Dear Â鶹´«Ă˝ Community,
After hearing from many of you and after discussions with members of the ASPC and the faculty executive committee, I write to share my thoughts about how we might navigate this difficult time together. Many of our community have raised questions about the judicial process, and also about how we find a path forward for healing our community.
Our judicial processes, at their best, take that as their final goal, and I want to begin there.
Judicial proceedings involving Pomona students
The College will continue to investigate the events at Carnegie. The vast majority of individuals who entered and remained in Carnegie during the building takeover were masked and/or used clothing to conceal their identities; while we may ultimately not be able to identify every individual involved, we will carefully examine all evidence available to us in the investigation.
Interim suspensions are an initial response to highly disruptive events where individual actions threaten safety or the continuity of our academic mission.
The president’s decision to issue an interim suspension in such a matter indicates a determination that community safety is best served by a student remaining off campus while the judicial process continues.
Pursuant to the Student Code, all students had the opportunity to provide new information to the Preliminary Sanctions Review Board (PSRB) via an appeal process. The PSRB is composed of two students and two staff. The PSRB reviews to ensure neither lack of information nor bias have contributed to the interim suspension. A small number of students with interim suspensions were allowed to return to campus as the result of this process. However, neither the president’s decision to issue the interim suspension, nor the PSRB appeal result is a finding of responsibility for the student.
The judicial process continues in one of two ways: The first option is to proceed with the adjudication of individual cases via the Judicial Council. The second is to adjudicate individual cases via a procedure reserved for events that, in the president’s determination, fall outside the scope of Judicial Council review.
I want to share with the community my thinking in choosing the latter.
The Invocation of Extraordinary Authority
The student code states that the president may “act in extraordinary circumstances in order to ensure the safety of individuals, the protection of property, and the continuity of the educational process.”
The code does not require that the president invoke this authority; however, the specificity of these three criteria suggests that when they are met, the president ought to consider whether Judicial Council is the correct body to hear a case.
Judicial Council (J-Board) is an important part of what makes Pomona who we are, and I am immensely proud that so much of our student conduct code is overseen entirely by students. Members of J-Board undergo extensive training and take great care in their exercise of authority in cases large and small.
The vast majority of cases that J-Board hears involve allegations of misconduct where the ramifications of violations, though serious, are of limited scope. They frequently include serious concerns that arise between a defined number of individuals—for example, a team, a pair of roommates, or a single class. In some cases, the scope may be broader than this, but in general they involve only one or two distinct constituencies of the College—e.g., students alone, faculty and students, or students and staff. J-Board does an excellent job of considering the evidence in these cases, assessing any harm, and finding a path back to the community for students who have been found responsible for violations.
As I considered the events of October 7, I was struck by the fact that the allegations in these cases had a vast scope, wider than any case I have seen during my time at the College. The Code clearly describes the kind of events that make them register as extraordinary (disruptive, unsafe, and destructive). However, in making my decision, I also weighed the institutional scope of these events. The takeover of Carnegie affected more than 600 current students, scores of faculty and staff, as well as two groups of minor-age students visiting our campus. This is the context in which I evoked extraordinary authority. Please note that per the Code this decision is based on the triggering events; it does not mean that each individual case under consideration will result in charges based on all of those conditions.
In short, the events at Carnegie meet the threshold as to the kind of actions and effects laid out in the code. Beyond that, these events touch almost every sector of our community—the “individuals” mentioned by the code— and they implicate core responsibilities of the institution itself—the continuity of our educational mission and the safety of everyone on campus. They have, in other words, extraordinary scope in multiple ways.
I believe the extraordinary authority of the president in such matters exists because the Judicial Council process is not appropriate to adjudicate events of this scope.
While many in our community have expressed to me their sense that J-Board best represents the varied interests of all members of our diverse community, I believe the events of October 7 go far beyond what J-Board is generally required to adjudicate.
In addition, while our J-Board student panelists consistently demonstrate expansive commitments to justice, I believe it is not appropriate or fair to require a student panel to take on the full responsibility of underwriting the safety of students, faculty, staff, and visitors to our campus by adjudicating events of this scale.
Finally, I was influenced in this decision by the deep polarization on our campus. I have carefully read the outpouring of emails that have come into my office over the past many days. The passion and care with which our community has raised their diverse voices is both sobering and inspiring. But this outpouring also makes me concerned about the immense amount of community pressure surrounding the quest for justice in these cases, pressure which student panelists would face. None of us is immune from such pressure, but the nature of many of the communications that I have received to date has underlined for me how unfair it would be to expect a student judicial body—even one as extraordinary as our J-Board—to withstand the at times vituperative pressure of this moment.
The three members of our community whom the student code designates to weigh the interests of the College in such an extraordinary moment are the president, the dean of the college and the dean of students. It is our responsibility to do so as fairly and as carefully as we can.
I recognize that these decisions and this rationale are subject to reasonable and principled disagreement, and that you may not agree with my conclusions, but I wanted you all to understand why I have come to these decisions.
Where we go from here
The students whose interim suspensions were upheld were subsequently issued a full academic year’s suspension, and were informed that they could appeal for reconsideration of that sanction. They have each been given an additional 48 hours to provide information in support of the appeal process. Again, while we cannot discuss individual cases, students might in appeal deny the charges outright or raise extenuating circumstances. They might also include letters of support from other members of the community. All of this information will be carefully weighed on an individual basis.
The College has made funding available to all students to support their return home.
The investigations related to Carnegie are still ongoing. It should be noted that other students may be charged, as we continue to look into the more violent events such as physical intimidation or vandalism that occurred within Carnegie.
Restorative processes
Should the final decision regarding any of these cases be suspension of any duration—or even expulsion—we must consider how we will work to make our community whole again.
I have reached out to ASPC as well as to the Executive Committee of the faculty and the leadership of the Student Affairs Committee to begin discussions of what a restorative process might look like. It is my hope that we can collaborate on establishing a path back for any student who is suspended, and in focusing on ways of maintaining connection with our community.
I deeply appreciate the thoughtfulness with which so many students, faculty, staff, families and alumni have reached out to share their concerns with me. You may also read this FAQ for more information.
Yours, as ever,
Gabi