it.”
Judicial Administrator Sharon Beard sees all cases for Seaver students and graduate students who live on campus. Beard said committee members carefully consider each student’s explanation for their actions or the accusations against them before making a final decision.
“It’s a volunteer committee,” Beard said. “They do what they do because they love students.”
“Matt,” a student who wishes to remain anonymous because he said he worries SDC will hold his comments against him, said his offense was settled within minutes over the phone, without regard for his explanations.
According to Matt, he admitted that he had committed an off-campus, alcohol-related offense, but said he felt that the context of the situation did not matter to SDC, who treated his case as a routine violation.
“It kind of felt like, once I said I did it, my fate was set in stone,” he said.
Matt’s offense occurred off-campus during the summer.
Matt said the committee interviewed him in a conference call, and said he remembered that they put him on hold for a few minutes while they discussed the situation. They then told him that he would receive probation, and he would therefore not be allowed to spend the coming school year abroad, he said.
Later, they e-mailed him an official decision, outlining the terms of his probation.
Beard said that this could not be the case, because responses to student offenses are not distributed this way.
Beard said she could not comment on any specific case, but that the process would never include immediate notification of a student or such short deliberation.
Beard said that though there is no set time, there would be a time of deliberation without the student present, and then the student would be sent notification of the decision.
“We never verbally give out a decision,” she said.
Though Beard said that many first offenses which SDC deems to be less serious are met with warnings and perhaps a meeting with a student.
Matt said that for him, this was not the case. His alcohol violation was his first offense.
Matt said he has to be very careful not to incur attention from SDC, because a second offense could result in his suspension.
“You’re kind of walking around on eggshells,” Matt said. “There are just so many ways to get written up that aren’t your fault.”
Kob also felt SDC did not consider that some situations were unavoidable for him. Kob said he got a warning when a bottle of vodka was found in his on-campus apartment.
Though Kob said the bottle was not his, all four residents were written up for the offense.
Referring to his first offense, Kob said, “That’s not innocent until proven guilty, that’s guilty until proven innocent.”
Later, when he was found to have photos depicting him drinking on Facebook, he was put on probation.
Kob said he felt this decision was made because he was affiliated with a fraternity and had received a warning previously.
Beard said she believed SDC had the best for the students in mind when making decisions.
“I have so much confidence in the committee,” she said.
Kob disagrees.
“They’re not very concerned with your well-being,” Kob said.
04-13-2006