Home

History

Role of Judiciary

Membership

Bylaws

Contact Us

History

In the early 1960’s, a group of students from a historically black college in Alabama held a sit-in at a Montgomery lunch counter as part of a civil rights demonstration.  When they returned home after the demonstration, they each found a letter from the President of their institutions stating they were immediately expelled from school. A federal court case, Dixon v. Alabama, was filed in 1964. The students sued saying that the state cannot deprive individuals of life, liberty, and property, without due process. The students claimed that education is property. In his landmark decision, Judge Rives stated that education is important and is no longer a privilege, but a right. Therefore, there must be due process before an expulsion.

At that point, the University of Georgia began to look into restructuring its disciplinary procedures. The old system consisted of a Dean of Men and Dean of Women; William Tate and Louise McBee were the police, court, and jury.

In April 1968, the student body of the University of Georgia created the Student Judiciary as the third branch of the Student Government Association by adding Article III to the Student Body Constitution. This referendum action of the student body was endorsed and approved by the University Council in a June 1968 meeting. Later, University President Dr. Fred C. Daison delegated the Judiciary the power to hear and adjudicate disciplinary cases. On November 14, 1968, Student Body President Robert Williams appointed the first Justices to the Judicial Council and the Main Courts; the various Residence Court Justices were elected later the same month. The Student Senate approved of these Justices. The Judicial Council began writing and approving the Rules of Procedure and Regulations under which the various courts would operate, which were complete in December 1968.

Student Body President Williams administered the oath of office to all new Justices in early January 1969, and the Student Judiciary began functioning as a court system under the direction of the Judicial Council and its newly elected Chief Justice, Huber R. Parsons, Jr. The Judiciary then consisted of the Judicial Council, two divisions of the Main Courts, and ten separate Residence Courts (one for each residence hall area). The Student Judiciary officially began operation in May 15, 1969.

The first case heard before the Main Court involved a man and a woman in Peabody Hall. Police observed a scantily clad person in a graduate office through a window. After further investigation, an officer found a couple in the room, both lacking clothing. The woman provided a very detailed defense for the hearing panel. She states that they were walking down Jackson Street when an egg was thrown at the gentleman. He was a graduate student and had an office in Peabody Hall. They stopped by his office to clean his trousers. The woman stated that he felt embarrassed when he remover his pants. Therefore, to ease his embarrassment, she took her clothes off also. This defense was not over-whelming enough for the panel. The students were found in violation of disorderly conduct.

In the spring of 1970, the Organization and Traffic Appeals Courts became divisions of the Main Courts.  The Traffic Appeals Courts were a result of complaints from students that the Director of Parking Services hired all ticket writers and heard all appeals on tickets his employees wrote.  He asked the Office of Judicial Programs to take over the appeals system. The OJP and Judicial Council embraced the opportunity.  Additionally, in May 1973, the short-lived Pharmacy Ethics Court was established to deal with violations of pharmacy rules.

The University soon discovered that the University’s staff advocating cases had more knowledge and experience in the system than the student defendants.  A call for a more fair presentation of cases was put forth before the Judiciary. During the winter quarter of 1971, the Defender/Advocate Society was formed under the directorship of Phil Duderwicz.  Originally, the Society’s members only defended cases brought before the Judiciary. In the fall of 1971, the Society’s job was expanded to include advocating cases for the University as well. Initially, the Student Judiciary and the Society began taking steps to become independent of the Executive Branch of the Student Government Association. During the Spring Quarter of 1974, new by-laws were created and the Defender/Advocate Society became independent.  A constitutional crisis developed when the Student Judiciary did not recognize the independent Defender/Advocate Society, because it did not exist under the Student Body Constitution. Some members of the Society left, but several loyal members to the organization remained and the constitutional problems were resolved.

Both organizations continued to grow over the decade.  The Student Government Association disbanded for a short time, and the responsibilities of the Student Judiciary moved under the supervision of the Vice-President from Student Affairs.

Soon after, an Administrative Hearing option was created. This hearing used the same procedure as the Main Courts. However, its sole purpose was to dispose of cases where the defendant admits to the violations.  Another change came with the removal of academic dishonesty cases and the creation of the Academic Dishonesty Panel. This event was the result of a four-year debate on the fairness of these hearings to students.  A motion by a faculty member moved the Academic Honesty to the Office of Academic Affairs.

On March 15, 1993, The Red & Black, Inc. filed suit against the Board of Regents. Prior to this, all hearings and records were closed to the public. The newspaper claimed it had the right to view the hearings and records of hearings. On March 15, the Georgia Supreme Court ruled, among other things, that records of Student Organization Court were subject to the Open Meetings Act. This ruling forced the doors and files open to the public, not only on the campus of The University of Georgia, but also on campuses all over the state.

The next change came when the Judicial Council began pushing for a change in the structure of the courts. The council discovered, after the creation of the Administrative Hearing option, that many students chose that route. The Council proposed combining the Main Court and the Administrative Hearing. The result is the current structure of a three-person panel consisting of two student justices and an administrator.  Additionally, organizational cases no longer went to an Organizational Court. These cases also began to go before the three-person panel.

In the spring of 1997, the membership of both the Student Judiciary and the Defender/Advocate Society voted unanimously to approve new by-laws that joined the two organizations under one Council. The single organization now operates under the name of The University of Georgia Judiciary. Members are still selected as a Student Justice or Defender/Advocate; however, they are not members of separate societies.  Although the two organizations combined their resources, each member respects his or her duty as a Justice or Defender/Advocate and does not allow that line to blur in an effort to keep impartial hearings the focus of their work.

The last change to the University of Georgia’s Judicial System has never been tested in the courts of the State of Georgia, but models of its system have been tested elsewhere. Ferris State College in Grand Rapids, Michigan modeled its judicial system on the University of Georgia’s system.  The college was sued because a student claimed that he/she was suspended without due process.  A federal court heard the case and evaluated Ferris State’s judicial proceedings. The Court stated that there was more due process than necessary, and ruled in favor of Ferris State College. This not only gave the stamp of approval to Ferris State, but also to the University of Georgia.

Through all of the changes, the purpose of this University’s judicial system remains to conduct the hearings on behalf of the University for students accused of violating regulations.  The system adapts itself to change around it, but will always operate as an efficient and effective judicial system.