The University is alleging that Students for a Democratic Society members injured three employees while trying to force their way into University Hall during a protest outside last month's Corporation meeting, according to SDS members.
As per evidence given to the accused students, two Department of Public Safety officers and James Trail, President Ruth Simmons' executive driver, reported minor injuries as a result of trying to prevent students from entering the building, said Carly Devlin '09, one of the eight students facing disciplinary action in relation to the event. One of the officers sustained a wrist injury and the other was hit in the eye, while Trail hurt his back, Devlin said.
"No one was able to pinpoint one individual" as responsible for their injuries, said Chantal Tape '09, who is also facing charges. Students were later told by Associate Dean of Student Life Terry Addison that the injuries were minor and none had required hospitalization, she added.
Margaret Klawunn, vice president for campus life and student services, declined to discuss the details of the case. But in letters sent to the students by Addison and obtained by The Herald, the University contended that they "caused a meeting of the University Corporation to be disrupted," "forcibly entered a University building that was closed" and "caused University personnel to be injured" in the process.
The eight students are facing the University's most serious level of disciplinary proceedings after 20 members of the group tried to get past DPS officers stationed outside University Hall who attempted to stop them.
After about three minutes, eight of the students were able to make it up to the third-floor landing outside the room where the Corporation was meeting, while the rest had been removed from the building, Devlin said. The reports given to the accused students suggest that "people were injured in the process of students pushing in and students getting dragged out" of the building's entrance, Devlin said. "The injuries were a function of a lot of people being in the same place at the same time."
The eight students being charged will choose to face either a University Disciplinary Council panel - consisting of students, faculty and administrators - or a hearing before a single administrative officer.
Seven of the students who were charged have been identified by the University as having made it up the stairs, Tape said. But officials have been unable to establish whether the eighth student facing charges was also the eighth who made it up the stairs.
"They know that there is at least a possibility there was another student that was on the stairs" who is not being charged, Tape said.
University officials will allow the SDS members facing disciplinary charges to have their cases heard as a group.
A provision in Brown's non-academic disciplinary code allows cases with "common facts and a common set of evidence" to be heard at once, Klawunn said. Students still present their own cases individually, and each student's responsibility is determined separately.
All eight students are being accused of Offenses I, II.a and IX of the Standards of Student Conduct, Devlin said, charges related to entering the building and the employees' injuries. Offense II.a proscribes "actions that result in or can be reasonably expected to result in physical harm."
Seven of the students are also being charged with Offense VII, failure to present identification to a University official upon request. The student that is not being charged under that standard is being charged with Offense II.b, which addresses "actions that are unreasonably disruptive of the University community."
That student was not charged with failure to present identification because he or she has not been definitely confirmed as among the eight on the stairs, Tape said.
Members of SDS have questioned the legitimacy of charging only eight of them, even though other students tried to enter the building at the same time.
Though Klawunn would not comment on the specific charges, she said "if there is a reasonable basis for believing that a student is responsible for a violation of the code of student conduct," a hearing will occur, regardless of whether all students who may be responsible can be identified.
"These are the students that we believe might be involved, and they have a hearing to determine whether they might or might not be responsible," Klawunn said.
SDS members also question whether these cited offenses can be applied to their actions, particularly Offense I, which prohibits "behavior that disrupts ... the basic rights of others and the educational functions of the University." The group does not think a Corporation meeting should be considered an educational function of the University, Devlin said.
Klawunn, conversely, said she "would interpret 'educational function' broadly."
Regarding the charge that they failed to present identification, the group members deny that officials made any such request, Devlin said. The reports of two DPS officers, which were included in the evidence packet given to the students, support the students' assertion, she said.
But Senior Vice President for Corporation Affairs and Governance Russell Carey '91 MA'06 "says in his testimony directly that he asked for IDs and students refused," Tape said.
The students who reached the third floor during the protest were told by Carey that they could not enter the meeting.
In accordance with University policy, the eight charged students were given the final pieces of evidence against them, as well as lists of both disciplinary council members and administrators, on Nov. 7. The date of their hearing will be set soon, Klawunn said.
The University notifies students of the date of their hearing at least seven business days in advance.
