Having been an adviser to students facing disciplinary charges for five years, I wish to lay some additional "myths" to rest not mentioned in Moody's letter (Collegian, Feb. 12) criticizing an earlier Collegian article.

Student Hearing Board members are randomly selected for individual hearings and the article correctly quoted (Office of Conduct Standards) Director Don Suit on this; the process Moody described relates to those selected to serve the whole SHB system.

The headline was vague, but serious flaws exist within both SHB and University Hearing Board systems -- which are more than minor imperfections and amenable to correction.

First, hearings should be tape-recorded; testimony is presently summarized from handwritten notes of members by the chairpersons and too often important details are lost in the process. A cassette recorder and tapes are not that expensive.

Perhaps the University is more concerned about its liability -- i.e. the existence of a verbatim record as evidence -- in cases where rudimentary due process is violated or boards reach a purely arbitrary decision.

Second, priority should be given to hiring an investigator, so charges can be screened before they are brought. The person who makes it to OCS first to file generally becomes the "victim."

Third, student advisers are given far less access to the systems and materials before hearings than presenters are -- resulting in many "unfair" surprises.

I also know that Ms. Hurst was "unfairly disciplined," being her adviser when she went before an all-white UHB board. Because I had access to both systems, I was aware of a SHB case at the same time -- where a male student injured another male student and a far more lenient sanction was proposed.

Ms. Hurst admitted her wrongdoing -- relatively less serious than the SHB case, yet faced a harsher sanction and an UHB -- which almost always handles the more serious cases.

More notable, her sanction was "informally" reduced, for obvious reasons. Also, in more than 30 UHB hearings, I never saw one that wasn't chaired by a middle-aged or older white male. He who chairs charts the direction of the hearing and interprets, that is, writes up the findings of the whole individual board.

The references made to past demands by minority students (two defunct groups) for disciplinary system reform was raised in light of responses to them.

One, an additional charge was quietly added to the Student Code of Conduct to address non-violent protest tactics -- without the participation of or within view of the wider University community.

Two, the guidelines used to determine when a "failure to comply with the directives of an administrative official" occurred were eliminated in their entirety; these helped ensure that a student would not be charged for failing to follow an arbitrarily issued directive!

Finally, if these systems are so fair they should be able to survive public criticism -- lest they become "archaic and discriminatory," or even worse, revert to serving an "in loco parentis" role.

Rather than being "thin-skinned," Moody should have read the article more carefully before writing an off-base letter.

There are serious problems within the disciplinary system, which will not be changed without the larger involvement of the University community.