Get the latest Syracuse news delivered right to your inbox.
Subscribe to our newsletter here.

Over the past several years, I have volunteered my time to serve as a “procedural advisor” for students who have been charged with violating Syracuse University’s Code of Student Conduct and faculty who have been charged with speech violations. Under SU’s rules, students are entitled to be advised and supported by another student, faculty member or staff member in the conduct process. However, except in Title IX cases involving sexual harassment, the university has taken the position that parents, attorneys and others are not allowed to advise students, assist them or appear with them in the process. Many students have been forced to go through the hearing process on their own and have been subjected to unfair coercion.

This week, I have been contacted by many students who are being charged by the university with violating the Code of Student Conduct for attending a get-together in an off-campus residence with more than 10 people. There is no question that students and any others that gather in a group of more than 10 people have violated New York state’s COVID-19 rules.

I also agree with the university that this conduct is a threat to public health and to the ability of the university to remain open. The conduct also raises serious moral questions. As a university community, we need to use our powers of education and persuasion to express to all students the importance of complying with these rules for the safety of the community.

While I would prefer other alternatives, I also have no fundamental objection to the university imposing appropriate academic sanctions on students who knowingly violate these rules. We all have to recognize that our mistakes have consequences.

But I hope the university also recognizes that the punishment needs to fit the crime, especially when we are talking about educational sanctions unrelated to academic performance. Most students and their families have made extraordinary sacrifices to attend SU in order to increase their chances of success in our increasingly competitive economy.

This is a difficult time for all of us, but especially for students who are particularly susceptible to social pressures, and who often fail to recognize the long-term effect of their conduct. Suspension and expulsion are extreme remedies for conduct that poses a continuing threat to our community. We should not use extreme punishments to express administrative power or for the primary purpose of sending threats to others.

Students’ futures should not be discarded for a redeemable mistake. We all make mistakes, especially in our youth.

I implore the university to live up to its promises of a fair hearing process, with independent hearing officers who care about our students. Prior to this year, the university’s rules provided that students would be judged by their peers, a panel of independent students. But without fail, the university often scheduled hearings during breaks, or used COVID-19 as an excuse to appoint a panel of fellow administrators to affirm the charges made by other administrators. This year, the university changed its rules to specifically allow the Office of Student Rights and Responsibilities to bring the charges, conduct the resolution meetings and appoint the hearing panel when students do not accept OSRR’s proposed punishment.

My concern is that the office will appoint administrators to reach their desired result, without any faculty or student involvement, despite the promises of fairness and independence in the rules. Fundamental fairness in a system promising independent hearings conducted by students, faculty and staff requires independent hearing officers, not hearing officers chosen by the prosecutor to achieve a predetermined outcome. To the best of my knowledge, the rules were changed by the administration without discussion or input from students, faculty or the community.

I have started a volunteer program at the College of Law to provide law student procedural advisors to students who are charged with violating the Code of Student Conduct. Anyone in need of a procedural advisor can contact me at [email protected] for a student procedural advisor who can provide assistance.

This week, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, aka “FIRE,” in its annual rankings, deemed SU the worst university in the nation for free speech, awarding it the “Lifetime Censorship Award.”

While I am not a free speech absolutist and had a very public disagreement with FIRE in a case involving direct attacks on other students, I believe that basic academic freedom is the most important component for an educational institution. Without free speech, students cannot have open discussions about controversial issues, faculty cannot teach controversial subjects, and students cannot learn to think independently.

SU is failing miserably as an educational institution. Faculty are afraid to teach controversial subjects. Coordinated student groups want to cancel faculty or students who take controversial academic positions. And, maybe most importantly, one of our conduct rules is so vague, and has been interpreted by the university in such an overarching way, that it would allow the university to punish students for engaging in any kind of academic debate or discussion, if only someone is willing to say that they feel “threatened” by the ideas being expressed. While the university and the chancellor have issued public statements paying lip service to the importance of free speech and academic freedom, the rules and their interpretation by the university in disciplinary hearings speak much louder than their words.

The university’s conduct system and free speech rules have become a national disgrace. If the chancellor and the university administration are not willing to meet with its critics to improve the rules and protect basic academic freedom and fairness, it is the responsibility of SU’s Board of Trustees to exercise its oversight function by hearing from all aspects of the community and directing changes to the Code of Student Conduct to protect the educational mission of the university. Those in our community who care about our educational mission need to speak out now in favor of change.

Gregory Germain
Professor of Law
Syracuse University College of Law

Published on February 21, 2021 at 9:27 pm