<p>
[quote]
Besides, if he was three weeks from graduation, what more could he have left to do?
[/quote]
I doubt the requirements to be reinstated are academic ... perhaps he needs to apologize ... or pay restitution ... or go to counseling. We have no idea of the specifics of the offense, the process, or the requirements for readmssion. </p>
<p>But I will add I find it hard to believe 3 weeks before graduation Middlebury tossed a student with no track record of problems, for a very minor offense, on very inconclusive evidence. For me the smell test says there is more to the story than we know ... certainly based on my experience it's pretty hard to get tossed off a campus without at least a solid case (which could be wrong) against the student in question.</p>
<p>I still haven't seen anything in ANY of articles, e-mails, letters from students, statements from the administration anything to do with the "Honor Code" (to which I posted a link) even remotely.</p>
<p>okay Mini, i'll bite. There is an official academic Honor Code that you posted a link to, then there is a Code of Community Standards and General Policies, to which all students must also adhere. The Code of Community Standards is where there are rules governing respect for persons that extend beyond academic honesty (and include social interactions). He violated the Code of Community Standards by entering someone's room and destroying property, not the academic Honor Code (unless there is more info that we don't know about).</p>
<p>I suspect this situation is way more complicated than what is publicly available - probably something as complicated as the scenario mini suggested. But I also think it is wrong and possibly even slanderous to speculate without a shred of evidence.</p>
<p>If the parties involved are unhappy with the current outcome they should by all means seek redress in the courts. However schools like Middlebury are well lawyered. It is hard for me to believe they would take this thing this far only to back down. Both parties need to carefully consider if this is the hill on which they choose to die as it were. The stakes for both parties are becomming bigger than the issue being fought over.</p>
<p>Usually, when a person is challenging the actions of a private organization (like a college), in court - the bar is set very, very high. It would not be enough for this student to show that he is factually innocent -- he could have 50 eye witnesses to prove that he didn't do what he is accused of, and the real perpetrator come in and confess ..... and it wouldn't help, because you can't "appeal" the actions of a private college to a state or federal court. And even if you could "appeal" those actions - perhaps on the grounds that private college receives public funds for financial aid - the standard of review would probably be limited to determining whether the college abused its authority or violated due process rights in its actions. In other words, if it could be proven that the college followed all of its procedures to the letter, but a bunch of witnesses lied during the hearing, or the hearing officers believed an account of one witness that was at odds with 20 others.... the student loses his appeal to the courts.</p>
<p>So that leaves the student with 2 possibilities: a private law suit against the college for fraud or breach of contract - or some sort of civil rights action. In either case, the student as litigant would bear the burden of proof, and would have to prove that the colleges' actions were deliberate and intentional. </p>
<p>What my legal experience tells me is that this whole case doesn't pass the smell test -- by either side's accounts -- but I do think that if Middlebury had solid evidence it would have been laid out, if not in a press release, then in the pleadings filed when the kid did go to court. From what I have read they had circumstantial evidence that would not have stood up in a court of law -- but their internal administrative proceedings probably function by a different set of rules. For example, in such proceedings evidence in the form of hearsay (i.e., rumor) and opinions of others as to the character of the accused would probably be allowed, whereas it wouldn't be allowed in a courtroom. A courtroom wouldn't allow evidence of other instances of bad conduct to come in, either - except in very limited circumstances -- but the Middlebury hearing might. In a court of law an accused would be entitled to see and cross-examine every witness against him, and know all of the evidence -- but the Middlebury proceedings might well allow for submission of written letters or other outside evidence, including some submitted in confidence. So basically, it is very possible that this kid was ousted not because of anything he did, but because a lot of people didn't like him -- and the dislike could have easily stemmed for reasons that have more to do with politics and culture clash than anything that this kid actually did. </p>
<p>It's very easy to circle the wagons, and no matter how much Middlebury may have invested in this student originally, they had a problem on campus with repeated room intrusions plus a general assumption based on witness claims that the intruder was black -- so they needed a scapegoat. What we do know from reports (which have not been denied by Middlebury) is that this kid was the first in a series of black kids who were identified who did not happen to have an ironclad alibi. </p>
<p>I don't know about honor codes or conduct codes, but my son went to a college where there were locks on all the doors - even doors within a suite. Seems to me like that would have been the easier solution to the problem.</p>
<p>Thanks for the legal analysis calmom, but is it somewhat beside the point? the problem for Middlebury is public opinion. If the case gets to court and it looks like he was tossed on unreliable evidence, and basically because he "fit the profile", then Midd loses, even if the courts uphold its right to conduct hearings as you suggest. If they had good evidence, then a court case could be the best thing that could happen from Midd's point of view, as it would make it possible to make their evidence public.</p>
<p>"okay Mini, i'll bite. There is an official academic Honor Code that you posted a link to, then there is a Code of Community Standards and General Policies, to which all students must also adhere. The Code of Community Standards is where there are rules governing respect for persons that extend beyond academic honesty (and include social interactions). He violated the Code of Community Standards by entering someone's room and destroying property, not the academic Honor Code (unless there is more info that we don't know about)."</p>
<p>According to what an earlier poster wrote, the President of Middlebury said he violated the Code of Community Standards AND the Honor Code. I would think the college prez should know the difference (and knows the difference between two codes and one.) </p>
<p>So in the immortal words of Clara Pella, "Where's the beef?"</p>
<p>Middlebury has already had other allegations and issues with racism -- so I think from their standpoint, "public opinion" is best addressed by taking a stand and taking action, not necessarily by being politically correct. You don't know what pressures may be put upon them the families of many of the white students involved - they stand to lose more if well-to-do white families start avoiding the school because of concerns about safety on campus than if their already miniscule African-American population stays small. Their pocket book is best served by keeping the donors happy. </p>
<p>And as I noted -- once they had decided that there was a black kid on campus causing serious problems, they would have to take action against SOME black kid... under that rationale, any black kid will do. I also think that mini's gut level sense of a gay undercurrent probably has merit, although that really is something we probably will never know.</p>
<p>The small number of African American students certainly could be replaced with white kids, more of whom would be full pay. However, the low diversity is a negative in the opinion of many white students Midd might like to recruit. Granted, they are in no risk of failing to fill their class, but there are plenty of white people who would be put off if they concluded the situation is as you suggest. Then it starts to hurt.</p>
<p>Afan, the alternative for Middlebury is that they have an unknown and uncaught student, supposedly black, invading dorm rooms late at night, with no evidence that it is a graduating senior - thus it could be someone who was returning to campus the following year. If no one is caught -- how many students does that scare off? Would you want to send your son or daughter to a school where kids are being harassed by an intruder into their rooms and <em>nothing has been done about it</em>? The reality is that an <em>unsolved</em> (or unresolved) series of offenses not only is bad p.r., but it very likely would drive existing enrolled students away.</p>
<p>Of course the strategy of suspending one guy, to make it look like Midd took action, will fail if he is not the culprit and the incidents continue next year.</p>
<p>
[quote]
but I do think that if Middlebury had solid evidence it would have been laid out, if not in a press release,...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Wouldn't FERPA prevent Middlebury from releasing any information about the matter to the public at this stage? The suspended student can pretty much say whatever he wants while the College is very limited in how it can respond. Correct?</p>
<p>tsdad,
from what i've read, that is correct. the school cannot release this information without the consent of all involved (including those present at the judicial hearings).</p>
<p>The only student at my HS who got into Club Midd this year was black. She didn't have stellar academic stats but she was consistently on honor roll... and she is an athlete who will continue playing at the college next year.</p>
<p>tsdad - I said that the evidence would have been presented to the court (hence the "not" in "if not in a press release"). The kid started proceedings in court. Generally when you sue someone, you are waiving whatever privilege you could claim concerning the response to the lawsuit. So if student X sues College Y for unfairly disciplining him, College Y can lay out all the facts in its responsive pleadings. If there is a strong concern about privacy issues, then the college could have filed pleadings under seal - and the press wouldn't know what was in the sealed document, but they would be able to report on the fact that such sealed documents existed.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Superior Court denied that request for immediate relief.
[/quote]
See #1.</p>
<p>The above is the only reference I found in this thread to an actual court proceeding. It appears from the OPs language that the student filed for a temporary restraining order or a temporary injunction to prevent Middlebury from suspending him and that it was denied. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this type of hearing is not a trial on the facts, and Middlebury may not have offered any information in its defense, or may not even have been at the hearing. Assuming they didnt offer any information about what actually occurred, I would think that they are still bound by FERPA, and the college cannot defend itself publicly by giving its side of the story.</p>
<p>You are correct that Middlebury may have opted not to defend itself against the TRO, relying instead entirely on a procedural argument. </p>
<p>But than, they now have PR issue that is partly of their own making. That is, they elected not to file a court paper when they could have, now they are limited in what they can say. </p>
<p>But the whole thing still doesn't sit well with me, on the Middlebury end of things. The bottom line is that the dorm room kid first made a series of misidentifications -- it is very hard to get around that fact. My guess is that when it came time to the hearings, the white kid was very, very adamant about his ID, and also that he is very, very wrong. That sort of stuff happens in courts all the time - the more time that goes on, the more sure the eyewitness becomes, even if the identification is mistaken. But in court the proceedings and the burden of proof are more likely to allow a mistaken identification to be successfully challenged.</p>
<p>I work at a University. I deal on a daily basis with allegations of discrimination, and I am privy, often against my wishes, to stories of bad behavior throughout the University. It is my personal experience that we only use the information we need to make our point. We do not pile it on or attempt to humiliate people. That's not the way it's done.</p>
<p>I think scapegoat is the operative word here. Here we have, if not the entire college, then, at least a significant portion of it, habitually passed out in their rooms every "Wednesday, Friday and Saturday." Kicking the one (possibly gay) black male out of school certainly deflects attention away from the core problem.</p>