Declining to Hear a Case
The Case
On October 28, 1996 the UDC met to consider a case involving alleged sexual
misconduct. The charged student (later reported by the Providence Journal-
Bulletin to be a member of the Jordanian royal family), it was charged, had
nonconsentual sex with his then-girlfriend involving force. The charged
student had as his advisor Martha Joukowski, wife of University Chancellor
Artemis Joukowski.
Prior to the beginning of the hearing, Ms. Joukowski asked the UDC to
exercise its right under Section VII of the Non-Academic Disciplinary
Procedures to decline to hear the case. She argued that the evidence was
too complex and not reliable, and that the UDC should defer to Providence
courts.
After several hours of deliberations, the UDC voted 4-3 not to hear the case
.
As a result of the UDC's action, the alleged victim filed a complaint with
the Office of Civil Rights (OCR). She claimed that Brown violated her civil
rights by failing to hear her grievances. The OCR made formal inquiries of
all parties involved, but prior to the release of its findings, the
complainant withdrew her complaint.
Our Stance
The ACLU believes the UDC acted incorrectly in declining to hear this case.
We are deeply troubled by rumors that the charged student, due to his status
as royalty, had diplomatic immunity. If this were so, then Joukowski's
argument that the UDC should defer to Providence courts was false and
perhaps in bad faith.
That issue aside, we believe that it sets a dangerous precedent for the UDC
to deem evidence as "too complex" or "not reliable" before hearing the case.
The purpose of the hearing is to examine the evidence and to test its
reliability. The UDC should have heard the case, examined the evidence, and
if after the hearing the members felt unsure whether the charged student was
guilty, they should have voted him "not guilty." However, to speculate on
the nature of evidence before even hearing the evidence is nonsensical.
Finally, the ACLU is disturbed by the failure of the Office of Student Life
to provide community notification of the UDC's action. For the UDC to
refuse to even consider charges of forcible rape, and for the OSL to refuse
to tell the community about it, is scandalous. OSL's silence only
contributed to suspicions that it was attempting to "cover up" the UDC's
action.
