On Nov. 16, the Student Union proposed a resolution to the administration stating that students should be able to review all evidence against them prior to their conduct hearings, which would be a different procedure for reviewing evidence than what is currently stated in the University's Rights and Responsibilities document. Rights and Responsibilities section 19.11 states that "the accused student and the accuser shall have the right to view and question all evidence presented to the board during the hearing." Students are not allowed to review or question any evidence prior to the hearing, only during it.

The issue of evidence in conduct hearings first occurred when the Office of Student Rights and Advocacy began printing magnets which were supposed to list students' rights. The magnet proposed that students involved in conduct hearings should be able to see the evidence against them prior to the hearing. The Office of Student Development and Conduct pointed out to Union members that this right conflicts with the wording in the Rights and Responsibilities.

The resolution states that the Student Union Senate recommends to the University Board of Student Development and Conduct to change the current evidence submission rules so that each party can review any evidence submitted on the day of the hearing for at least 24 hours before beginning trial procedures.

Senators Supreetha Gubbala '12, Andrew Brooks '09, Lev Hirschorn '11 and Director of the Student Union Office of Student Rights and Advocacy Laura Cohen '09 proposed this resolution.

Erika Lamarre, director of Student Development and Conduct, said this conflict is simply a misunderstanding of the wording in the Rights and Responsibilities document and that the resolution is unnecessary.

"There is an implication that students are not getting an adequate chance to prepare for their defense during a hearing. But the University is not trying to withhold information from the students. To the contrary, we are trying to keep the door open for both sides to introduce evidence during the hearing. We do not want all sides to be obligated to present evidence before a hearing, or there is no point in having a hearing," she said.

However, some Union members suggested this process of evidence review is unjust. "Many in the Union, including myself, have found this practice unfair because it does not allow either side ample time to review and question evidence," Cohen wrote in an e-mail to the Justice. She wrote that she had "personally talked to many [undergraduates] about how evidence is currently handled, and they too are concerned."

Although Cohen said that she understands that "there are sometimes circumstances that prevent evidence collection until the last minute" she said that her experience has showed that "both the accused and accusing parties collect the majority of their evidence several days prior to a hearing.