The Board of Judicial Affairs recently “clarified” the language of its drunk driving policy to help guide panels in deciding accused students’ responsibility for driving under the influence.
The new policy, which was adopted winter quarter, does not change the penalties for students found responsible for DUIs. It does, however, allow students accused of driving under the influence to be found responsible for Fundamental Standard violations even if they are not found guilty in court.
“One confusion that has come up in the past is how a particular DUI case relates to current law or court proceedings outside of Stanford,” wrote board co-chair Nate Chambers, a doctoral student in computer science, in an e-mail to The Daily. “As an example, if a student’s case is dropped by an external court, or if a student is able to plea-bargain out of a criminal charge, should this affect a panel’s decision? The old DUI guidance did not address this issue.”
According to Lynn Hildemann, the board’s co-chair and a professor in civil and environmental engineering, the change is intended to clarify the DUI policy, “not dramatically change it.”
The change comes in response to several DUI-related cases brought to the Office of Judicial Affairs. According to Chambers, who became co-chair this quarter, the clarification should also help students understand the University’s position on the matter.
Before addressing the change last quarter, the assumption among those involved in Judicial Affairs was that, because incurring a DUI on campus is considered a violation of the Fundamental Standard, if a student was not found legally guilty, a Judicial Affairs panel might not find the student responsible either.
The Fundamental Standard calls for “respect for order, morality, personal honor and the rights of others as is demanded of good citizens.” The new policy now responds: “Conduct that poses a risk of significant harm to people or property will generally violate this standard. Driving while under the influence of alcohol or drugs is an example of such conduct.”
It goes on to say that “meeting a legal standard is not necessary for finding a violation of the Fundamental Standard,” according to Chambers.
“It thus allows for panels to consider the intricacies of individual cases when they determine responsibility, rather than outside court proceedings,” Chambers said.
During the 2008-09 school year, Judicial Affairs panelists heard 12 Fundamental Standard cases, “most” involving DUIs, according to Office of Judicial Affairs statistics. Nine students were found responsible for Fundamental Standard violations.
Most students found responsible for DUI-related violations face a one-quarter suspension, 20 to 50 hours of community service, the loss of driving or parking privileges on campus for some time and possible restitution.
“I personally believe the new wording is a positive step,” Chambers said. “Rather than put the spotlight on the nitty-gritty details of DUI case law, it instead focuses on the responding student’s actual behavior.”
“We do not ask, ‘was 0.08 reached?’” Chambers said, referring to the legal blood alcohol limit for drivers at least 21 years old. “But instead, ‘Did the behavior cause a risk of significant harm?’ This goes to the heart of the Fundamental Standard by putting the emphasis on the action itself, and encouraging students to respect the order, morality and rights of others.”