At a code of conduct hearing in May 2018, a former student involved in the Theta Tau videos said he had a problem with the fairness of the Code of Student Conduct process.

Chancellor Kent Syverud had already called the videos “extremely racist, anti-Semitic, homophobic, sexist, and hostile to people with disabilities.” A student, referred to as “John Doe,” was worried about the influence of the university on his University Conduct Board hearing.

“I feel that there may be a conflict of interest,” John Doe stated in state court documents. “The Board may be worried about losing their jobs if they were to render a verdict that was not in the Chancellor’s favor.”

SU initially suspended 18 students involved in the Theta Tau videos for one to two academic years. According to court filings, 14students appealed the University Conduct Board’s decision to suspend them.

In their appeal, several students claimed that procedural error had a detrimental impact on the outcome of the hearing and that the Board misinterpreted university policy to the extent that they denied a fair hearing, court records show.

Ten of the suspended students also went on to sue SU in Jefferson County state courtin August, claiming that SU didn’t follow Code of Student Conduct rules when suspending them. They filed their lawsuit as an Article 78 proceeding, a provision of New York civil law that challenges an organization’s internal review process.

The students objected to numerous aspects of their university conduct hearing, including the addition of seven videos as evidence that were not released to the public, their separate cases being tried together in one hearing and the role of the University Conduct Board adviser and Board alternates, according to court records.

They also expressed concern about the impartiality of SU during their hearing process.

For many Code of Student Conduct hearings at the university, SU’s conduct board is comprised of university-employed faculty who are trained to determine a student’s punishment objectively, said Christopher Burke, director of Student Legal Services who was a procedural adviser to multiple students. The cases they often see include disorderly conduct, smoking cannabis and underage drinking, Burke said.

The board for the Theta Tau-related hearing was made up of non-tenured faculty, according to court documents. This made the students question whether the board could be impartial if the board members were under the employment of Syverud, who had publicly expressed his disapproval of the content of the videos, court records show.

“The first person to make this complaint was the chancellor himself,” Burke said. “The students raised the question ‘How can you be impartial if the chancellor’s signature is on your paycheck?’”

The students also collectively claimed that Syverud’s communications to the university — including emails, statements and condemnations from him — negatively impacted the community’s reaction to the conduct portrayed in the videos.

Court documents show that Jackie Dorchester, the board’s chairperson, said in her response to the students’ concerns that the board is made of a group of trained volunteers.

The volunteers had experience in student conduct hearings and had served on the University Conduct Board for between two and five years.

“The Board members are neutral and impartial; having no prior connection to or relationship with the parties or the facts,” the documents stated.

SU’s University Conduct Board did not respond to an online request for comment through the Office of Student Rights and Responsibilities. Several procedural advisers for students and every member of the conduct board for the hearing did not respond to requests for comment.

After the fourteenth student’s initial appeal to the university itself, the University Appeals Board found that the university had followed its standard procedures.

“Having reviewed all the above-mentioned items in the case file, the UAB finds that there was no procedural errors, or errors in policy interpretation. As a result, the sanctions determined by the UCB were justified and appropriate,” the UAB determined.

In the state lawsuit, Jefferson County Supreme Court Judge James McClusky ruled in January that the university had “complied with (its) procedures” in its suspension of the 10 students who had sued. McClusky had previously allowed at least two students involved in the state suit to return to SU and enroll in classes.

In January, an attorney representing the students in the state lawsuit told Syracuse.com the students plan to appeal the judge’s decision.Nine students are also suing SU in federal court for a reversal of their suspensions and $1 million each in damages. That lawsuit was ongoing, as of January.

On the SU campus, both Student Association and the Graduate Student Organization are working to develop initiatives and standards to assist students going through the University Conduct Board process.

In March, SA and the university’s Student Legal Services created an internship program in which SU students can provide aid and support to students in Conduct Board hearings.

GSO President Jack Wilson has recently pushed to give students more rights in Code of Student Conduct hearings.

Wilson is particularly focused on making it so a procedural adviser can speak on behalf of the students, he said. Burke said currently only procedural advisers can consult with students.

“It’s supposed to be a friendly process but that same group of people asking you questions in this friendly process has the power to suspend you,” Wilson said. “That’s going to be intimidating, that’s going to be scary.”

Both GSO and SA have condemned actions in the videos of the Theta Tau fraternity.

Published on April 17, 2019 at 11:25 pm

Contact Gabe: [email protected] | @gabestern326