<p>fauve is correct. Harvard attorney’s are not going to let anyone speak about the evidence they have against this girl. criminal case cannot be jeopardized. </p>
<p>The folks in NYC would have handled it much better… the “shooter” was from NYC. Do you have inside scoop that no one else has? Be serious</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It might very well be revealed that the shooter used Ms. Campbell’s access card, but that doesn’t demonstrate criminal intent on her part: perhaps the shooter’s girlfriend stole the access card and gave it to him. Harvard must have better grounds for punishing Campbell than that the fact (if it is indeed a fact) that the access card implicated in the crime was her’s. At least, I would hope so.</p>
<p>Also, is there a precedent or policy prescribing this type of punishment for Campbell, or was it an entirely discretional decision?</p>
<p>^ Mustafah78</p>
<p>You seem to be the only one who gets it. </p>
<p>If the issue here is the access card, she should have been told that was the reason for the action taken against her. It would then be up to her to decide whether or not to disclose this to the public. My biggest concern is she seems to have had action taken against her without being told why. </p>
<p>This young lady is not street trash; she was a National Merit Scholar. Something is amiss here.</p>
<p>Wrong place.</p>
<p>The college does not have to prove a crime to ban her from graduation. All it has to have is a violation of University rules and regulations (be sure to study your Student Handbook carefully, admittees). Giving your key card to someone else is against the regs. Add on a murder that may have resulted from said action, and bye bye. </p>
<p>Private universities can create their own rules. If you matriculate, you sign a form saying you agree to abide by their rules AND their punishments. Students are free to enroll somewhere else if they do not like a school’s rules.</p>
<p>^fauve</p>
<p>That’s all fine and dandy. But according to the student, she was expelled without being told what “campus rule” was violated. That’s the issue here.</p>
<p>Maybe (surprise!) the student is not telling the whole story. If her letter did not spell out the details of her removal, perhaps conversations she had earlier with college oficials did. She can claim anything she wants. Doesn’t mean we have to believe it. </p>
<p>If you read the detailed Boston Globe reader comments, and there are over 100 of them, some people claiming to know her from NYC say she lied to Harvard about knowing the shooter. That might be why she’s been booted, while the other girl was not.</p>
<p>^fauve</p>
<p>You seem a bit two-faced here. We are not to believe Ms. Campbell, but instead rely on “Boston Globe reader comments” from people who “claim” to know her from NYC. </p>
<p>OK…I gotcha!</p>
<p>"If the issue here is the access card, she should have been told that was the reason for the action taken against her. It would then be up to her to decide whether or not to disclose this to the public. My biggest concern is she seems to have had action taken against her without being told why. "</p>
<p>I have the feeling that she is not telling us the whole story. I also can’t think of any reason why she’d choose to go public with this situation. All going public is going to do is make prospective employers and graduate schools avoid her because most aren’t going to want to take a chance on someone who may have had a connection with a murder. Even if that connection is “just” having friends who are associates of possible murderers, that would be enough to make many people wary of hiring her or admitting her.</p>
<p>Just because someone is smart, goes to Harvard and comes from a good family doesn’t mean they have good judgment in whom they associate with.</p>
<p>^ Northstarmom</p>
<p>Unless of course she is completely innocent and is speaking out because she wants to clear her name and walk across the state next week. Right now the public doesn’t have any discernable evidence to the contrary. Until I see something, she gets the benefit of my doubt.</p>
<p>What you are advocating is “guilt by association”. Didn’t we go just go through this with Rev. Wright and William Ayers?</p>
<p>Quite a few issues at play here… but I do want to say that Harvard’s “Ad Board” (the body in charge of disciplinary action) is <em>incredibly</em> close-lipped.</p>
<p>It wouldn’t surprise me if the timeline was something like:
<p>While there are procedures and policies that the Ad Board has to follow, they are rarely visible to the students who stand in front of the Board - i.e. I don’t think formal “charges” need to be issued, and I don’t believe students necessarily have the right to speak in their defense. Some reform is taking place next year, but much more is needed, IMO.</p>
<p>Harvard is dangerous! Never knew that smart people could be so violent!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!??!?!</p>
<p>Hmmmmm. I believe that someone should not be convicted of a crime without incontrovertible proof of guilt. I also believe that Harvard has the right to discipline its students on considerably less evidence.</p>
<p>I don’t presume that this young woman is guilty of anything criminal, but I also don’t presume that Harvard is being completely arbitrary in pursuing some kind of disciplinary action against her, especially if (as it appears) Harvard has responsible people on the case and is not taking broad-brush actions against anyone and everyone who might be associated with this incident. My guess is that, if Harvard were to tell its story (in violation of the woman’s privacy and process rights), it would be pretty compelling.</p>
<p>Eventually, we are going to find out.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>The law also requires considerably less evidence to convict someone of a crime. There the standard is “beyond a reasonable doubt” not incontrovertable proof.</p>
<p>You say potato, I say potato. It’s not a different standard.</p>
<p>Harvard need not prove that the student was linked to the crime; but it could have evidence of drug use stemming from the investigation. That would be sufficient, I imagine, for the Ad Board to decide to suspend or expel a student.</p>
<p>Beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean no doubt. Incontrovertable proof means no doubt at all.</p>
<p>^ marite</p>
<p>Come on distribution of drugs yes…using drugs, give me a break. They would have to expel alot of students if this were the standard.</p>
<p>I’ll bet they could find replacements.</p>
<p>^ I agree with 2kidsincollege on that one. If she was indeed expelled just because of her association with soft drugs, she’d have a great case for racial discrimination.</p>
<p>But what worries me most is that the procedures of the “Ad Board” are so opaque that nobody knows what standards of justice have been applied. It’s not good for Harvard’s image (as the Boston Globe article and this thread demonstrate) and it’s not fair to the accused student.</p>
<p>If something like this happened in Ontario, the accused could make a free complaint to the Ontario Human Rights Commission on the grounds of perceived racial discrimination, in effect forcing the university to disclose its real reasons for expelling the student. Unfortunately, Massachusetts does not have similarly progressive human rights legislation, I take it.</p>