A COMPLETELY UNBIASED COMMITTEE ? : THERE IS NO SUCH THING ....( Article by Professor Hu Chi ku Chi )

Club committee members who get involved in disciplinary hearings are on a hiding to nothing. They have to be seen as unbiased but that unfortunately is easier said than done. How can a committee member of a small club be detached, independent, objective, impartial and of " an open mind ", when he or she knows the person who is next up on a disciplinary charge......and has an established opinion of that person already. This liking or disliking will inevitably prejudice (a) the way the facts of the case might be interpreted, and (b) the direction in which the decision making is likely to go.

If, for instance, the accused has a bad disciplinary record already, or is regarded by many as being an unpopular and undesirable club member, then the likelihood of pre-existing negative opinions and natural prejudgements can not be ruled out. " Give a dog a bad name " is an idiom which immediately comes to mind.

Sometimes the bias reappears in the mind on impulse, such as seeing or hearing of an incident that confirms one's negative opinions of that person. The evidence introduced at the hearing may be very selective,  and presented in such a way as to promote only one interpretation....and outcome. Committee members may be subconsciously compelled to reach a decision which simply confirms the original opinion they had of the accused. Indeed, the bias can be expanded when committee members are told or reminded that the latest incident is similar to so many earlier ones,  on which their original opinions were formed.

All too often raw emotions fuel the prejudice, such as anger, annoyance and contempt ( wanting the alleged offender to disappear for good ) , or hatred and loathing ( wanting to inflict revenge and retribution ). If however committee members can prove themselves to be completely indifferent, then there is a good chance they can achieve the required standards of impartiality and objectiveness. It has to be noted that in law, it only requires one influential member on a committee to invalidate the decision-making process at the hearing, and therefore the decision that was ultimately reached. One extremely biased member is of course in no position to take part in a hearing and deliberate on the issue with total detachment. Because where there is established evidence of personal animosity towards the accused, there is an unavoidable direct interest in the matter being discussed by the committee,  and therefore a real likelihood of bias existing on his/her part. Whenever someone takes a strong stand against the accused during the process, then it is highly probable that he/she will have persuaded some of the others at the meeting to follow suit,  in both the interpretation of the facts and the recommended outcome.

Sadly, no self-respecting committee member is ever going to come right out and say " I'm very sorry but I'm biased against this person. and therefore in the interests of fairness and justice I had better stand down ". If the committee as a whole has reservations about being able to remain detached, impartial, and to approach the hearing " with an open mind ", then it would have been prudent to let an outside, independent body undertake the process.

So on a final note,  I would like to leave you with the following observations as to how one might recognise the presence of bias at a disciplinary hearing :

-  sudden changes to existing custom and practice
-  choice of words and language used *
-  tone of the language
-  level and extent of emotions expressed ( both verbal and non-verbal ) 
-  the carefully selected facts, on which decisions were made
-  the interpretation and framing of the facts to procure a certain outcome
-  biased selection of the accused's past history
-  members arriving at the meeting with decisions already made up in their minds
-  stifling of debate on any contentious facts or issues
-  suppressing minority and dissenting point of views 
-  the haste at which a decision was reached 
-  the disproportionate nature of the punishment in relation to the alleged offence
-  the absence of the accused,  to challenge the evidence and/or to plead a defence
-  the refusal to acknowledge the possibility of having made procedural errors or flaws      

The above observations clearly suggest there is no such thing as unbiased committee because the nature of The Human Condition forbids such a possibility. And one frightening characteristic of that human condition is the corrupting self-delusion that " although I strongly dislike this person and have been active campaigner to have him kicked out of the club, I can surely review his/her case in a completely unbiased way ". And no doubt in their self-delusion ( and eyes ).....that pigs can fly.    

( Footnote : *  There's a marked difference between " We may need to consider the option of expulsion "   to  " Sling the bastard out ! " )