The proposed modifications to the U's student disciplinary process are minor and do nothing to change the EOAA investigative process. And the due process protections itemized below have not been changed and still remain in place. It is very unlikely the proposed modifications to the process would have changed the final outcome of the Gopher gangbang scandal in any way. The players who were expelled or suspended deserved their punishment and the players who won their appeals received all of the due process to which they were entitled.
The U's student disciplinary process worked the way it was supposed to for all ten players. The U followed the process exactly as it was written. The players were all given the required notice of the accusations against them and the right to defend themselves in a disciplinary hearing with the opportunity to appeal any adverse rulings against them. The main reason we know this is not even one of the Gopher players has sued the U in federal court for damages. Suits for damages wouldn't have cost the players a dime because their lawyers would work on a contingent fee basis. We were assured by numerous posters in GopherHole that the U would be paying out large settlements to the players but we are still waiting for it to happen.
Student Conduct Code Procedure: Twin Cities [Campus]
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.
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 the officer's 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.
Read more at:
https://policy.umn.edu/education/studentconductcode-proc01
