Do not fret what you do not know. What you do know suffices to establish that some complaints from minorities at the University of Puget Clowns have been validated by conduct proceedings in and of the Division of Student Affairs.
Is the University of Puget Clowns [© Susan Resneck Pierce 1996] genuinely searching for a “Director of Student Conduct” for its reeling Division of Student Affairs, or is an inside candidate awaiting elevation?
I do not know.
Since the most recent "Director of Student Conduct" portrayed himself as more about restorative resolutions than about punitive policing of students, is it likely that his successor will be more about public relations gestures and draconian vengeance than about educational measures and restoring community?
I do not know.
Is the Vice President for Student Affairs and Dean of Students retiring or resigning after having stayed in his post longer than he might have wanted to? Is he being pushed out the door or pushing himself out the door because his division exposed itself as, under the best interpretation, incompetent to handle the flier incident?
I do not know.
Does the interim Vice President for Student Affairs and Dean of Students signal a lack of trust in apparatchiks in the Division of Student Affairs to handle their reeling division over summer months?
I do not know.
Whatever became of the UPS3, a moniker for students prosecuted for posting fliers entitled "Bigots of Puget Sound" [and UPS3 offends one or more of my colleagues waging proxy wars against the forces of diversity]?
I do not know.
Was the drumhead prosecution of the aforementioned three students—hereafter to be designated The Charlie Foxtrot!—as much a disaster for due process as it was a debacle for public relations?
I do not know.
Were more provisions of the vaunted "Student Integrity Code" followed than were eluded or finessed or violated or contradicted amid The Charlie Foxtrot! proceedings?
I do not know.
Did communications from faculty influence apparatchiks or administrators or both to turn from educative or restorative responses to punitive or public relations responses amid The Charlie Foxtrot! proceedings?
I do not know.
Did the apparatchik(s) conducting The Charlie Foxtrot! proceedings interview some or most of the targets of the "Bigots of Puget Sound" flier to see what they thought penalties should be?
I do not know.
Did The Charlie Foxtrot! transmogrify from primarily a process for restoring and reconciling offenders to the community and educating deviants to conformity to primarily a process of reconciling the targets to their privilege in the community and restoring those with hurt feelings to the serene comforts of security and safety from challenge?
I do not know.
Did The Charlie Foxtrot! transmogrify from primarily a process for restoring and reconciling offenders to the community and educating deviants to conformity to primarily a process of reconciling the targets to their privilege in the community and restoring those with hurt feelings to the serene comforts of security and safety from challenge?
I do not know.
Does the solicitude for the targets of the "Bigots of Puget Sound" flier contrast starkly with the stern, lofty lack of concern for the grievances of the UPS3 during the Charlie Foxtrot! proceedings?*
I do not know.
Did administrators or apparatchiks or both seek or obtain counsel from lawyers or from public relations specialists [a.k.a., flacks]?
I do not know.
Did apparatchiks or administrators or lawyers or PR flacks come up with "harassment" as a special term in the "Student Integrity Code" [because victims of harassment are entitled to learn of the disposition of complaints about harassment]?
I do not know.
Were the fliers deemed "harassment," contrary to ordinary usage, because illicit posting in the SUB or disrespect were or would be insufficient to rationalize draconian sanctions?
I do not know.
Did one or more of the targets of the flier complain to precipitate The Charlie Foxtrot! proceedings, or did apparatchiks or administrators commandeer the process and, selectively, the "Student Integrity Code" to prosecute the agenda or agendas of apparatchiks, administrators, lawyers [to fend off suits for defamation], and/or PR specialists?**
I do not know.
Does all the foregoing tend to reinforce the complaints of the UPS3 and their allies about the differential treatment of racial and ethnic minorities and of their complaints at the University of Puget Clowns?
That I do know. And so do you.
Does much of the foregoing tend to reinforce decades of experience of the "Student Integrity Code" as both a license for arbitrariness, moralizing, and vendetta by those in positions to wield the "Student Integrity Code" and as a sword overhanging any student insufficiently obsequious to authorities.
That I already knew. And now, so should you.
Will the campus community be able to answer any of the questions above by reading through the file that the "Student Integrity Code" requires for conduct proceedings?
I do not know. Did those who were allegedly following the "Student Integrity Code" to sanction the UPS3 fulfill their own obligations under the selfsame "Student Integrity Code," or did they only follow the "Student Integrity Code" when it suited them in fending off pressure from administrators or faculty or parents or media or PR flacks or others who mattered [unlike students of color, who did not and do not matter]?
**Why might this matter? If the UPS3 and those who agree with them were protesting that administrators and apparatchiks [among others] do not listen, then the procurator(s) and the adjudicator(s) [assuming that the adjudicator(s) and procurator(s) were not the same person(s)] would manifest a conflict of interest.
No comments:
Post a Comment