The Dennis Lennox ruling has been issue. It's a formal reprimand. While that's not severe - its still part of his official record and could follow him in employment situations or future decisions by the university.
Was it justified? Did the University tell the truth or remain consistent itself?
Below are the original documents, e-mailed to Lennox today.
Spokesman Steve Smith spoke in generic terms about CMU's approach to ousting students from campus. Privacy rights prevent him from talking specifically about Lennox, he said.
Well, they carbon copied (see below) the person who filed the complaint. Now, if FERPA and privacy means anything, it does for everyone equally. That is, if a student is entitled to a private hearing to protect his rights, and the university can't divulge the outcome, then it shouldn't be able to divulge it to the complainant.
But alas, the student "code" is geared around "victims" and accusers, not the accused. Most student codes are. They flip the American justice system squarely on its head.
But of course, these complaints and the codes flip more than just the ordering of rights on their head. They trash the entire truth-finding system that the Constitution was meant to create - they revert us to the methods and priorities of the Star Chambers and Salem witch trials (lest you realize that this situation obviously doesn't have consequences as serious as burning Lennox at a stake, I agree, but I also note that those systems evolved because of long erosions of rights - - even in those times, operative principles of natural justice had been embodied in things like the Magna Carta, or pre-dating that, the codes of law in ancient Greek society and the Roman Republic).
For example, Lennox is "convicted" of "false statements" when he said he was "Dick Cheney". Any rational person would understand that while technically false, that was satire and not intended to deceive (although probably intended as a refusal to answer). The prohibition of "false statements" is written without ANY TAILORING, let alone "narrow tailoring", and therefore blatantly unconstitutionally in violation of the First Amendment. "Satire" is a clearly protected form of speech.
He's also "convicted" of refusing to identify himself (ironically, that logically contradicts the notion that he falsely identified himself), and ordered in the future to identify himself. On its face, this is probably a violation of the Fifth Amendment. If disclosing identity would subject one to penalties of law or rule, then it is probably "self-incrimination". Refusing to identify himself is a form of exercise of the Fifth Amendment.
There's more to be gleaned from the original documents, but CMU has violated the Constitution in more ways that I can count.
I am very sorry that you decided not to participate in the disciplinary hearing scheduled for February 27, 2008, when you refused to abide by the hearing procedures as they were explained to you (specifically, by refusing to surrender your video and audio taping materials for the duration of the hearing). The hearing did proceed as scheduled, and you were found to be in violation of sections 3.2.2 (providing false information to a university official), 3.2.15 (not identifying yourself to a university agent when asked) and 3.2.32 (distributing printed materials in violation of the Advocacy Policy) of the Central Michigan University Code of Student Rights, Responsibilities and Disciplinary Procedures for your involvement in an incident which occurred on October 23, 2007 in Anspach Hall.
As a result of the aforementioned violations the following sanction has been issued:
* A letter of Reprimand
This letter will serve as your official letter of reprimand. The University hopes in the future you will abide by the CMU Code of Student Rights, Responsibilities and Disciplinary Procedures. More specifically, you will identify yourself correctly to university officials when asked to do so; you will be truthful in the information you provide to university officials; and you will adhere to all university regulations including the University Policies and Procedures Affecting Advocacy Activities. Future violations may result in further disciplinary action.
I wish to bring to your attention section 5.4 of the Code of Student Rights, Responsibilities and Disciplinary Procedures, which concerns your rights to appeal your sanction. Please read it carefully for all details regarding an appeal and understand that an appeal may also be made by the group or person who brought the charge, or by the University. The appeal is only timely if received by the Office of Student Rights and Responsibilities within five days (exclusive of Saturday or Sunday) from the date you receive this letter. The procedural rules governing any appeal are the same as those applicable to the initial hearing. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Thomas Idema
Conduct Proceedings Officer
Cc: Dr. Peter Koper
OFFICE OF STUDENT LIFE • 111 BOVEE UNIVERSITY CENTER • PHONE: (989) 774-3016 • FAX: (989) 774-6573
CENTRAL MICHIGAN UNIVERISTY • MOUNT PLEASANT, MICHIGAN 48859
February 29, 2008
Tom Idema
Office of Student Life
Bovee UC
Central Michigan University
After careful deliberation and thorough review of all information provided in writing and from the hearing held on Wednesday February 27, 2008, I submit the following decision.
Regarding the University's assertion that Dennis -George Lennox II was in violation of section 3.2.2 of the Central Michigan University (CMU) Student Code of Conduct:
3.2.2 False Information. A student shall not furnish, or attempt to furnish, false or misleading information to University officials or on official University records. Furthermore, he/she shall not forge, alter, or misuse the University name, the name of any University employee, documents, records of identification, or attempt to do the same.
Finding: I find Dennis-George Lennox in violation of 3.2.2 of the CMU Student Code of Conduct. Mr. Lennox misrepresented himself to Professor Peter Koper on October 23, 2007 in Anspach Hall when asked by Professor Koper his name when Mr. Lennox approached Professor Koper regarding the fliers he had collected in Anspach Hall. Mr. Lennox identified himself as "Dick Cheney" to Professor Koper when asked his name. Also, it is clear from the facts presented that Mr. Lennox communicated to Professor Koper that he had received permission from the CMU President's office to post these fliers in Anspach Hall. This action clearly is in violation of code 3.2.2 of the Student Code of Conduct at CMU.
Regarding the University's assertion that Dennis -George Lennox II was in violation of section 3.2.15 of the Central Michigan University (CMU) Student Code of Conduct:
3.2.15 Complying with University Agents. A student shall comply with the directions of University agents acting in the performance of their regular or delegated duties and must identify him self or her self to these agents upon request.
Finding: I find Dennis-George Lennox in violation of 3.2.15 of the CMU Student Code of Conduct. Mr. Lennox misrepresented himself to Professor Peter Koper on October 23, 2007 in Anspach Hall when asked by Professor Koper his name when Mr. Lennox approached Professor Koper regarding the fliers he had collected in Anspach Hall. Mr. Lennox identified himself as "Dick Cheney" to Professor Koper when asked his name.
Regarding the University's assertion that Dennis -George Lennox II was in violation of section 3.2.32 of the Central Michigan University (CMU) Student Code of Conduct:
3.2.32 Violation of University Regulations. Violation of other university regulations, policies or established procedures may be treated as an offense under these regulations.
UNIVERSITY POLICIES AND PROCEDURES AFFECTING
ADVOCACY ACTIVITIES
C. Except as provided in Article III.A., PRINTED MATERIALS may not be DISTRIBUTED inside University buildings except as permitted in these Policies.
1. PRINTED MATERIALS may be placed for self-DISTRIBUTION immediately next to those locations where CM LIFE is placed for self-DISTRIBUTION.
2. Bulletin Boards
a. Bulletin Boards in University buildings, or on campus information kiosks, which are not designated for a particular and specified purpose, are considered to be General Purpose Bulletin Boards. All University buildings shall have at least one General Purpose Bulletin Board located adjacent to the main traffic flow of that building.
b. Bulletin Boards for a particular purpose, and visibly labeled to that effect, shall be reserved for the purpose designated.
c. The University reserves a space 10" x 18" in the upper left hand corner of all
General Purpose Bulletin Boards for the posting of official announcements.
d. Any person or group may place PRINTED MATERIALS on General Purpose Bulletin Boards. Everyone should show courtesy toward other potential users of the limited space.
e. A person may post only one piece of printed material on a General Purpose
Bulletin Board at a time and must limit the size of such PRINTED MATERIALS to 22" by 28".
f. Each piece of printed material placed upon a General Purpose Bulletin Board must list the initial date of the posting.
g. PRINTED MATERIALS placed upon a General Purpose Bulletin Board will be removed after the event being announced has taken place, or within 30 days after its initial posting, whichever is sooner, so that other persons or groups may have access to the limited Bulletin Board space.
Finding: I find Dennis-George Lennox in violation of 3.2.32 of the CMU Student Code of Conduct. Mr. Lennox admitted during his discussion with Professor Koper that indeed the fliers posted in Anspach Hall were indeed his property. Further, Professor Koper witnessed Mr. Lennox put fliers back in unauthorized locations (hallway benches) in Anspach Hall. Mr. Lennox's actions in posting these fliers is in direct violation of the Central Michigan University Policies and Procedures Affecting Advocacy Activities.
Sanctions: With the aforementioned findings, I impose the following sanctions:
A letter of reprimand is issued to Mr. Dennis-George Lennox II communicating these findings and asking him to refrain from any further activity that violates the CMU Student Code of Conduct.
