The University of Oregon Administration has been bringing student conduct charges against students involved in protesting Gaza. Its actions have raised––and continue to raise––serious questions about the violation of due process and respect for students.
I am an emeritus professor of the University of Oregon who left in 2010 for a position at Oxford University in a program in public international law. But I have remained connected with the University of Oregon. I became involved with the Gaza protests when I returned to Eugene last spring and was contacted by a former student of mine, who is now a distinguished law professor in Washington DC, about her niece’s involvement with the protests.
This led to my serving as a support person to several student protesters this fall, while I was still in Eugene. I did so out of my concern for due process, as well as my familiarity with student conduct issues from working at the U of O.
What follows is part of a larger report being assembled on how these cases have been handled. Here I provide two case studies, unfortunately typical of how these cases are being addressed.
1/ The first protester, called her Mary, received a letter at the end of fall term charging her with “disrupting classes” by speaking over a bullhorn for “3 to 5 minutes” in front of Lillis. She was told she faced suspension for her actions. She was informed that there would be two meetings about it—one an informational meeting about the charges against her, the second a meeting to determine the outcome. She was given the right to have a support-person present, hence my involvement by Zoom.
Neither the letter charging her, nor its supplementary materials, provided ANY evidence that any classes had been disrupted. There were no complaints from professors, no complaints from students, no complaints from anyone. Zilch. When I raised this at the first hearing, the hearing officer said that they were “still collecting evidence”.
So, they had apparently charged this young woman–and threatened her with suspension–without having a shred of evidence for the charges in question. (By then, they had had two months to collect such evidence.)
The hearing officer assured us that this would be dealt with at the second hearing.
It wasn’t. At the second hearing, there was still no evidence that any classes and been disrupted. It was, we were assured, “still being collected”. But this did not matter, we were told, because–despite the language charging her–the issue was not whether she HAD disrupted classes. The issue was whether she MIGHT have disrupted classes. When I asked how this would be determined (given that a 3–5-minute speech might equally NOT have disrupted any classes), we were told they would use the “reasonable person standard”, which the U of O General Counsel took to mean whether a “reasonable person” would conclude that she MIGHT have disrupted classes. When I pointed out that this was not what the “reasonable person standard” meant, we were again assured us that they were “still collecting evidence”—so the case against this young woman would continue.
And they are “still collecting evidence”, as far as we know.
Is this how the student conduct code is now enforced at the University of Oregon?
When I was a professor, my only dealings with that code were around academic misconduct. I tried to imagine an academic misconduct case being handled in this way:
“Dear Student X, you are instructed to attend a hearing to answer to the charge of academic misconduct for cheating on an exam, for which you face suspension. No evidence will be presented that you actually cheated on an exam (though we will continue to look for such evidence!). In the meantime, you must answer to the charge that you MIGHT have cheated on the exam. No firm date will be given on when this matter will be resolved—if ever.”
2/ The second case is shorter, but continues the same theme.
Protester number two, call him Mark, received a letter threatening him with suspension and charging him with writing a slogan on the steps of Johnson Hall with chalk. I asked Mark ahead of time if he had done it, and he told me he wasn’t even on campus that day.
At the first hearing, the hearing officer (a different one from the first case) told us that the evidence for the charge were videos taken by campus security, but they did not have the videos––nor had they seen them themselves. At the second hearing, we were shown two video clips taken of the other side of Johnson Hall, on 13th Ave. The first video clip only showed a pedestrian walking his Labrador Retriever along 13th Ave. The second, much longer video showed nothing at all. It apparently had been taken when literally no one was on campus.
I asked the hearing officer, “Is that it?” They responded, “I work with what I’m given.” Then they sensibly dismissed all charges. But I immediately raised the question: “Do you mean to tell me that you have charged this young man and threatened him with suspension without a single shred of evidence for what is being alleged?” The hearing officer rather sheepishly responded that they were not the one who decided to bring charges; again, they only dealt with what they were given.
My understanding is that at this point between 10-20 U of O student protestors have been dragged through this nonsense. This is not the University of Oregon that I remember. As one who gave the bulk of his professional career to this institution, I am saddened at the casualness with which our students are being treated–one presumes because they, and apparently they alone at the U of O, have been speaking out against the war crimes in Gaza.
Thank you for sharing this. Such abuse of power placing exceptional strain on students needs to be called out widely.
The cynical side of me now knows why my report of student academic misconduct last term, with clear and substantial evidence, has received nary a peep. Apparently I misunderstood the point of the Student Conduct Board. If I were to extend my cynicism further, I might mull over the fact the student in question is an athlete and a failing grade could impact eligibility. (Note: I am a strong supporter of student athletes so this not based on bias but the circumstances at hand).
I would like nothing better than to see the terrorist-adjacent criminals masquerading as students who participated in the illegal, bigoted, and blatantly antisemitic riots on our campus be brought to justice and, if found culpable, expelled. (I think it’s fair to say I hold a view which is not a popular one on our campus.)
I hold this unpopular position while also being a firm believer in reasonable due process and the safeguarding of civil liberties. “Reasonable” to me includes:
– A presumption of innocence for the accused, and a right to not self-incriminate
– A right to independent counsel/support for the accused students
– Impartial and independent judges/deciders/facilitators and (in the most serious cases) a right for the facts to be decided by a jury of peers (fellow students)
– Clear definitions of guilt/culpability, and clearly defined steps for the process itself. All of these policies should be formed through collaborative shared governance with both the University and ASUO Senates jointly holding final say on the rules before a rubber-stamp approval by the Board of Trustees.
– Logical rules of evidence, including when the evidence must be disclosed to the accused (no surprise “gotchas” without adequate time to prepare for a defense)
– The right to face one’s accuser(s) in person and ask the accuser(s) questions
– For cases which result in the most severe punishments — punishments which could include a notation on one’s permanent transcript, or expulsion, or suspensions of a nature which will delay graduation by more than two terms — the burden of proof must rise to the level of at least “clear and convincing” evidence standard, if not a “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard.
– Punishments/consequences, whatever they are, should never infringe on the spirit of the First Amendment. No one should be forced to write an x-page paper as punishment/restitution on topics with a nexus to their conduct, for example.
That UO administration seems to be botching at least half of these above principles at every turn infuriates me. I want the encampment hooligans held accountable. I want there to be serious consequences for their illegal, policy-violating behavior. However, I cannot, in good conscious, lend my support to the amature-hour kangaroo court nonsense the university is conducting.
It’s not just Cheyney Ryan from whom I’ve heard horror stories. The University Senate and/or the Faculty Advisory Council really ought to have a serious and sober conversation with VP of Student Life Chong about what the plan is to ensure procedural safeguards for serious alleged misconduct (whether related to the encampment, sexual harassment, whatever), and whoever is in charge of “prosecution” needs to have a serious conversation with President Scholz and General Counsel Reed about how to move forward with these proceedings in a coherent manner. The steady stream of reports of half-baked procedural/logistical/civil-rights-violating messes leaking out into the campus’s public consciousness have grown too many and too egregious to ignore.
These cases are difficult, often ambiguous, and politically charged in a polarized way. That does not excuse UO administration from the high standards we should expect and demand of them. The Star Chamber, bills of attainder, and other historical miscarriages of justice should remain just that: history. Although I am still furious at the antisemitic rioting hooligans, and want them off our campus, I also expect professional presentations of evidence of guilt and meaningful due process for accused individuals. Currently, to my great exasperation, my perception is that UO admin is not meeting these expectations. UO’s institutional integrity is on the line, and the burden is now on the Scholz administration to (re)communicate to campus how they’re approaching these challenging cases with the professionalism that we should all expect and demand.
Encampment “hooligans.” Be serious.
In the last year, the UO administration’s reaction to those within the UO community who are advocating for peace, might be described, at best, as incompetent, and at worst, as oppressive. Incompetence in the service of silencing dissent against a genocide and the role the UO plays in supporting it. I am a graduate of the UO. I am a student of education, psychology, and history. I feel confident saying the adminstration will go down as being on the wrong side of history thus far, the psychology is intriguing, and the dedication to the pursuit of education (or lack thereof), on the part of the adminstration, is embarrassing. We should do better as a university.
What do they call people who lack courage to do what’s right, even when it is difficult? Cowards?
We read land acknowledgements before meetings. Are they merely performative? Do we actually care about displaced people? Or do we wait for the safety of time and distance before we are courageous enough to acknowledge crimes against humanity.
I know nothing about academic thought about the European settlement of the Americas except that it is now believed it was genocidal settler colonialism, which certainly sounds correct. But in utilitarian terms it was a huge success – a small population of people with already short life expectancies was mostly lost, making way for a large increase in population “dedicated to the pursuit of happiness” and by most measures succeeding beyond any expectations. How do scholars reconcile these different interpretations? What outcome would they prefer as a counterfactual? What are the different schools of thought?
The land acknowledgements are completely performative and should be removed from Senate and other meetings as inappropriate virtue signalling. I am glad you mentioned displaced people, however, because the modern state of Israel is the most successful “land back” movement of a displaced people in world history. Israel has a right to defend itself from the constant aggression it faces from all sides; defense which includes the recovery of kidnapped citizens by a terrorist organization intent on the actual genocide of the Jewish people.
As Senator Wyden has correctly stated, “Let’s be clear, when we hear chants ‘From the river to the sea’ and other slogans channeling false conclusions, being anti-Zionist cannot somehow not be anti-Jewish,” said Wyden. “The discussion over Zionism might have been an interesting academic or theoretical discussion in 1924 before 6 million Jews were murdered, but there can be no debate in 2024.”
(Source: https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2024/10/the-us-will-stand-with-israel-ron-wyden-reiterates-on-anniversary-of-israel-hamas-war.html?outputType=amp)
Genocide is terrible. I am grateful that genocide has not occurred in Gaza. There are tragic war casualties, as there are in all wars. This war, and all of its casualties, is the direct result of Hamas’ breaking of the existing ceasefire on Oct 7, their refusal to return hostages for more than a year, and the abhorrent tactics of using the innocent as human shields. Israel’s restraint has been remarkable, and should be applauded.
The only ones at UO on the wrong side of history are the anti-Israel zelots and their enablers who have made our college campuses hostile environments for far too many Jewish and Israeli students, faculty, and staff, and their supporters.
You do have a point about who will be acknowledged as “on the right side of history” though: our history department’s graduate students seem to be full of these woefully incorrect and uninformed zealots, as is the American Historical Association writ large (https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/06/arts/historians-gaza-israel-education.html). As a lifelong Democrat, I’m starting to think Republicans have a point that ideological capture has totally discredited the previous trustworthiness of university humanities departments to accurately frame the narrative about historical events, seeing as how warped and flawed – to the point of bigotry – their narratives generally are about current events in the Middle East. I have significant doubts about serious scholarship around Israel getting through peer review anytime in the next 50 years in light of the now-well documented anti-Semitic biases of American historians writ large. Historians, and the humanities more generally, have only themselves to blame as people react to their incorrect “scholarship” (actually just political activist drivel sometimes approved through “peer review” by likeminded partisians) by implementing budget cuts.