<\/p>\n
Editor\u2019s note: This editorial is the third entry in a longer series examining the University of Michigan\u2019s new disciplinary system, as well as the key players within that system. You can read the full series here<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n The University\u2019s new disciplinary apparatus didn\u2019t emerge out of a vacuum. Before 2024<\/a>, students had access to a fairly robust justice system. The accused party could request a jury of their peers in the form of a student panel and even object to the initial ruling before an appeals board. This process, while flawed, worked relatively successfully for years.<\/p>\n It was put to the test by a series of controversial protests at the Alexander G. Ruthven Building<\/a> in November 2023 and the 101st Honors Convocation<\/a> in March 2024. Following the demonstrations, many of the participants were charged with violations of the rules. Some reached plea agreements, and others fought the allegations. As one would expect from a functioning judicial system, the verdicts were a mixed bag<\/a>: Some students were found guilty while others were not.<\/p>\n The University wasn\u2019t satisfied, so Martino Harmon, Vice President for Student Life, intervened. According to the protesters, he personally overturned<\/a> every single one of the not guilty findings, including the cases where the administration had lost its appeal. This Editorial Board can find no other reports of the VPSL invoking this authority, and Harmon\u2019s decision to wield it so aggressively removed any pretense of impartiality from the disciplinary process. He tampered with a largely effective system to achieve the administration\u2019s preferred outcome \u2014 an unsavory task that he has since outsourced to a new employee.<\/p>\n