In another example which raises questions about "Who guards against abuses by the supposed guardians?", Brandeis University Dean Adams, almost a year since the original incident, "summoned (a student) to the
dean’s office without (the student) knowing the Oct. 8 meeting’s purpose. “I’m told
that there are charges against me under bullying, harassment and
religious discrimination,” Mr. Mael recalls. “And I’m told that I have
to give a response—guilty or not guilty—ideally within 48 hours.” A
guilty determination could have led to his suspension or expulsion from
school. Since this was around the Jewish holiday of Sukkot, Mr. Mael was
given about a week to reply.
Crucially, Mr. Mael wasn’t allowed
to keep a copy of the complaint. Dean Adams told him that this was
routine “procedure,” Mr. Mael says. “How am I supposed to tell my
parents that I’m being brought to court and by the way I don’t know what
the charges are?” Mr. Mael recalls thinking. “This is antithetical to
the values of our Constitution.”
University Vice President Flagel "(stated) that it is university practice not to provide the
accused with a copy of a complaint but added that this is “one of the
things we’ve been evolving.” Regarding the right to counsel, Mr. Flagel
said: “This is not a legal proceeding, so your assumption that there is a
right is not in evidence.”
Nevertheless, Mr Mael did retain counsel. Only after extensive legal responses did the University suddenly change it's approach. "Dean Adams informed Mr. Mael via email that the “allegations against you
will not be adjudicated through our Student Conduct Board. The accuser
has withdrawn from the option to do so and therefore this case should be
considered closed and without determination of fault or sanction. . . .
Thank you for your cooperation.”
For the full article and comments see:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/sohrab-ahmari-how-to-fight-the-campus-speech-police-get-a-good-lawyer-1420241639?mod=hp_opinion
