Features

Students Denied Lawyers by UC

By JAKOB SCHILLER
Tuesday March 02, 2004

The UC Berkeley committee overseeing changes to the student code of conduct voted Thursday night to accept revisions that would prevent students from using lawyers to represent them in on-campus cases—unless it was deemed necessary by the University. 

The decision, which many students object to, was offered as a compromise by the committee because its original proposal would have banned lawyers altogether. The decision will allow for student advisors or Dave Madden, the student advocate for the University, to sit in and help students during their case.  

Michael Smith, who along with two other students, was arrested and charged for his participation in an anti-war protest last March and originally faced suspension for a full semester from the University, said the decision was “not a step forward for student rights.” 

“Having to ask for permission [for legal representation] is counterproductive to say the least,” said Smith, who along with the other two students currently has an appeal into the University challenging the ruling against them.  

Smith and the two other students charged said banning a lawyer from a campus hearing would violate their due process rights. Two of them could receive a letter or warning in their file that is reportable if they apply to a government job or waive their rights to the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). 

The students say it’s unfair to face such legal consequences without legal representation. 

Committee members said the changes were made to help make the hearing process more educational—and less adversarial—so students can learn from the process, instead of being distracted by a lawyer who they said usually takes over. The decision prevents lawyers from speaking for students but does not prevent students from seeking legal advice. 

Lawyers tend to “stand in for [students]”, said Bob Jacobson, a Physics professor, committee member and the chair of the panel who oversaw Smith’s case, making the process “much less valuable.”  

Madden, the student advocate, said the decision was “not ideal” but better than what was originally put on the table. 

“It’s a large step from where we were when the administration was ready to eliminate representation,” he said.r