The Subverting of OC Justice
Perspectives Essay
by Roger Copeland,  professor of theater and dance
 
By taking the unprecedented step of invoking an obscure “By-law” in order to overturn an ostensibly “final” decision of the College’s Community Board in the Barnard assault case, President Dye has done enormous –– perhaps irreparable –– damage to the integrity of Oberlin’s judicial system. The President has behaved in a manner that may well be politically expedient and personally convenient, but which is ethically –– and judicially –– suspect. With this action, she has single-handedly undermined the recent efforts by Associate Dean of Students Bill Stackman and Dean of Students Peter Goldsmith to clarify and consolidate all relevant information about Oberlin’s judicial process in the so-called “Regs Book” that is provided to every student at the beginning of each academic year.
Indeed, in his introduction to this year’s Regs Book, Goldsmith writes, “What follows are the rules and regulations of our community. It is incumbent upon you to be familiar with them, to understand their meaning, and to consider the ways in which they may touch upon your life.” But it is equally incumbent upon the College’s administration to work within the judicial framework articulated by these rules and regulations. The Regs Book mentions one –– and only one –– role that the college President can play with regard to the Judicial Appeal process. This appears on pg. 33 (Article IX. Section 14); and it reads as follows “In the event that a request for an appeal is denied by the Community Board, an ultimate appeal may be made to the President (or her designee) in writing within ten days of the Community Board’s decision. The determination of the President (or her designee) is final.” 
There is no mention whatsoever of the arcane, and to the best of my knowledge never-before invoked College By-Law that President Nancy Dye cites as her justification for overturning the deliberations of the three faculty members and two students who constituted the judicial panel that heard the formal appeal of the three defendants in this case. It is equally important to realize that no appeal was ever made to the President in this matter. Unless by “appeal,” one means the steady of drumbeat of public opinion that called upon her administration to “do something” about an unpopular verdict. 
But since when does public opinion –– no matter how forcefully or threateningly expressed –– have any proper bearing on questions of guilt, innocence or severity of punishment? As in any fair and rigorous judicial process, the lengthy and painstaking deliberations of those who are impaneled to make legally-binding decisions need to be carefully insulated from the exhortations of protestors and the public at large. Anything else smacks of vigilantism and mob rule. And this is precisely what Nancy Dye has surrendered to. Ironically, on May 11, the President’s Office released a statement defending the controversial decision by Community Board, and it read in part, “The administration has not been involved in the process, nor would it be appropriate under the judicial processes for the administration to have been involved in the matter.” That same day, the Dean of Students also issued a statement which contained the following sentence “A controversial outcome should not prompt us to overturn or subvert the process by granting decision-making authority to administrators that our present system does not allow for.” 
So far so good. But later that very same day (May 11), 25 angry students demonstrated against the verdict of Community Board and reportedly threatened to disrupt this year’s Commencement ceremonies if Nancy Dye failed to find some way of reversing the result of the appeal process. Hence, it would appear, an archaeological dig was undertaken to unearth some dusty by-law (no where alluded to the “Regs” book) that would grant the President authority to take justice into her own hands. 
My criticism of the President should in no way be construed as a defense of the three perpetrators in the Barnard case whose behavior I find utterly reprehensible, indeed indefensible (whether or not it constituted “assault” in the generally agreed upon meaning of that term). My concern is with due process, and to a lesser extent, the fear that this case now borders on a form of selective prosecution. I can’t help noticing that all three of the accused are members of that distinctive Oberlin minority group known as the football team. Had the defendants been members of any other minority group on campus, would the President have intervened so as to permanently expel two of them? I doubt it. At Oberlin, football players are an easy sacrifice on the altar of public opinion. Indeed, Oberlin gives new meaning to the phrase “Justice is blind.” Here, it seems, justice is not only blind, but deaf and dumb as well.