On Oct. 4, a panel of third-party lawyers, which UTD hired, decided to stop applying deferred suspension and denial of degree and instead issue a written warning to the nine students arrested at UTD’s pro-Palestine encampment May 1.
Twenty-one people in total were arrested May 1, nine of which are either current students or had not graduated at the time of their arrest. UTD’s legal charges against the 21 arrested are still pending as of publication. Over the summer, Student Affairs pursued academic discipline against the nine arrested students through deferred suspension, which automatically suspends a student for breaking another UTD policy, and denial of degree, which allows the university to deny that a graduated student has received a UTD diploma, as well as charging all nine students with four policy violations. However, UTD discontinued the discipline and dropped the academic sanctions after the disciplinary panel decided there was insufficient evidence to justify Student Affairs’ recommended punishments.
In a unanimous decision, the disciplinary hearing panel said, “Upon considering the University’s recommended sanction of deferred suspension for the policy violations, the severity of the offenses, and the University’s primary disciplinary objective to educate students, the Hearing Panel determined that the appropriate sanction for respondent is a WRITTEN WARNING.”
If the academic charges had not been dropped, the university would proceed to sanction the students per Smith’s recommendations of denial of degree for graduates and deferred suspension until the end of enrollment for continuing students. If a student was accused of another policy violation, they could again face denial of degree, deferred suspension or other disciplinary measures until the charges are again heard and ruled on.
The hearing panel said that the totality of evidence presented to them in this case demonstrated that the students did “fail/refuse” to leave the Chess Plaza after law enforcement began attempting to remove the encampment. The evidence did not show that the students specifically participated in the construction of the encampment or received specific written or verbal notice from UTD officials to dissemble the encampment and vacate the Chess Plaza.
“Given the abbreviated period between distribution of the written Notice and respondent’s arrest, and the insufficiency of the evidence demonstrating that the Respondent received written or verbal directives to vacate the Chess Plaza prior to their arrest, the Hearing Panel does not believe deferred suspension for the remainder of the Respondent’s enrollment is warranted,” the panel hearing panel said.
The procedure for conducting a disciplinary hearing is outlined in the Student Code of Conduct, or UTDSP5003, and defines a written warning as a notification that continuing or repeating the specified behavior may lead to further disciplinary action. UTDSP5003 designates Dean of Students Amanda Smith as the investigator of the alleged violations, and authorizes her to withhold degrees, diplomas, grades and official transcripts from students “alleged to have violated a rule or regulation.” The UTD Discipline Committee comprised of students, faculty and staff is then formed to preside over a formal hearing about the violation. Student Y, one of the nine arrested students, said they were confused why third-party lawyers oversaw the hearing instead of the students, faculty and staff that should have overseen it per UTDSP5003.
“Smith decided that a third-party legal team would be the better route,” Student Y said. “It is frustrating when Smith has the authority and ability to supersede the code of conduct in a manner like this, in a case where she is so involved. There is a bias and conflict of interest there, so it is frustrating to say the least.”
Prior to the panel decision’s announcement, staff at The Retrograde reached out to Smith and the Dean of Students Office for comment regarding the academic hearings and received no response. Retrograde staff also reached out to the Office of Community Standards and Conduct and OCSC administrative assistant Sean Payne directed The Retrograde to UTDSP5003 for information, saying the office could not speak to the specifics of any case because of the confidential nature of disciplinary proceedings. The OCSC website says that disciplinary records are kept separate from academic records as part of its adherence to the confidentiality of these records.
As written, UTDSP5003 does not permit a hearing panel to exist without being composed of faculty, staff and students. While subsection 14.4 allows for the hearing panel to request advice from legal counsel, it provides no provisions for third-party legal counsel to replace a standard hearing panel. Student Y said they were concerned with the level of involvement Smith had throughout the entire process because, in this circumstance, she was not a neutral party.
“She was UTD’s only witness, she was extremely involved in the lead-up to the case and she just seemed extremely confident that we were all guilty,” Student Y said. “I don’t know how it was fair that she was the one who decided how this hearing would happen or the terms and conditions of the hearings.”
Student Y said the bulk of the university’s testimony in the hearings came from Smith herself, based on her experience visiting the encampment in the morning, distributing the printed notices for students to leave in the evening and watching throughout the day from her office.
During the Sept.18 Academic Senate meeting, computer science professor Ravi Prakash said he was concerned about a lack of communication from administration and specifically UTD President Richard Benson, as well as the university’s inability to maintain neutrality in its legal and academic proceedings.
“The circumstances of May 1 were so unique that none of our bylaws or policies really covered them,” Prakash said. “[Administration was the one] to call the police to campus, and when police were on campus [Benson] was the one to drive away from campus and instead to the home of Harlan Crow. You are not a neutral third party, you would only be a neutral third party if you were not involved in the decision-making process on May 1.”
Student Y provided The Retrograde with a copy of the four charges OCSC brought against all nine students. Each charge was for alleged violations under UTDSP5003 subsection 9: Code of Conduct. The first charge was for a violation of section 9.6(14), which focuses on obstruction or interference of UTD activities and facilities. The second charge was for a violation of section 9.6(15), which is for any general violations of state or federal laws or university policies. The third charge was for a violation of section 9.6(18), which is about disruptive conduct including but not limited to excessive noise and inappropriate, disorderly and obscene behavior. The fourth charge was for a violation of section 9.6(19), which pertains to failure to comply with written or verbal commands from university officials. Student Y was found responsible for the first and second violations by the hearing panel. The hearing panel said that evidence was insufficient to support the third and fourth violations, and thus they found Studeny Y not responsible in both circumstances.
“They charged all nine students with the same four violations,” Student Y said. “It was clear that they had no distinction between us as individuals but instead treated us as one collective to be held responsible for the actions of every student that attended the protest. It felt like they were throwing everything against the wall to see what would stick.”
The bond conditions issued by Collin County five months ago remain in effect. The nine students are not permitted on campus for any activities unrelated to their courses. The legal charges against the “UTD 21” have not been dropped and are still pending.
“I think that in issuing the warning, UTD has seen that it overstepped its authority by trying to repress the educational experience of the nine students,” Student Y said. “I hope that it wakes UTD up to do the right thing, but I am cynical and don’t think that would be likely. Continued community support and pressure is needed since it is unlikely UTD would drop the charges out of the goodness of their hearts.”