[ad_1]
On Nov. 17, 2023, about 200 pro-Palestine protesters staged a sit-in at the Alexander G. Ruthven Building for more than three hours. Protesters demanded that the University of Michigan administration divest from companies profiting off the Israeli military campaign in Gaza. Forty protesters were arrested and later released on the scene, with four others later charged by the Washtenaw County Prosecutor’s Office for resisting/obstructing/assaulting a law enforcement officer.
The sit-in was organized by the TAHRIR Coalition, a group of more than 90 pro-Palestine organizations. Over the past year, members of the coalition have protested the University’s response to the Israeli military campaign in Gaza, held vigils for Palestinians killed by Israel and constructed an encampment on the Diag to call for divestment. The coalition continues to protest the University’s decision not to divest.
In the six months following the sit-in, the Office of Student Conflict Resolution initiated disciplinary proceedings against individuals involved in the protest. This included 26 protesters, known as “respondents,” who participated in a hearing on Aug. 30. A student panel did not find the respondents guilty during the August hearing, but the decision was appealed by the University’s complainant representative and is being processed by an Appeals Board, which met Sept. 26.
The respondents have accused the University and OSCR of policy violations throughout the proceedings. The Michigan Daily followed these accusations and documented the series of events that led to the recent appeal.
OSCR notifies respondents of disciplinary proceedings
On May 15, a group of individuals who were present at the Ruthven protest received an email from OSCR that outlined two potential violations of the Statement of Student Rights and Responsibilities: Violation N, “obstructing or disrupting classes, research projects, or other activities or programs of the University; or obstructing access to University facilities, property, or programs,” and Violation Q, “failing to comply with lawful requests to leave a University controlled premises.”
OSCR offers a variety of resolution methods once disciplinary proceedings begin. Respondents who admit to the accused violations can sign a written resolution agreement, after which a resolution coordinator can determine resulting sanctions and consequences. The respondents can also participate in a hearing, in which they would be presumed innocent unless the evidence presented showed that they did violate the SSRR.
Social Work student Nora Hilgart-Griff, who was among the students accused of Violations N and Q, told The Daily the group was given the option either to sign an agreement or participate in a hearing.
“Students were told that they could sign a document accepting responsibility for those two violations, and that the … sanctions would be a formal reprimand that does not become a part of your permanent record and is not accessible to graduate schools or anything similar,” Hilgart-Griff said. “Or you could proceed with the resolution process … and say, ‘I’m not responsible.’”
OSCR also offers a third option in the resolution process, known as Adaptable Conflict Resolution. ACR includes various methods of mediation, facilitated dialogue and other forms of negotiation. It is only available if all parties involved agree to attempt ACR, and the SSRR claims that it may be unsuitable for some conflicts. Rackham student Ekaterina Shipyatsky, another protester accused of Violations N and Q, said many respondents were interested in pursuing ACR but were unable to do so because the complainant decided against it.
“We were told from the get-go, from these initial meetings in late May and early June, that Alternative Conflict Resolution was not on the table for this, that the person who complained and who filed these complaints against us had decided that that was not on the table,” Shipyatsky said. “Our only options were to either accept the sanction of the N and Q violations or proceed onto arbitration.”
University spokesperson Colleen Mastony wrote in an email to The Daily that ACR may not apply to every type of conflict.
“Adaptable Conflict Resolution is a voluntary resolution pathway that is available for allegations of a policy violation under the Student Statement of Rights and Responsibilities,” Mastony wrote. “There are a variety of reasons as to why parties may not utilize ACR.”
Mastony wrote that the University would not discuss details of the proceedings in keeping with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act.
“As a general practice and in accordance with federal law (FERPA), the University does not comment on individual student disciplinary matters or on personnel matters,” Mastony wrote.
The accused respondents opted to participate in a group arbitration hearing. They opted to use a student panel instead of a single Resolution Office to hear the case. Following the Board of Regents’ July 18 changes to the SSRR, the student panel is now only available if both parties agree to the option. This change did not affect the respondents in this case but will affect future OSCR proceedings.
The University hires Grand River Solutions, respondents request the written complaint
An alleged violation of the SSRR results in Formal Conflict Resolution, which includes the written resolution agreement and hearing options. FCR requires a submission of a written complaint by a student or member of the faculty and staff. The July alterations to the SSRR have since added the University as an entity that can initiate or join a resolution process.
According to the SSRR, written complaints must be filed within six months of the proposed incident, with the condition that the Resolution Coordinator may accept late complaints if a submission is “reasonable.”
The complaint against the respondents was dated June 3, past the six-month deadline but allowed by a caveat in the SSRR. Since the complaint submission came after the respondents were sent the initial email notification of their alleged violations on May 15, Hilgart-Griff said she was concerned that OSCR had initiated proceedings without a formal complaint.
“There is a provision in the (SSRR) saying that OSCR can pursue complaints outside the six-month deadline, at their discretion, and if they feel that there is a good reason to do so,” Hilgart-Griff said. “There is no provision for pursuing respondents when there is no complaint. It does say there must be a complaint by a student, faculty or staff. There’s no provision anywhere in there that you can start contacting students and telling them there has been a complaint against them when there is, in fact, no complaint that exists.”
The written submission from June 3 lists the complainant as Omar E. Torres, a University Complaint Representative. On June 11, the respondents filed a Freedom of Information Act Request for all of the University’s email communications with Torres since Oct. 1, 2023. Through this request, the respondents learned that Torres was not an employee of the University when the complaint was filed. He was hired June 7, meaning he was not a student, faculty member or staff member — as OSCR requires — until four days after the submission.
Torres is a student conduct professional employed by Grand River Solutions, a company that specializes in assisting institutions in conflict resolution. The University hired Grand River Solutions to assist in OSCR’s process. It has previously been contracted by other institutions, including Columbia University, to investigate alleged student conduct violations by pro-Palestine protesters. The TAHRIR Coalition held a press conference on July 1 to criticize this decision.
Group arbitration and appeal submission
Prior to the group arbitration, the University submitted an objection to the witnesses brought forward by the respondents. That objection was granted Aug. 28, two days before the arbitration, on the grounds that the witnesses were not physically present at the protest to attest to Violations N and Q. The University objected to 28 of the 30 pieces of the respondents’ evidence based on a lack of relevancy. Twenty-two of these objections were granted by the Resolution Officer Aug. 29, a day before the arbitration. Eight of the respondents’ evidence items were included in the arbitration.
According to the respondents, on Aug. 30, all 26 respondents were found not guilty by the student panel. More than two weeks later on Sept. 16, the respondents were informed that Torres submitted an appeal to OSCR against the arbitration decision within a designated 10-day window. OSCR claimed they would convene an Appeals Board, which would include one student, one faculty member and one administrator to review the case file and arbitration information. The University did convene an Appeals Board, but future OSCR appeals will be reviewed only by the vice president for Student Life under the July changes to the SSRR. A student, faculty member and administrator will no longer be selected, and the appeal window has been limited to only five days under the July updates to the SSRR.
The respondents allege that the Appeals Board met Sept. 26, but they have not heard any information from OSCR.
Hilgart-Griff said the respondents felt frustrated by their experiences with OSCR and claimed the proceedings worked to limit students’ voices.
“What we’re talking about here, on a very basic level, is the University misusing the Office of Student Conflict Resolution and misusing the OSCR resolution process itself as just another arm of a very large campaign to repress student activism … in the form of these numerous glaring procedural violations that they’ve refused to address and continue to enforce and behaving without any regard for sort of due process rights of students,” Hilgart-Griff said.
Daily Staff Reporter Marissa Corsi can be reached at macorsi@umich.edu.
Related articles
[ad_2]
Source link
