With the possible requirement of a higher burden of proof, students who face hearings with the office of student conduct may eventually gain security with an increase in the likelihood of justice served.

Lock Whiteside, student chief justice, said he created a task force made of various student organization leaders last fall to explore possible judicial board reforms.

According to Whiteside, a senior in political science and social studies education, the task force conducted research at UNC-Chapel Hill, University of Virginia and Stanford University to begin the reform project.

He said he chose to model the majority of the reform after UNC-Chapel Hill’s system of codes because UNC-Chapel Hill requires a higher burden of proof than N.C. State.

“[UNC-Chapel Hill’s] students — when they go before the judicial board — they’re innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt,” he said. “So ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ is the 90 percent mark so to speak.”

According to Whiteside, N.C. State uses a burden of proof called “clear and convincing,” which requires a 70 percent burden of proof.

Whiteside said he is most concerned with non-academic based cases in which the verdict could go either way. He said he basically wants to bring more information to the judicial board during cases.

“I think that it’s to protect not only the student’s due process but the safety of the community,” he said.

James Hankins, student senate president pro tempore and former member of the task force, said he thinks the reform has the potential to increase student awareness of the judicial process.

“I know a lot of students who are extremely nervous about going to the office of student conduct because they don’t understand the due process,” Hankins, a junior in political science, said.

Whiteside said another aspect of UNC-Chapel Hill’s judicial system that he considers using as an example is the concept of students representing fellow students during hearings.

“We’ve been juggling that around,” he said.

Whiteside said while some may be apprehensive when it comes to change, he feels the reform is important.

“To be quite honest, many of the judicial [officers] are against many changes that are to be made,” he said.

However, some judicial members said they haven’t been informed about the reform project at all.

Michael Crouch, a judicial assistant, said the last mention he heard about the judicial reform was during Whiteside’s campaign.

Crouch, a senior in textile engineering, speculated on why Whiteside hadn’t addressed the board about the reform yet.

“He might be doing it with certain people behind doors,” he said.

Austin Vevurka, a judicial board member and senior in political science, said he didn’t know anything about the reform process.

Chris Gilmore, a judicial assistant and junior in political science, chose not to comment on the judicial reform.

The judicial reform process will continue into the spring semester.

Hankins said although the reform sounds like something that can be completed in a day or a week, it will take a while to accomplish.

“I think that it is something that is going to take a long time,” he said. “A lot of people are doing a lot of research to make sure that this is something that University wants to do.”

Whiteside said in the next couple of weeks, the reform process will progress from research mode to conversations with Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs Tom Stafford, Provost Larry Nielsen and Chancellor James Oblinger about the project.

According to Whiteside, the task force spent last semester doing research and is now ready to advance to the next step.

“We’re getting things cranking up for this semester,” he said.