As I understand it, they're not justice systems that carry the full legtimacy of the government (they can't put you in prison, for example). It's a system by which they can carry out administrative punishments like community service, suspension, or expulsion.
The potential for abuse is certainly there, but calling it a seperate justice system is a tad disingenuous. Most importantly, it seems that the standards for evidence and the rights of the accused are far less than in real courts.
But how do you solve this? My opinion is that severe things like expulsion should only be considered if found guilty of a felony (or even only a violent felony) in an actual court of law. The difficulty of conviction is a feature, not a bug, of the legitimate justice system. Administrative punishments should only be meted out for administrative "crimes" (cheating, violating housing agreements, etc) that have no corresponding crime in the criminal code.
I'm not seeing what is disingenuous about it. you certainly didn't make an argument backing that statement, and the stories I'm finding of private tribunals with secret charges and no attorneys give me the impression I'm correct. that universities do not also have a private prison system in no way reduces the fact that they do have a private justice system.
Fair enough. My point was that there is a place for such "private justice systems" because there are transgressions that the state has no authority over and no interest in persuing.
