Comment on Student Conduct Board Procedures

[dgibbons]

The website to comment on the student conduct procedures is up.

https://from.wsu.edu/president/2016/student-conduct-process/provide-input/message.html?utm_source=phplist199&utm_medium=email&utm_content=HTML&utm_campaign=Provide+input+about+WSU+student+conduct+process

I think it is important for alumni to be heard on this. In my mind this is not about Robert Barber, his case just brought this to light. Below are the comments I submitted. I am placing them here to hopefully inspire your own comments. I do not ask that you agree with me.

The procedures for students facing suspension or expulsion the student conduct procedures must be completely overhauled. Suspension or expulsion are punitive in nature, not educational. The University's procedures must realize that. Students faced with potential suspension or expulsion must have the right to ask questions directly of witnesses or accusers. Students facing suspension or expulsion must have the right to disqualify members of the conduct board. If a student retains legal counsel, legal counsel must be able to participate directly in the student conduct proceeding. The members of a student conduct board must be representative of the WSU student body. The members of the student conduct board must have adequate training regarding weighing of evidence, their duty to be impartial, consideration of aggravating factors, consideration of mitigating factors, and the procedures they are required to follow.


New rules should be implemented immediately. There is no need to obtain an independent legal review. The University knows its procedures are inadequate. The University administration knows the procedures are inadequate. In the interim, the University President should be granting any expelled or suspended student a full adjudicative hearing. Use the University of Washington student conduct procedures and the procedures set forth in Section II.F. of WSU's Faculty Manual as your guideposts. WSU students are not be entitled to less due process then their peers at UW, and are not entitled to less due process than WSU faculty.

Lastly, I am willing to do more than complain and submit comments. I am willing to volunteer my time and energy to do whatever I can to aid the University in a quick and proper resolution to this matter.

 

[YakiCoug]

The website to comment on the student conduct procedures is up.

https://from.wsu.edu/president/2016/student-conduct-process/provide-input/message.html?utm_source=phplist199&utm_medium=email&utm_content=HTML&utm_campaign=Provide+input+about+WSU+student+conduct+process

I think it is important for alumni to be heard on this. In my mind this is not about Robert Barber, his case just brought this to light. Below are the comments I submitted. I am placing them here to hopefully inspire your own comments. I do not ask that you agree with me.

The procedures for students facing suspension or expulsion the student conduct procedures must be completely overhauled. Suspension or expulsion are punitive in nature, not educational. The University's procedures must realize that. Students faced with potential suspension or expulsion must have the right to ask questions directly of witnesses or accusers. Students facing suspension or expulsion must have the right to disqualify members of the conduct board. If a student retains legal counsel, legal counsel must be able to participate directly in the student conduct proceeding. The members of a student conduct board must be representative of the WSU student body. The members of the student conduct board must have adequate training regarding weighing of evidence, their duty to be impartial, consideration of aggravating factors, consideration of mitigating factors, and the procedures they are required to follow.


New rules should be implemented immediately. There is no need to obtain an independent legal review. The University knows its procedures are inadequate. The University administration knows the procedures are inadequate. In the interim, the University President should be granting any expelled or suspended student a full adjudicative hearing. Use the University of Washington student conduct procedures and the procedures set forth in Section II.F. of WSU's Faculty Manual as your guideposts. WSU students are not be entitled to less due process then their peers at UW, and are not entitled to less due process than WSU faculty.

Lastly, I am willing to do more than complain and submit comments. I am willing to volunteer my time and energy to do whatever I can to aid the University in a quick and proper resolution to this matter.

Early on, there were a couple posters here desperately trying to elicit a play-Jerramy-Stevens-at-all-costs kind of reaction from people. But most had the due process factor in mind and, of course, the cruel deprivation of Barber's prospect of graduating. Would I like him to be reinstated on the team? Of course, but I, as many others here, had the bigger picture in mind.

 

[kayak15]

The website to comment on the student conduct procedures is up.

https://from.wsu.edu/president/2016/student-conduct-process/provide-input/message.html?utm_source=phplist199&utm_medium=email&utm_content=HTML&utm_campaign=Provide+input+about+WSU+student+conduct+process

I think it is important for alumni to be heard on this. In my mind this is not about Robert Barber, his case just brought this to light. Below are the comments I submitted. I am placing them here to hopefully inspire your own comments. I do not ask that you agree with me.

The procedures for students facing suspension or expulsion the student conduct procedures must be completely overhauled. Suspension or expulsion are punitive in nature, not educational. The University's procedures must realize that. Students faced with potential suspension or expulsion must have the right to ask questions directly of witnesses or accusers. Students facing suspension or expulsion must have the right to disqualify members of the conduct board. If a student retains legal counsel, legal counsel must be able to participate directly in the student conduct proceeding. The members of a student conduct board must be representative of the WSU student body. The members of the student conduct board must have adequate training regarding weighing of evidence, their duty to be impartial, consideration of aggravating factors, consideration of mitigating factors, and the procedures they are required to follow.


New rules should be implemented immediately. There is no need to obtain an independent legal review. The University knows its procedures are inadequate. The University administration knows the procedures are inadequate. In the interim, the University President should be granting any expelled or suspended student a full adjudicative hearing. Use the University of Washington student conduct procedures and the procedures set forth in Section II.F. of WSU's Faculty Manual as your guideposts. WSU students are not be entitled to less due process then their peers at UW, and are not entitled to less due process than WSU faculty.

Lastly, I am willing to do more than complain and submit comments. I am willing to volunteer my time and energy to do whatever I can to aid the University in a quick and proper resolution to this matter.

Thank you for this post and thread. I've taken advantage of the link provided to send a lengthy and angry message with observations, complaints and suggestions aplenty. I hope that others will do the same. Thanks again.

 

[MRICoug]

Early on, there were a couple posters here desperately trying to elicit a play-Jerramy-Stevens-at-all-costs kind of reaction from people. But most had the due process factor in mind and, of course, the cruel deprivation of Barber's prospect of graduating. Would I like him to be reinstated on the team? Of course, but I, as many others here, had the bigger picture in mind.

That can't be true...I mean logic does not HAVE to come into play right?

 

[cr8zyncalif]

Veteran's day seems a fitting time to comment on the right to face your accusers.

Just ask yourself…in what other venue…what other forum…what other institution…would someone with as much to lose as an accused person in a situation similar to Barber's, not be permitted to cross examine? To ask questions? To point out inconsistencies in the story, or even outright fabrications?

Clearly the scenario is not just. And if, on top of that, it follows on a police department's racist history in terms of a pattern of arrests without charges, then Pullman should probably consider relocating to Mississippi, or perhaps Alabama.

For shame. Can anyone associated with this look themselves in the mirror and like what they see??

 

[kayak15]

Veteran's day seems a fitting time to comment on the right to face your accusers.

Just ask yourself…in what other venue…what other forum…what other institution…would someone with as much to lose as an accused person in a situation similar to Barber's, not be permitted to cross examine? To ask questions? To point out inconsistencies in the story, or even outright fabrications?

Clearly the scenario is not just. And if, on top of that, it follows on a police department's racist history in terms of a pattern of arrests without charges, then Pullman should probably consider relocating to Mississippi, or perhaps Alabama.

For shame. Can anyone associated with this look themselves in the mirror and like what they see??[/QUOTE]

Yes, they can. That is a major part of the problem.

 

[Cougsocal]

You are in the legal biz, how does the university "know" its procedures are inadequate? What court holdings are you relying upon?

Or are you relying upon President Jellyfish, our apparently spine challenged head.

I've been sexually assaulted - I must be subjected to cross examination by my attacker and his attorney, during an admin hearing, a hearing without any court protections, such as contempt powers, the rules of evidence, rape shield laws, and not subject to gags orders etc. Further, my attacker has the right to choose who decides his fate with his/her disqualification powers. This won't have a chilling effect, will it?

The fact is WSU's student conduct procedures have been thoroughly litigated in the courts, and upheld. see AKL v. WSU (2009); Eddy v WSU (2016). The more difficult you make it to rid ourselves of bad eggs, the more we must suffer the consequences thereof.

If WSU's conduct procedures need tweaking, which they may, it should not be done amidst football fanatic hysteria. And yes, it is hysteria, because the only people "concerned" right now are small groups of the self-interested. There are no mass demonstrations among the student body, facility or even the football team, proclaiming that Robert Barber is being wrongfully treated. The only ones upset are Coug fans, Polynesian right groups, and his attorney.

 

[Coug95man2]

You are in the legal biz, how does the university "know" its procedures are inadequate? What court holdings are you relying upon?

Or are you relying upon President Jellyfish, our apparently spine challenged head.

I've been sexually assaulted - I must be subjected to cross examination by my attacker and his attorney, during an admin hearing, a hearing without any court protections, such as contempt powers, the rules of evidence, rape shield laws, and not subject to gags orders etc. Further, my attacker has the right to choose who decides his fate with his/her disqualification powers. This won't have a chilling effect, will it?

The fact is WSU's student conduct procedures have been thoroughly litigated in the courts, and upheld. see AKL v. WSU (2009); Eddy v WSU (2016). The more difficult you make it to rid ourselves of bad eggs, the more we must suffer the consequences thereof.

If WSU's conduct procedures need tweaking, which they may, it should not be done amidst football fanatic hysteria. And yes, it is hysteria, because the only people "concerned" right now are small groups of the self-interested. There are no mass demonstrations among the student body, facility or even the football team, proclaiming that Robert Barber is being wrongfully treated. The only ones upset are Coug fans, Polynesian right groups, and his attorney.

Hold on a second... You mean to tell me, the WSU conduct board has been looking over the kind of situation as you are outlining SoCal? Like Rape or other sexual assault? Or is this just an non-applicable example?

 

[BleedCrimsonandGray]

You are in the legal biz, how does the university "know" its procedures are inadequate? What court holdings are you relying upon?

Or are you relying upon President Jellyfish, our apparently spine challenged head.

I've been sexually assaulted - I must be subjected to cross examination by my attacker and his attorney, during an admin hearing, a hearing without any court protections, such as contempt powers, the rules of evidence, rape shield laws, and not subject to gags orders etc. Further, my attacker has the right to choose who decides his fate with his/her disqualification powers. This won't have a chilling effect, will it?

The fact is WSU's student conduct procedures have been thoroughly litigated in the courts, and upheld. see AKL v. WSU (2009); Eddy v WSU (2016). The more difficult you make it to rid ourselves of bad eggs, the more we must suffer the consequences thereof.

If WSU's conduct procedures need tweaking, which they may, it should not be done amidst football fanatic hysteria. And yes, it is hysteria, because the only people "concerned" right now are small groups of the self-interested. There are no mass demonstrations among the student body, facility or even the football team, proclaiming that Robert Barber is being wrongfully treated. The only ones upset are Coug fans, Polynesian right groups, and his attorney.

Both of the cases cited were administered as if they were court proceedings. Barber's hearing was a kangaroo court, as I suspect many other students' hearing are.

There is no doubt in my mind that many of the ruling of the SCB are just; kids know that they messed up and accept their punishment. However, if a student feels as though they did not receive due process then the hearing needs to be reviewed and possibly revisited. Obviously the SCB thought they had and open/shut case with the "should be caged" brown person hitting a white person, but Barber and others thought there were mitigating circumstances.

Again, I'm not sure where I stand on Barber's punishment. I feel like most students don't get expelled for fist fighting, nor should they if its just a dust up. He hit him once when he was down, saw he was down, and stopped. He didn't curb stomp the guy, but I digress.

IF the university wants to institute a no-tolerance policy on fighting they should make that clear to the incoming freshman during orientation. "Zero strikes policy- if you fight on campus you are gone." Now there is no debate and no judging "oh, this fight was worse than that fight" or "he was bigger, so he gets expelled."

Here's a question for one particular poster, but all who want Barber crucified - what should the punishment have been if the "victim" had gotten that one glorious haymaker and knocked Barber out and then one more for good measure? I suspect the conversation would be quite different, or maybe not. The same people seem to think Luani got what he deserved when he WAS curbstomped 1v4.

 

[dgibbons]

You are in the legal biz, how does the university "know" its procedures are inadequate? What court holdings are you relying upon?

Or are you relying upon President Jellyfish, our apparently spine challenged head.

I've been sexually assaulted - I must be subjected to cross examination by my attacker and his attorney, during an admin hearing, a hearing without any court protections, such as contempt powers, the rules of evidence, rape shield laws, and not subject to gags orders etc. Further, my attacker has the right to choose who decides his fate with his/her disqualification powers. This won't have a chilling effect, will it?

The fact is WSU's student conduct procedures have been thoroughly litigated in the courts, and upheld. see AKL v. WSU (2009); Eddy v WSU (2016). The more difficult you make it to rid ourselves of bad eggs, the more we must suffer the consequences thereof.

If WSU's conduct procedures need tweaking, which they may, it should not be done amidst football fanatic hysteria. And yes, it is hysteria, because the only people "concerned" right now are small groups of the self-interested. There are no mass demonstrations among the student body, facility or even the football team, proclaiming that Robert Barber is being wrongfully treated. The only ones upset are Coug fans, Polynesian right groups, and his attorney.

My opinion is that if the procedures are A-Okay, there was no need to retain a law firm to review anything. I also do not believe that the WSU students at risk for suspension or expulsion should have less due process protections than uw students, or less due process protections than professors at WSU.

The rights of the accused are what is at stake when a student is at risk for a student facing suspension or expulsion. The victim's status at WSU is not at issue. On at least one occasion, WSU lost on an administrative review of a student that was expelled for alleged sexual assault. Outside of Washington there is a growing body of case law where students prevailed.

But like I said, I don't ask that you agree with me. Feel free to submit your comments. I already said this wasn't about Barber, his case just brought it to light. If he loses his motion to stay on Wednesday, he gets his degree and walks in December.

 

[Coug95man2]

My opinion is that if the procedures are A-Okay, there was no need to retain a law firm to review anything. I also do not believe that the WSU students at risk for suspension or expulsion should have less due process protections than uw students, or less due process protections than professors at WSU.

The rights of the accused are what is at stake when a student is at risk for a student facing suspension or expulsion. The victim's status at WSU is not at issue. On at least one occasion, WSU lost on an administrative review of a student that was expelled for alleged sexual assault. Outside of Washington there is a growing body of case law where students prevailed.

But like I said, I don't ask that you agree with me. Feel free to submit your comments. I already said this wasn't about Barber, his case just brought it to light. If he loses his motion to stay on Wednesday, he gets his degree and walks in December.

So Dgibbons, I have a question. It appears the SCB has presided over pretty much every crime out there. Barber's case as a prime example, they "convicted" him via expulsion prior to any court case. So how many situations has the SCB presided over legal issues PRIOR to court rulings? Thus they didn't have all the facts, isn't that correct? There is no way for all the facts to be out, is there? Police/detectives/prosecutors will hold onto evidence until court, don't they? So facts are withheld from public, thus SCB's, all the time? So these very important situations are being judged without all the facts... Am I off base on this assumption? Please explain and clarify if I'm wrong.

If it's a reflection of a court hearing, I get it. But to make judgements prior to court hearings, if I'm making the correct assumptions, makes no sense.

 

[dgibbons]

So Dgibbons, I have a question. It appears the SCB has presided over pretty much every crime out there. Barber's case as a prime example, they "convicted" him via expulsion prior to any court case. So how many situations has the SCB presided over legal issues PRIOR to court rulings? Thus they didn't have all the facts, isn't that correct? There is no way for all the facts to be out, is there? Police/detectives/prosecutors will hold onto evidence until court, don't they? So facts are withheld from public, thus SCB's, all the time? So these very important situations are being judged without all the facts... Am I off base on this assumption? Please explain and clarify if I'm wrong.

If it's a reflection of a court hearing, I get it. But to make judgements prior to court hearings, if I'm making the correct assumptions, makes no sense.

WSU would have to release information on the number of cases involving something that would constitute a serious crime. One of Loh's stories said there were 2,500 to 3,000 student conduct complaints filed every year. But those would include anything and everything- drinking beer in your dorm room, cheating on a test, assault, sexual assault, etc. The student conduct board determines whether or not the student violated the student code of conduct and operates on a preponderance of the evidence standard, so it doesn't matter if the accused student is even arrested or not for it to make its decisions. The student conduct board does gather evidence- it will have a complaint, and there will be people that testify. In Barber's case a police officer testified.

 

[Coug95man2]

WSU would have to release information on the number of cases involving something that would constitute a serious crime. One of Loh's stories said there were 2,500 to 3,000 student conduct complaints filed every year. But those would include anything and everything- drinking beer in your dorm room, cheating on a test, assault, sexual assault, etc. The student conduct board determines whether or not the student violated the student code of conduct and operates on a preponderance of the evidence standard, so it doesn't matter if the accused student is even arrested or not for it to make its decisions. The student conduct board does gather evidence- it will have a complaint, and there will be people that testify. In Barber's case a police officer testified.

Makes sense. So next question: Would a police officer testifying before the SCB be required to show/testify regarding any evidence that hasn't been released for public consumption yet? I have been involved in hearings where sexual assault was charged. There was evidence that the general public didn't know about until court. Is that normal? What is the frequency of evidence not being given to the public?

 

[dgibbons]

Makes sense. So next question: Would a police officer testifying before the SCB be required to show/testify regarding any evidence that hasn't been released for public consumption yet? I have been involved in hearings where sexual assault was charged. There was evidence that the general public didn't know about until court. Is that normal? What is the frequency of evidence not being given to the public?

I guess whatever the police officer can say without compromising the investigation. Which seems to be kind of a contradiction.

 

[Coug1990]

The fact is WSU's student conduct procedures have been thoroughly litigated in the courts, and upheld. see AKL v. WSU (2009); Eddy v WSU (2016). The more difficult you make it to rid ourselves of bad eggs, the more we must suffer the consequences thereof.

I just read these two cases. I do not believe them to be relevant to the Barber case. In fact, in the Eddy case, she had much more due process than Barber before being expelled. That could be an "in" where Barber shows prejudice.

 

[Cougsocal]

Hold on a second... You mean to tell me, the WSU conduct board has been looking over the kind of situation as you are outlining SoCal? Like Rape or other sexual assault? Or is this just an non-applicable example?

It depends on the situation. If it involves two WSU students, one lodges a complaint (like Winston, FSU situation or Baylor) sure they have jurisdiction. The question is does the university put student safety before the football team. With FSU and Baylor, they did not, and that got them in legal doodoo, civil and federal. In our case, the school put student safety first and that got it in legal doodoo, but much less so.

FSU and Baylor also had the help of football first police departments. WSU does not have that problem, either.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kirby-dick/how-florida-state-covered_b_9421824.html

 

[Cougsocal]

I just read these two cases. I do not believe them to be relevant to the Barber case. In fact, in the Eddy case, she had much more due process than Barber before being expelled. That could be an "in" where Barber shows prejudice.

Dgibbons said WSU knows that its system is legally flawed. I pointed to cases that showed that the courts have upheld its process as lawful. Whether WSU followed its own process in the Barber case, is another issue. You are mixing the two issues up.

 

[dgibbons]

Dgibbons said WSU knows that its system is legally flawed. I pointed to cases that showed that the courts have upheld its process as lawful. Whether WSU followed its own process in the Barber case, is another issue. You are mixing the two issues up.

If the Student Conduct Board can't follow its own procedures, the University needs a new system.

 

[Cougsocal]

My opinion is that if the procedures are A-Okay, there was no need to retain a law firm to review anything. I also do not believe that the WSU students at risk for suspension or expulsion should have less due process protections than uw students, or less due process protections than professors at WSU.

The rights of the accused are what is at stake when a student is at risk for a student facing suspension or expulsion. The victim's status at WSU is not at issue. On at least one occasion, WSU lost on an administrative review of a student that was expelled for alleged sexual assault. Outside of Washington there is a growing body of case law where students prevailed.

But like I said, I don't ask that you agree with me. Feel free to submit your comments. I already said this wasn't about Barber, his case just brought it to light. If he loses his motion to stay on Wednesday, he gets his degree and walks in December.

Or the review is a purely political move to deflect some heat raised by special interest groups. Now consider our new President's deportment thus far. Which is more likely to be the case? I think I have a winner there too.

As for the UW, just because they afford greater rights, doesn't mean WSU and the rest of the Pac-12 should follow suit. It is a balance between protecting university and student interests and whose of the accused. You seem to forget that WSU has obligations well beyond those of the accused. A fully adversarial admin proceeding, as you propose, has a significant downside. If 11 ACLU loving Pac-12 school have chosen not to follow the UW approach, means they believe it skews the balance too much. And if the courts don't have a problem with old process, there is no reason to change merely because a football player whines that he wasn't afforded due process in this instance. If he wasn't, afford it, and move on. You don't change the entire legal system merely because a convict wins an appeal on due process grounds -- you afford him the necessary due process during the do over.

 

[dgibbons]

Or the review is a purely political move to deflect some heat raised by special interest groups. Now consider our new President's deportment thus far. Which is more likely to be the case? I think I have a winner there too.

As for the UW, just because they afford greater rights, doesn't mean WSU and the rest of the Pac-12 should follow suit. It is a balance between protecting university and student interests and whose of the accused. You seem to forget that WSU has obligations well beyond those of the accused. A fully adversarial admin proceeding, as you propose, has a significant downside. If 11 ACLU loving Pac-12 school have chosen not to follow the UW approach, means they believe it skews the balance too much. And if the courts don't have a problem with old process, there is no reason to change merely because a football player whines that he wasn't afforded due process in this instance. If he wasn't, afford it, and move on. You don't change the entire legal system merely because a convict wins an appeal on due process grounds -- you afford him the necessary due process during the do over.

I happen to agree that Schulz was looking for a way to cool things down and hoping everyone would forget about Barber in 60 days. Of course, he hasn't said so publicly. And he's further compromised the SCB process by stating Barber will be allowed to finish his degree while suspended. Every other student facing suspension or expulsion should be asking for the same treatment.

The SCB process should be overhauled because it's awful, at least for students facing suspension or expulsion.

You keep trying to make this about Barber. It's not. His case brought it to light.

 

[Coug95man2]

I happen to agree that Schulz was looking for a way to cool things down and hoping everyone would forget about Barber in 60 days. Of course, he hasn't said so publicly. And he's further compromised the SCB process by stating Barber will be allowed to finish his degree while suspended. Every other student facing suspension or expulsion should be asking for the same treatment.

The SCB process should be overhauled because it's awful, at least for students facing suspension or expulsion.

You keep trying to make this about Barber. It's not. His case brought it to light.

Agreed. The football season will be over, Barber will graduate, and this will still be dragging on if something isn't done. I've talked to too many people that are fairly close to this issue. This won't just "go away" once Barber graduates or the football season is over.

Barber is now a side-issue for many. Don't get me wrong, there are some very vocal people and they are working hard to get Barber back on the field because The Pres/SCB has eased up to a suspension for him. They've given the vocal Pro-Barber folks some light.

But for a whole bunch of others, this has nothing to do with Barber. He's a senior and they know he'll be gone before things grind to the point of "change". He'll only be another example.

 

[kayak15]

I happen to agree that Schulz was looking for a way to cool things down and hoping everyone would forget about Barber in 60 days. Of course, he hasn't said so publicly. And he's further compromised the SCB process by stating Barber will be allowed to finish his degree while suspended. Every other student facing suspension or expulsion should be asking for the same treatment.

The SCB process should be overhauled because it's awful, at least for students facing suspension or expulsion.
dents facing suspension or expulsion.

You keep trying to make this about Barber. It's not. His case brought it to light.

Bingo. Barber's receipt of a degree was just shoving the whole mess under the rug with a hope that attention would fade with time. We shall see if Schulz's ploy works. I hope not. You are quite correct in that the SCB process needs to be overhauled. How it is that improving the procedure to ensure fairness would endanger the school's population is illogical and beyond my comprehension.

 

[dgibbons]

The website to comment on the student conduct procedures is up.

https://from.wsu.edu/president/2016/student-conduct-process/provide-input/message.html?utm_source=phplist199&utm_medium=email&utm_content=HTML&utm_campaign=Provide+input+about+WSU+student+conduct+process

I think it is important for alumni to be heard on this. In my mind this is not about Robert Barber, his case just brought this to light. Below are the comments I submitted. I am placing them here to hopefully inspire your own comments. I do not ask that you agree with me.

The procedures for students facing suspension or expulsion the student conduct procedures must be completely overhauled. Suspension or expulsion are punitive in nature, not educational. The University's procedures must realize that. Students faced with potential suspension or expulsion must have the right to ask questions directly of witnesses or accusers. Students facing suspension or expulsion must have the right to disqualify members of the conduct board. If a student retains legal counsel, legal counsel must be able to participate directly in the student conduct proceeding. The members of a student conduct board must be representative of the WSU student body. The members of the student conduct board must have adequate training regarding weighing of evidence, their duty to be impartial, consideration of aggravating factors, consideration of mitigating factors, and the procedures they are required to follow.


New rules should be implemented immediately. There is no need to obtain an independent legal review. The University knows its procedures are inadequate. The University administration knows the procedures are inadequate. In the interim, the University President should be granting any expelled or suspended student a full adjudicative hearing. Use the University of Washington student conduct procedures and the procedures set forth in Section II.F. of WSU's Faculty Manual as your guideposts. WSU students are not be entitled to less due process then their peers at UW, and are not entitled to less due process than WSU faculty.

Lastly, I am willing to do more than complain and submit comments. I am willing to volunteer my time and energy to do whatever I can to aid the University in a quick and proper resolution to this matter.

Make your voice heard.

 

[Coug1990]

Dgibbons said WSU knows that its system is legally flawed. I pointed to cases that showed that the courts have upheld its process as lawful. Whether WSU followed its own process in the Barber case, is another issue. You are mixing the two issues up.

I wish I would have seen this yesterday. Your point is not is not necessary so. Those were two bad cases to challenge the validity of the process. The two cases were flawed that the judges never got to a point where they had to answer the question of whether what WSU did was lawful or not.

 

[Cougsocal]

I wish I would have seen this yesterday. Your point is not is not necessary so. Those were two bad cases to challenge the validity of the process. The two cases were flawed that the judges never got to a point where they had to answer the question of whether what WSU did was lawful or not.

A superior court judge, like a federal district court judge, has general jurisdiction. She/he may, at any time, find that a university’s conduct process violates state or federal law. Dgibbons started this thread say that WSU "knows" its process is legal flawed. I asked what case law supports that, noting that these cases go to court and courts, both superior and appellate, have upheld the process, in other words have never chosen to strike it down or even question its validity, I cited two recent cases demonstrating that there is no specter of illegality hanging over WSU's head. You do realize these cases routinely go to court, and NEVER has this process been found to violate state or federal law. Dgibbons says there are cases out there, in other states, that have struck down the validity of the process at certain universities. I don't doubt that. But that doesn't demonstrate that WSU knows its process is legally flawed.

Now had the judge advised WSU, in the Barber case, that he had serious misgivings regard the legality of its process, it would be a very different story. While such a comment would not have the weight of law, as it would be dicta, WSU would be put on notice that the legality of its process was in doubt. That didn't happen though. His decision was -- WSU you must follow your own procedure, it strongly looks like you didn't. Unfortunately for Barber, the judge wanted no part of second guessing WSU factual findings, saying he didn't have “authority,” i.e. jurisdiction. I strongly disagree with him on that point, but that statement likely dooms Barber's chances of ultimate exoneration.