The Code: Case 97-39

Case gives insight into University's judicial process

It may seem difficult to unravel what happened one particular night in one particular fraternity house on this sprawling campus of 36,000 students.

It may be hard for people to remember the details about what happened one night when alcohol blurred memories.

In fact, it may be that most of the thousands of students on campus don't really care what happened one night at one isolated fraternity party.

But whatever happened during an incident last March resulted in high emotions, a clandestine Code of Student Conduct hearing that lasted until about 3 a.m., and a tenuous resolution. The Code is the University's set of disciplinary guidelines for st

WARREN ZINN/Daily The woman who brought sexual harassment charges against a fraternity president last March under the Code of Student Conduct sits outside the Fleming Administration Building, where the Code hearing was held last semester. Her case was one of 14 sexual assault and sexual harassment cases that have been heard under the Code since January 1996.

udents.

In the meantime, poignant questions have been raised concerning the effectiveness of Code arbitrations, the difficulty of discerning the truth, and sexual harassment on campus.

The facts

A female student told The Michigan Daily that a fraternity president ripped open her shirt in his house's foyer during a crowded party last spring while he was drunk, then followed her and suggested they go to a room together.

The man says he did not sexually harass the woman that night, but did grab her hand and try to get her to leave the house by pulling her toward the door. He said his actions were justified - she had been "banned" from the house earlier in the year.

"(She) had a history of getting drunk and passing out at our house. Late December, we decided, 'hey, this girl's not going to come here anymore,'" he said.

He said the woman made up the sexual harassment story and charged him under the Code, perhaps to get revenge against fraternity members who had acted unfriendly toward her.

The accused student suggested that the woman might have made up the story in order to use it for "a women's studies project."

Both students said they were drinking on the night of the incident, but were not drunk.

The male student allegedly followed the woman after ripping open her denim snap-button shirt and suggested that the girl go with him to a room.

He "was like, 'let's go somewhere else, or let's go to a room,'" the woman said.

He remembers the situation differently. "That was all part of her story," he said.

The case was resolved through an arbitration hearing held by the Office of Conflict Resolution, in which five student panelists found the man responsible for battery, harassment and alcohol possession, all violations of the Code.

The panel ruled that the man was not responsible for two charges: sexual assault and sexual harassment.

Case 97-39

The incident is listed as case 97-39 in the Code of Student Conduct Public Record.

Besides a list of charges and outcomes, the only information the sterile white binder offers about the case is that "a male undergraduate student was alleged to have sexually harassed and sexually assaulted a female student. It also was alleged that the accused student was intoxicated."

After the woman notified Code officials last spring about her complaints, the Office of Conflict Resolution decided on five charges: sexual harassment, sexual assault, possession of alcohol, battery and harassment.

The man then received a letter notifying him that he was being brought up on charges under the Code.

"I pleaded not guilty to everything except for illegal possession of alcohol," said the accused, who was 20 years old when the alleged incident occurred.

A few weeks later, the students sat on opposite ends of the 12-foot wooden table on the sixth floor of the Fleming Administration Building. Neither of the students had lawyers, but both had friends who served as advisers and were there for support.

They sat before a panel of five students, some in LSA and some in the Business School, and each told their versions of what happened on March 15.

The man had completed his last final exam of the semester just three hours before the hearing began. "It came about the worst possible time. And they were adamant about me not pushing it off," he said.

But the woman said the Office of Conflict Resolution couldn't have been more helpful.

"It is incredible how supportive (the office is) and how much it works for you," she said.

To this day, the man still questions the atmosphere of the hearing and how the Office of Conflict Resolution deals with complaints.

"I really had no idea what I was doing (during the hearing). It was just me defending myself and I thought that was ridiculous," he said. "This was me - whether I was going to stay in school or leave.

"Expulsion was a very real option."

But Mary Lou Antieau, judicial code adviser, pointed out what the Code attempts to do: set down and clarify "behavioral standards for this campus."

"The criminal justice system has lower standards than the University," she said.

The male student said he disapproved of the Code's resolution process.

"It's an easy place to go and say 'this is what happened to me' and then convince a bunch of 18-year-olds that you are right," he said.

The Code resolution process requires that student representatives serve as panelists during arbitrations and reach a conclusion on the issue at hand. The panelists cannot resolve all parties' complaints during the hearings, nor can they determine without a doubt who is telling the truth.

Keeping the Code under wraps

With the complete secrecy of the Code process, it's virtually impossible for the public to find out about conflicts at the University.

Antieau said everyone connected with an arbitration hearing must sign a confidentiality statement before participating. "The panelists are precluded from talking about the case," she said.

The confidentiality agreement cloaks all hearings in secrecy.

Antieau said the confidentiality aspect was implemented by the University because Code hearings are "administrative" and "educational" proceedings, not criminal proceedings, and that what the accused students learn in the arbitrations about their behavior is a private issue, not a public one.

The Code differs from the legal system in its methods of punishment, which focus more on education and reform than the court system does. The man in the harassment case received a "formal reprimand" and was ordered to complete an educational project as part of the Code resolution. The Code panel also ordered counseling and required that the accused student have no contact with the female student.

The male student said he is upset that the panel found him responsible for harassment. "They thought that the act of me asking her to leave my own home was harassment," he said.

Some people question why the woman chose to seek justice through the University's disciplinary system rather than pressing criminal charges.

The woman said she chose to proceed through the Office of Conflict Resolution because "under the legal system, he wouldn't have gotten anything - he would have walked off."

Searching for the truth

Before the incident, the woman claims she stayed away from the fraternity house for five months. The fraternity members made it clear that she was not welcome at the house because they felt she had passed out drunk there one too many times.

She said the alleged incident occurred on her second visit to the party that night, and that if there would have been any attempt to throw her out the first time, she would not have returned to the party again.

In the outcome of the case, however, the Code decision states that fraternity members did indeed ask the woman to leave at one point.

The woman said that a few days after the incident, before she decided to pursue the case through the Code, she approached the student and requested an apology.

She claims the student told her that "he was so trashed that night, he didn't remember anything that happened."

According to an LSA sophomore and friend of the woman, the male student told the woman during that Wednesday meeting that "if she wanted to press charges, that he was OK with it, he probably deserved it."

He allegedly told her he also had broken a window that night and started a fight. She claims he also said he did not remember those two incidents, and was later told about them by acquaintances.

The fraternity president, whose term ran out at the end of last winter semester, said the whole situation has been blown out of proportion. "Her story was that I had somehow ... sexually attacked her. (That's) not at all what happened," he said.

Right before the alleged incident, "two or three people asked her to leave. She kind of blew them off," he said. "At that point, I grabbed her left hand and tried to pull her to the hall."

Tim Meyer, a Business junior, was present at the party and said the events did not unfold as described by the woman.

"There was no incident. I was there. The girl's a liar," Meyer said.

Meyer said the woman's decision to pursue the incident through the Code was "just the strangest thing out of the blue."

Harassment on campus

The woman said she hopes her story will help other students in the University realize the prevalence of sexual harassment. "We go to parties every week, and seeing it every week, it makes me really frustrated," she said.

Sarah Heuser, interim director of the Sexual Assault Prevention and Awareness Center, said she is familiar with sexual harassment incidents on campus.

"We have received reports about sexual harassment in fraternities around our campus," Heuser said.

But Heuser was quick to point out that sexual harassment "is common in other areas as well."

In 1996, there were eight sexual assault or harassment charges brought against students through the Code.

So far in 1997, three sexual assault cases and five sexual harassment incidents have been investigated as possible Code violations. The Public Record was last updated on June 10.

But some cases that could involve sexual assault or harassment are listed only as "code violations" in order to protect those involved when the case would be made obvious in the description.

Interfraternity Council officials say that fraternity parties are not breeding grounds for sexual harassment, contrary to some perceptions.

"There's no evidence to show that a fraternity party would be any more dangerous for a woman to attend than any other gathering at the University of Michigan," said IFC President Ken Tanner, an Engineering senior.

While the man was found not responsible for the sexual assault and sexual harassment charges, the case raises important issues concerning sexual harassment.

Heuser said that sexual harassment and sexual assault are symptoms of a much greater problem.

"I think sexual harassment and sexual assault are (based) on the continuum of violence that primarily women experience," she said.

Heuser added that violence against women "is rooted in the belief that men are superior."

The aftermath

Regarding their experiences during the Code arbitration process, the two students have differing viewpoints.

"People always trash the Code, but the thing is, the Code works," the woman said.

But the male student said he perceived the student panelists as unprofessional and felt they had too much power over his situation. He recalled that the panelists had a "pizza party" before the hearing began and remembered them as "laughing during a bathroom break."

"I just couldn't believe that these people were sitting there kind of determining my fate," he said.

10-09-97