JMU on Hibson Case: Let Judicial Process Reach "Fair Conclusion"

So if you have been following our coverage of the two James Madison University student journalists, charged with several judicial violations, while covering a news story on campus, then you know one of the two students is Potomac Falls High School grad Katie Hibson, an athlete that we covered back in our "LPS days".

Hibson gave a very mature interview yesterday and we can't wait follow her career and see what great things she does. We have not presented the university's side of the story but we can now after JMU Director of Public Affairs and University Spokesman, Don Egle, called this morning.


Egle, who has been at JMU for three years, was very pleasant and gave as much information as he could, considering the case deals with students being brought up on judicial charges. I'm sure as somebody who would like present JMU in a positive light, Egle is caught in the classic between a rock and a hard place.

Egle said that while the media has presented this as clear "first amendment" (freedom of the press) issue, that the university is not viewing it in that light but as two students being accused of violating school policy.

"When the Office of Judicial Affairs has its meeting, cases can be made on both sides," said Egle. "The (goal) of the judicial process is to reach a fair conclusion."

Egle said that while the Office of Judicial Affairs has the first say in what is a "fair conclusion" in the case, if the students, Hibson and Tim Chapman, disagree with the conclusion they can appeal and that appeal would be heard by a committee of both peers and faculty members. And there is another appeal behind the first appeal if it gets that far down the judicial road.

"This situation has nothing to do with the journalism students working for The Breeze," said Egle. "In this situation they needed to stay outside of the dorm to ask their questions. The dorm policies are for the safety and well-being of the students and the policies apply to everyone."

So the crux of the matter is basically this: if the students were invited into the dorm and escorted, as per school policy, then the charges will not stick. If it can be proved that the students went into the dorm without invitation and without escort to conduct their interviews, then they may be found guilty.

So far, Hibson has presented in the media a compelling case that she was both invited and escorted. In fact one of the escorts on the second trip to the dorm actually works on the student newspaper and lives in the dorm.

We hope that the Judicial Affairs staff views it the same way as Hibson and drops the charges at the first meeting.

That would be the "fair conclusion" and it would allow the students to get back to their academic and extracurricular lives and keep their transcripts clean, and it would allow JMU to focus its energy on the real problem in this story: that a reported "peeping tom" was inside the campus dorm.