There, the initiators of the charges present their evidence. The investigator presents the evidence collected, and the investigated student responds. The process is not formal and investigated students do not prepare for the process. The proposal's critics called for its termination, because they believe it allowed investigated students to prepare statements and elaborate defenses, transforming an informal procedure into a complex hearing. The question the Committee failed to consider, however, is how to work with students.
Many students find being under investigation an incredibly stressful incident.
Allowing students to know the evidence facing them would allow them to contemplate evidence and rationally answer panels' inquiries. When students believe the Committee trusts them, they will trust the Committee and have faith in their system. In its fight to retain student activity funding, the Virginia Advocate has enlisted the services of the Landmark Legal Foundation as its struggle with the Student Council Appropriations Committee continues. The Advocate and its leaders plan to bring pressure against the Committee in the form of a flood of media coverage and the shadow of a lawsuit. Considering the fact the Committee has not completed its final funding decisions, the Advocate is moving too quickly and using completely inappropriate measures to retain funding.