Almost three months after a UC Berkeley graduate student filed a formal grievance over issues surrounding his campus student conduct proceedings, an initial response was issued this week, dismissing certain aspects of the grievance and calling for changes before further action can be taken.
In June, graduate student Aakash Desai filed a grievance alleging discrimination on the basis of political belief and unfair applications of campus policies over the course of his student conduct proceedings, which stemmed from the November 2009 occupation of Wheeler Hall.
In the grievance, Desai alleged that over the course of his conduct proceedings, the campus Code of Student Conduct was inappropriately applied. He also alleged that “fraudulent evidence” was presented at his hearing that adversely impacted his status as a student and that the “ordeal caused enormous stress for over a year.”
In a letter responding to the grievance, Sheila O’Rourke, the appointed complaint resolution officer, found that the issue of discrimination on the basis of political beliefs falls outside the jurisdiction of the campus Student Grievance Procedure. She also determined that the grievance was incomplete, stating in the letter that specific policies that were alleged to have been unfairly applied were not specified.
“Political belief is not a protected category under the University’s non-discrimination policy or the Student Grievance Procedure,” the letter reads. “With regard to your allegation of ‘unfair’ application of University policies … I find your grievance incomplete.”
Desai has until Sept. 28 to complete the grievance, or it will be dismissed.
According to Desai’s adviser, Thomas Frampton, a UC Berkeley School of Law student and member of the Campus Rights Project, the implications of the decision are “truly frightening for all students on this campus.”
“If you’re a student who can prove you’ve been targeted because of your political beliefs, this decision means you have zero recourse to vindicate your rights,” he said. “This determination means the only remedy you have is a lawsuit against the university.”
O’Rourke could not be reached for comment as of press time.
According to Christopher Patti, chief campus counsel, he cannot comment on individual cases, but in general, in complaints alleging inappropriate applications of campus policies to students, students are required to set forth specific violated policies, if known.
“It is correct that the non-discrimination policy does not prohibit discrimination based on political belief, so a grievance alleging such a violation might well be returned to a student during the 20-day initial review period,” Patti said in the email. “If that occurred, the student would still have 10 days in which to identify a covered law or policy that was violated by the alleged conduct.”
According to Frampton, the amendments to the grievance will be made as requested. He added that he and the Campus Rights Project will work with Desai to “investigate and vigorously pursue all legal channels available.”
“We’ll continue to follow the procedure, do everything that’s asked of us in perhaps the naive hope that the university will take this process seriously,” Frampton said. “While I was hopeful that we were nearing the end of this process … what we’re seeing now strongly indicates that the unwillingness to provide students their basic rights continues, and the problems remain as bad as ever.”
Comment Policy
Comments should remain on topic, concerning the article or blog post to which they are connected. Brevity is encouraged. Posting under a pseudonym is discouraged, but permitted. The Daily Cal encourages readers to voice their opinions respectfully in regard to the readers, writers and contributors of The Daily Californian. Comments are not pre-moderated, but may be removed if deemed to be in violation of this policy. Click here to read the full comment policy.
Dear Le Guest,
Did you read the article? This has absolutely nothing to do with “license to occupy a building.” (a) Desai was acquitted on all charges for that; (b) Read what the university is saying! The ruling was: “It’s okay to target students for political belief.” You really think that’s a good rule?
Political beliefs don’t give you license to occupy a building that doesn’t belong to you with impunity. I hate to break it to some people here, but occupying a building and disrupting other people’s education is not a basic right.
Agreed. There’s a difference between holding a belief, and using that belief to participate in illegal activity, or activity that infringes on the rights of others. For example, while a person may have a right to believe in something such as white supremacy, that person doesn’t have a right to burn a cross on somebody’s lawn, or engage in violence and intimidation against others. Students need to think this stuff out before they claim they are being persecuted for political or personal beliefs.
You clearly didn’t read the article either. The University’s holding was, “We grant that you were prosecuted (and exonerated) on political charges. We don’t care. In fact, we announcing that you have no grievance remedy even though you can prove that you were targeted for that reason.” Not like any of the right-wing trolls that apparently live on the Daily Cal website are actually students, but I’m guessing that you wouldn’t be too thrilled if the Liberal Berkeley Administration started going after the campus Republicans, would you? That’s what they just said they have the right to do.
[Not like any of the right-wing trolls that apparently live on the Daily Cal website are actually students]
Some of us are what you might call “alumni”. If you think we don’t have a right to express our views in the campus newspaper, fine. We’ll keep that in mind the next time you whine about not having enough money to finance your university…