Features

Though more than two weeks have passed since three UC Berkeley students presented their arguments to an independent tribunal that was to recommend appropriate university punishment for their participation in an anti-war sit-in last March, they’re still waiting to learn their fates. 

As of yesterday, the trio still hadn’t heard from Dean of Students Karen Kenney, who received the panel’s recommendation shortly after the Oct. 28 hearing. 

Although the students have charged that the university has been using scheduling to railroad a case they say is unfair and unfounded, university officials say the delay is merely business as usual. 

According to hearing panel chair Bob Jacobson, the group was supposed to present its recommendations to Dean Kenney within a week of the hearing, but they missed the deadline by a day.  

UC Berkeley’s Department of Public Affairs says the dean must issue her decision within 10 days from the time she received the report. 

The students, however, believed they’d get the panel’s report at the same time as Dean Kenney. 

If the dean upholds the charges against them, they say they plan to appeal—and for that, the Public Affairs office says, they’ll have 15 days. 

The students and their supporters—including Todd Chretien, a member of the Committee to Defend Student Civil Liberties, the ad-hoc group formed to defend the students—accuse university of employing stall tactics. 

“There are two things that they’re doing,” Chretien said. “One strategy is to drag it out because they are nervous that they’ve disregarded these students’ rights. And second, by delaying, they want to show that the dean is giving a measured approach. But it’s just a delay.” 

Janet Gilmore from the Public Affairs office said the dean is following code and expects her to issue the report by the deadline. 

The students suggest the university is stalling to release the decision until the approach of final exams and the holidays, a move they say would hinder their ability to file an appeal. 

“It is getting closer to finals and it makes it harder for us to respond,” said Rachel Odes, one of the three. 

Meanwhile, the university has announced revisions to the student code of conduct that change procedures for campus hearings. Most significant, the new code revokes the right of students to have an attorney speak for them during a campus hearing. The change would not prevent them from seeking legal advice. 

Ronald Gronsky, a professor in the Engineering department who chairs the Academic Senate and co-chaired the committee responsible for updating the code, says most changes were made to bring UC Berkeley’s policies in line with the rest of the UC system and to make the hearing process more educational and less adversarial so students can learn from the process, “rather than be distracted by a lawyer who comes in and takes over.” 

He said the move also lowers cost for students unable to afford a lawyer. 

“I think this is an abrogation of due process rights,” said Chretien. “They are trying to place themselves outside the Constitution and say that students don’t have legal rights, all the rights people fought so hard for, all the rights we take for granted.” 

Odes agreed, saying the charges she faces along with Michael Smith and Snehal Shingavi expose the errors in the code change logic. 

“The assertion that the process is educational and not adversarial is pretty flawed, and our experience at the university has shown that,” said Odes. “They made allegations about Mike that were untrue and they have run over our due process rights. Students need as much representation and as many resources as they can get because the university is not about safeguarding due process.” 

Neal Rajmaira, campus judicial officer who suggested the original punishments, said students can incur campus charges that stay on their records beyond school. At least two of the three students in the protest action could receive letters of warning in their files that would be reportable if they applied to a government job or waived their rights to the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). 

The students say it’s unfair to face such consequences without legal representation. 

Gronsky said the changes resulted in part from a schedule that mandates a code update every five to six years. “The [update] process was under way before the takeover [in question],” he said. “It was on the dockets.” 

“It’s obvious that they are revising the code of conduct in the middle of this case,” Chretien responded. “It proves that this is a kangaroo court.” 

Anne Weills, a lawyer with the National Lawyer’s Guild and one of the attorneys who represented UC Berkeley students involved in the Students for Justice in Palestine sit-in at Wheeler Hall, agrees that the new policies take away due process rights. She said the Wheeler case dragged on for months, and the students would have been railroaded had it not been for their legal defense. 

As a result of those proceedings, a university panel met to explore ways to rewrite the code in a way that—unlike the current changes—would have increased the student’s ability to defend themselves. She called the university’s backtracking a sure defensive sign. 

“They knew they lost [the Wheeler sit-in case] ultimately because these students were represented by lawyers,” she said. “They want to take that power back. This is the UC way, it is the same way they deal with labor unions and graduate students. It is a constant fight to maintain due process.” 

The three students and their supporters say they plan to publicize the delay until the dean announces her decision. 

The students have also contacted journalist Amy Goodman of the radio show Democracy Now and asked her to raise the issue when she visits the campus to receive the university’s Mario Savio free speech award. 

If Kenny upholds the charges, the student says they plan to re-contact all the people who signed a support letter published in the Daily Californian—a list that includes Green Party gubernatorial candidate Peter Camejo and well-known academic Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn—to create pressure they hope, along with their appeal, will force the dean to drop the charges.