Disciplinary Hearing(s)

[bigticket1]

Does anyone know how these hearings will be conducted ? I believe I read that a student board makes the decisions - is there a standing board that does this, or is a new one appointed for every case ? Will each player have a separate hearing ? Are the accuser and the accused required to testify, and can cross examination be done ? Can the players have legal representation present and are they able to participate ? Does someone from the EOAA present their findings, and can they be questioned ? Lots of questions, but I haven't really heard any of this discussed up to this point.

 

[VACTERL]

A student board? Good grief. These guys stand zero chance...

 

[UpnorthGo4]

I am glad you asked. Rather than just bitch about the U's student disciplinary process, you actually want to find out what the process is. The logic of waiting to complain about something until you have educated yourself about it is lost on far too many GopherHolers.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

EOAA Investigation Procedures.

Formal Investigation: discrimination, harassment, and retaliation

Depending on the circumstances, a formal investigation may be appropriate, either before or after efforts to resolve the concerns informally.

Typical steps in a formal investigation include:

- interviewing the individual raising the concerns and other affected parties;
- interviewing the individuals with information relevant to the situation;
- informing responsible administrators about the concerns and investigation;
- interviewing the accused person; and
- collecting and reviewing documents and other forms of information from the individual raising the concerns, witnesses, Human Resources, administrators, or other individuals with relevant information.

At the conclusion of a formal investigation, EOAA will prepare a summary of the investigation and make a conclusion as to whether University policies against discrimination, harassment, or related retaliation were violated.

EOAA typically sends the report to: the individual(s) who raised the concerns; the accused party(s); and the responsible administrator(s).

EOAA will also make recommendations for responsive action to the responsible administrator(s). We may provide recommendations to the responsible administrator whether or not there was a violation of policy.

https://diversity.umn.edu/eoaa/process


Interim Student Suspension

The president or provost may impose an immediate interim suspension on a student or student organization pending a hearing before the appropriate disciplinary committee (1) to ensure the safety and well-being of members of the University community or to preserve University property, (2) to ensure the student's own physical or emotional safety and well-being, or (3) if the student or student organization poses an ongoing threat of disrupting or interfering with the operations of the University.

During the interim suspension, the student or student organization may be denied access to all University activities or privileges for which the student or student organization might otherwise be eligible, including access to University housing or property.

The student or student organization has a right to a prompt hearing before the president or provost on the questions of identification and whether the interim suspension should remain in effect until the full hearing is completed. The student must be informed in writing of the terms of the suspension, the reasons for it, and the opportunity to be heard on the limited questions described above.

The underlying Board of Regents Policy: Student Conduct Code case will be heard and decided by the appropriate hearing body, and the case generally will take precedence over other cases pending before that body.


Student Code of Conduct Hearing Procedures

Administrative unit disciplinary process

Some administrative units (Housing and Residential Life, the Student Activities Office, the Learning Abroad Center) have their own disciplinary processes to formally resolve complaints involving violation of their rules and Board of Regents Policy: Student Conduct Code violations. Students should consult the process that applies to them for information about formally resolving complaints. See Appendix: Disciplinary Processes of Professional or Graduate Programs and Administrative Units

In all cases, hearings on violations of Board of Regents Policy: Student Conduct Code must be fundamentally fair. What constitutes fundamental fairness in a University hearing depends on a number of factors, including the seriousness of the potential penalty.

However, a fundamentally fair hearing process usually allows for students or student organizations to:

- be notified in writing of the alleged violation and the underlying factual allegations; the time, date, and place of the hearing; and the range of possible sanctions;
- receive a prompt hearing;
- present their case, including witnesses;
- hear all evidence against them;
- question adverse testimony;
- be confronted by their accusers (subject to reasonable procedures to address concerns for safety or well-being);
- be accompanied or represented by an advocate of their choice;
- be found responsible only if the information as a whole shows that it is more likely than not that the student's conduct violated Board of Regents Policy: Student Conduct Code;
- receive a written disciplinary decision following the hearing; and
- receive notification of the procedure for a campus-wide appeal of the disciplinary decision.

A formal record, a tape recording, or a transcript of the hearing procedure must be kept for appellate purposes.

Board of Regents Policy: Student Conduct Code hearings are not court cases, and court rules of process, procedure, or evidence do not apply.


Appeal

A student found to have violated Board of Regents Policy: Student Conduct Code is entitled to a campus-wide appeal of disciplinary decisions made in the hearing process. The reporting party in a sexual assault, sexual harassment, stalking, or relationship violence case also has the right to a campus-wide appeal.

Grounds for Appeal

The following are the grounds for appealing a disciplinary decision.

- There was significant procedural error sufficient to affect the outcome (e.g., lack of notice, opportunity to be heard, or opportunity to challenge information). A procedural error is not a basis for sustaining an appeal unless it was significant enough to affect the outcome.

- The rule found to have been violated was misapplied, misinterpreted, or contrary to law.

- New evidence exists that was not previously available to the appealing party and that is sufficient to affect the outcome.

- The sanction was grossly disproportionate to the offense.

- The disciplinary decision was not based on substantial information. Substantial information means relevant information that a reasonable person might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.

In making this determination, the appellate officer must respect the credibility determinations of the hearing body and must not substitute his or her judgment for the hearing body. Rather, the appellate officer must determine whether the hearing body’s disciplinary decision was unreasonable (i.e., arbitrary) in light of the information presented.

Nature of Appellate Review

A student found to have violated Board of Regents Policy: Student Conduct Code or the reporting party in a sexual assault, sexual harassment, stalking, or relationship violence case has the right to appeal the disciplinary decision. Appellate review generally is a review of the record to determine whether a serious error occurred in the original proceeding that resulted in unfairness. Appellate review respects the credibility judgments of the hearing body, and respects the hearing body’s determinations as long as there is any evidence to reasonably support them.

Appellate Officer

The appellate officer makes the final University decision regarding student discipline. The Provost serves as the appellate officer, unless the Provost authorizes another administrator who holds a position of campus-wide scope to serve as the appellate officer in the Provost's place.

http://policy.umn.edu/education/stud...-proc01#appeal

 

[GoGophersUMN]

A student board? Good grief. These guys stand zero chance...

I'd think they would want students.

If it's UMN staff members of any type, they will have an incentive to find the players guilty regardless of what the evidence is. In academia, ruling against a potential rape victim looks horrible, even if it's the right decision. If it's a student board, it's much more likely that the students remain anonymous and even if they don't, their judgment in the case is a lot less significant to their future.

What I'm more concerned about is the gender and political views of the board. Hopefully it's as close to a criminal case as possible, where lawyers for both sides get some say in the board and anyone with a particular interest in or knowledge of the case can't be on the board. I don't think there's any chance of that happening though.

EDIT: After seeing the above post, the players are screwed. Unless it's 100% clear that the players are innocent, ruling in favor of the players looks terrible whenever she interviews for a new job. If it's their word vs. the reporting student, she's going to side with the reporting student.

 

[gopherhoopsguy]

Some very interesting comments from board regent Dean Johnson!
I have had many talks with Kaler about the process being assumed guilty before a hearing is done.
There names plasters all over..

This is exactly why I feel Kaler will be gone!

 

[UpnorthGo4]

I'd think they would want students.

If it's UMN staff members of any type, they will have an incentive to find the players guilty regardless of what the evidence is. In academia, ruling against a potential rape victim looks horrible, even if it's the right decision. If it's a student board, it's much more likely that the students remain anonymous and even if they don't, their judgment in the case is a lot less significant to their future.

What I'm more concerned about is the gender and political views of the board. Hopefully it's as close to a criminal case as possible, where lawyers for both sides get some say in the board and anyone with a particular interest in or knowledge of the case can't be on the board. I don't think there's any chance of that happening though.

EDIT: After seeing the above post, the players are screwed. Unless it's 100% clear that the players are innocent, ruling in favor of the players looks terrible whenever she interviews for a new job. If it's their word vs. the reporting student, she's going to side with the reporting student.

If the players are unhappy with the final decision from the U, they can always sue in state or federal court. I am guessing it will be federal court because this is a Title IX case.

 

[Spoofin]

I am glad you asked. Rather than just bitch about the U's student disciplinary process, you actually want to find out what the process is. <b>The logic of waiting to complain about something until you have educated yourself about it is lost on far too many GopherHolers.</b>

So would someone stating a day before the EOAA report was even released that they "sure aren't going to believe a bunch of football players over this girl" be an example of educating themselves beforehand?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[GopherinPhilly]

This is going to end up in Federal court because too many powers want to have this fight and the U of M just became ground zero for potential over reach, assumed guilt, et al. And without the Obama administration to provide cover, I wonder how it will turn out.