One of the bedrocks of American society lies in the assurance that all persons accused of a crime have the right to trial before they are punished. The recent case of Daniel Granger - a Grosse Pointe North High School graduate who intended to attend the University this semester - has dragged the administration into the middle of the public spotlight where the hypocrisy of its own administrative decisions is open to scrutiny by all.
The problems started when a picture of Granger - the president of his senior class - with his genitals exposed appeared in the 1997-98 yearbook. A school investigation resulted in allegations that Granger and other students had enganged is sexual acts with several other students. Granger soon found himself charged with third-degree criminal sexual conduct, or what amounts to statutory rape because the girls allegedly involved were under the age of consent. On Aug. 27, Granger's problems grew when he received a letter from Vice President for Student Affairs Maureen Hartford informing him that he had to attend a hearing to discuss his future at the University. Last Tuesday, Provost Nancy Cantor sent him another letter, informing him he would be suspended at least until winter term, pending the findings of a University investigation.
Despite the University's statement that its actions are an "admissions review," the entire predicament smacks of past problems engendered by the University's Code of Student Conduct. The Code is a three-page document that attempts to create a shadow of a legal system over campus, at the same time ignoring many of the rights basic to citizens.
The administration's actions seriously threaten some of the most basic building blocks of the criminal justice system, not the least of which is the belief that the accused are innocent until they are proven guilty. Granger has not plead guilty; no judge or jury has ruled as to his guilt. The possible threat to the University student body is unclear, if existent at all. The administration has thrown the presumption of innocence to the wind for its convenience.
Further, by punishing Granger without sufficient investigation or procedure, the University has violated his right to due process. The administration is casting an aura of guilt on the 18-year-old without giving him a chance to defend himself.
Even if the University's premises had some meat to them, Granger's actions would fall beyond the University's jurisdiction. First of all, it took place beyond the confines of the University's campus. The administration evidently feels that its brand of justice should be omnipresent in student lives - a proposition that is patently foolish. Even if the University's authority is accepted as extending beyond campus boundaries, Granger allegedly committed the act last winter - long before he would have become a student - thus putting the acts well beyond the scope of the University.
The University should not attempt to impose itself in lieu of the legal system. If Granger's guilt can be proven, then he will not be able to attend the University because he likely will be in prison. Hartford and Cantor's actions are a challenge to Granger's civil liberties - and a serious threat to those of all students. If it must delve into the matter, the University should allow Granger to attend school during the investigation. Supposition and premature reaction have supplanted the investigative processes that normally take place. The University should recant its actions,
09-08-98
| Next Article |
should be sent to: daily.letters@umich.edu | should be sent to: online.daily@umich.edu |