The Barnard Assault Case

Assault Perpetrators Must Be Expelled
April 6 Editorial

The assault which occurred in a male student’s room in Barnard on March 17 was a disturbing escalation of recent tensions on Oberlin’s campus. It is always a shock whenever any assault occurs at Oberlin. Recent years have seen at least one vicious assault on a student per year; this is not the first this year, either. But the apparent reason for the assault is perhaps even more troubling. 
The victim, a staff member of The Grape, is the author of a biweekly humor column for that paper. His last column, “Don’t Call It A Surprise When The Bullets Fly,” compared Oberlin athletes to the marginalized students who have been responsible for high school shootings. He said in the column, “This just in, [the victim’s] name has moved to the top of the ‘to shoot’ list.” According to police logs, one of the alleged perpetrators of the assault reportedly had said earlier in the evening that the victim “needed to have his ass kicked.” The Review does not presume to be a court of justice and accepts that all those accused of crimes are innocent until proven guilty. But the available evidence paints a deeply troubling picture. That a student could possibly be assaulted for the exercise of free speech in one of Oberlin’s most cherished forums — the editorial page — is a terrifying thought. 
The debates that have raged in these pages over the last month have been impassioned ones; one would expect nothing less from Oberlin students. Strong words have been exchanged, grudges have developed and enemies have been made, but none of this is anything new to Oberlin political discourse. Arrests on assault charges against fellow students as a response to speech would be a new wrinkle in the landscape. 
The Oberlin community must be very careful in its response to this incident. As a community, we must remember that this was an act perpetrated by individuals — not by a class or type of student, by a team or by a dorm, but by individuals. The perpetrators’ potential punishment will be determined in a court of law and by the College. Vigilante justice of harassment would lower its practitioners nearly to the level of those who perpetrated this incident and the College community must make sure to allow the proceedings of the courts and the College’s Judicial Board to proceed undisturbed so as to allow the truth of the incident to be discovered.
The College has struggled over the last several years with its Safety and Security services, and there is mounting student dissatisfaction with them. This latest incident and another described in a letter to the Editor in this week’s paper, will further hurt student perceptions. Thankfully, the College is taking steps to address this issue and is in discussions with security consultants in an attempt to improve campus safety. This is good, but the College must go a step further. The perpetrators of this assault, no matter the outcome of the criminal proceedings, must be expelled if they are accurately identified by Judicial Board proceedings. There is no room for compromise in this matter: any student who would break into a fellow student’s room and assault him — especially for that fellow student’s thoughts and views — has no place at Oberlin College.


Administration Discusses Assault
April 6 Letter

To the Oberlin Community:

Our community is one which requires the free and open exchange of ideas. Indeed, we can only achieve our common purposes as a community of scholars by finding the means of airing our differences — even agreeing to disagree — in ways that are both impassioned and peaceful, compelling and well-reasoned. 
Recently an incident occurred on campus which poses a serious affront to our community and its values. Shortly before spring break, three Oberlin students and a College employee were arrested for entering a student’s room in Barnard Hall and reportedly roughing him up. The individuals now face both criminal and campus judicial charges.
Our campus thrives on respect and civil discourse, even when we disagree strongly with one another. It is precisely the strength of our convictions that demands that we have the means of expressing them without fear of physical harm — and that we find the means of expressing our disagreement in ways that persuade with words, rather than physical force.
On behalf of the entire College community, we wish to express our regret that this incident occurred and that a student was hurt. The College will not tolerate violence — or threats of violence — against others on our campus, and we will prosecute fully any individuals who are involved in this or in any other such incident.
We must have open and honest dialogue over our differences in order to protect the rights of everyone here at Oberlin. Incidents of this kind should never happen again.

–Nancy Dye
College President

–Peter Goldsmith
Dean of Students


College Must 
Talk More
April 20 Editorial

It has been over a month since a student was assaulted in his own room at Barnard. Other than an all-campus mailing and a letter from President Nancy Dye and Dean of Students Peter Goldsmith in the April 6 Review, there has been no communication from the College administration to the student body. This is unacceptable.
The saying goes that the key to any good relationship is communication and the old adage applies here. This is especially true given that the College has in recent years experienced problems with student relations and transparency of operations. The lack of communication is even more distressing given the severity of the incident and the recent improvement in College-student dialogue. 
This is certainly not to suggest that the College should have been overly quick or reactionary in its disbursement of justice merely due to the heinous nature of the crime. Nor should there be anything but due process for the perpetrators, students or not, by either the College or the courts. However, the conspicuous absence of commentary from the College on this issue raises serious questions. Most notably, the possibility that the College is hoping that the student body will be lulled into forgetfulness by the warm weather and impending exam and Commencement periods and just won’t care what happens. 
This is a particularly unpleasant possibility for two reasons. First, there is the possibility that the College will try to sweep the fallout from such a serious (and, admittedly, embarrassing) incident under the rug. Secondly, there is the very real possibility that students will let the incident blow away on the spring breeze; that the College would count on this is also rather disquieting. 
Making matters worse, there was an alleged sexual assault reported outside of Wilder following Drag Ball. Without even venturing into the questions this raises regarding campus security, there are the also troubling questions it raises about College communication; there has been no mention of the incident, in the form of either an all-campus mailing or a letter to the Review. 
Pure and simple, the College must change the way it is doing business. It is certainly in a tough spot given the severity of recent incidents and is without a doubt aware of the impact that negative or troubling publicity might have –– during All Roads, especially. But if the College is to truly make progress and earn the trust of its students, it must be forthright and honest no matter the potential public relations fallout.


Don’t Leap to Judgement Quickly
April 27 Letter

To the Editor:

As a member of the Oberlin College community, I have been troubled by events that have transpired over the past few weeks. I have heard numerous rumors, stories and opinions about the incident that occurred in Barnard, and I would like to ask those people who are quickly spreading this gossip to stop and think about the “facts” that they are repeating. Most of the information that people have regarding this case isn’t true. I have followed the information regarding this incident very closely and hope that other members of the College community will try to find these facts before making judgments on those involved.
I realize that the students who were involved in the Barnard incident made a mistake. They realize they made a mistake. They should be judged appropriately. However, what seems to be happening is that perceptions have overwhelmed reason in dealing with the incident. I don’t know if it is shock at the occurrence, the demands for retribution from a victim who apparently suffered no injuries, or maybe some hasty generalization about football players, but we went from presumption of innocence to imposition of the (academic) death penalty with hardly a blink.
If there is one place in America where the rights of the individual are cherished; where the fundamental concept that a person should be judged fairly rather than be victimized by an institution bowing to hysterical political pressure; where size and power do not necessarily make right, it is here in Oberlin. Yet, the rush to judge these students and the Star Chamber proceeding employed denied basic due process and creates the impression that the decision was predetermined. From beginning to end, this incident has not done Oberlin proud.
I feel that expulsion is too harsh of a judgment to pass on these students. The actions that actually transpired that night hardly justify devastating the rest of their lives. As a fellow student at Oberlin, I know the value of education and the promise of a successful future is in store for all of us. However, due to a bad lapse of judgment, this may not be true for my fellow senior class members. I ask that those who will ultimately decide their fate to look at the entire picture.

–Molly Ryan
College senior

Assault Response Troubling
May 4 Letter

To the Editor:

I just finished reading Molly Ryan’s letter to the Editor titled “Don’t Leap to Judgement Quickly” that was in the April 27 Review. Like Ryan, I have been troubled by the events that have transpired over the last few weeks. I have also followed the information regarding this incident closely because, like Ryan, I have a friend that was involved with the assault. However, my friend was the one assaulted.
I am not writing to try to convince you that there is a right or wrong way that the administration should handle this because I could almost guarantee you that everyone involved in this will not be satisfied. The reason that I am writing you is so that hopefully you will take the time and think about some of the things Ryan wrote about from a different perspective.
First, please imagine yourself in the victim’s shoes. Imagine waking up from your sleep with some unknown person, hiding behind a mask, attempting to beat you up. Imagine the fear for your life that you may have as you attempt to flee the room and scream for help. How would you want the school to deal with the situation? Would you want to encounter these people every day on campus?
In her article, Molly wrote that the victim “apparently suffered no injuries.” Do all injuries have to be physical? How would you feel going to bed every night having to worry about your safety?
Was it really, as Molly suggested, a “lapse of judgement” by our fellow classmates? From what I understand, this was not the first time that they felt that the victim should be beaten up. Maybe some of our classmates just lack judgement?
Like me, I’m sure that you value your Oberlin education. On our graduation day, when we accept our diplomas, what will they mean knowing that there are two other students, receiving their diplomas, that at the age of 22 have not learned to treat others with respect, who have not learned how to appropriately or legally deal with their anger, who feel that it is their responsibility to beat up people who joke about things they believe in, and who feel that they have the right to negatively affect the entire community? Are these the individuals that we want representing the image of Oberlin College? I hope not.
I hope that you take the time to think about some of these ideas.

–Daniel Schwartz 
College senior


Reinstatement of Assaulters Shameful
May 4 Editorial

This past week, two students involved in the March 17 assault of a sleeping student in Barnard were expelled. Upon appeal, they were both reinstated and allowed to remain on campus, with a two-year delay in reception of their degrees (both are seniors). This act of spineless acquiescence on the part of the administration shames the College and tarnishes the degrees that it issues.
In previous editorials the Review has stressed the need for due process and for student restraint against vigilante-ism. The latter has been admirable and the former seemed to momentarily to arrive at a satisfactory verdict. But the subsequent reinstatement of the students does more than just raise questions about the administration, its asks and answers in one breath. 
By minimizing repercussions for this criminal act, the College has shown disregard for both student safety and the protection of free speech at Oberlin. That a student could physically assault a fellow student in his own room while asleep –– for freely expressed speech –– and then not only be allowed to remain on campus but also to (eventually) receive a diploma from the College destroys the principles by which Oberlin is supposedly governed.
For many Oberlin students, it is probably too late to care. Classes are ending and exams fast approaching; home and the bliss of summer beckons. For seniors, more immediate problems of where to live and how to support themselves are at the forefront of thoughts. But this disgrace must not go without comment. All students similarly outraged should e-mail or write letters to President Nancy Dye and Dean of Students Peter Goldsmith to express their discontent.



Administration Must Not Pass the Buck
May 11 Editorial

Throughout the aftermath of the March 17 assault of a student sleeping in his own room in Barnard, the Review has been unequivocal in its views regarding the crime. From the first, we have argued that due process is paramount, that vigilante justice is unacceptable and that once the perpetrators of the crime were identified, they be expelled. Last week’s editorial kept with these principles when it expressed extreme disappointment that the perpetrators of the assault not only remained on campus but had had their expulsions overturned, and would eventually receive degrees from Oberlin.
The responses to these editorials have been overwhelmingly passionate, from all sides of the issue. As this week’s Perspectives section highlights, there is significant student dissatisfaction with the ruling. The administration response has been more defensive. Dean of Students Peter Goldsmith, in a letter to this issue of the Review, (below) cites College regulations that provide precedent for the particular, non-expulsion punishment given to the assaulters. He also cites the relative administrative isolation from the judicial process at Oberlin as opposed to other schools, presumably in response to the Review’s calling the expulsion reversals an “act of spineless acquiescence on the part of the administration [which] shames the College and tarnishes the degrees that it issues.” 
What Goldsmith seems to be saying in his letter is that, essentially, the overturning of the expulsions isn’t his “fault,” President Nancy Dye’s “fault” or the “fault” of any other administrator. This is technically true, and last week’s editorial incorrectly implied a link of responsibility for the judicial actions of Community Board to direct administrative action. However, the situation is far more complex than any direct links of causation could explain. 
As Goldsmith points out, judicial action at Oberlin is community-based, with three faculty and two students making the decisions in both the original hearing and (a different set) on the reversal. Overseeing these meetings is the Judicial Coordinator, who, though without a vote, has considerable influence upon judicial proceedings. For one, according to the Oberlin College Rules and Regs (Section V, Part A, No. 8), the JC “Possess[es] the authority along with the Dean of Students and his or her designee to impose a temporary stay away, temporary housing relocation, or temporary suspension until a decision has been reached by the Judicial Board.” 
This option, of removing the assaulters from campus, was one most definitely within the competencies of the College administration, and was an option not exercised at any time.
Further, the JC –– a member of the administration –– “determine[s sanctions] with due regard for precedent. That is, the Judicial Coordinator should prepare in advance a log of similar infractions so that the Board may be guided by precedent,” (Rules and Regs, Section VII, Part B, No. 6). This capacity allows the administration to frame the sanction, implying severity by analogy to previous infraction sanctions; the power of this position is obvious.
However, perhaps most important are not the official capacities of the College administration with regard to judicial action, but the administration’s place as a figurehead for all College actions. In the College Bylaws, under “General Duties of the President,” it reads, “The President shall be the chief executive officer of the Corporation. He [or she] shall have all the powers and perform all the duties imposed by law upon the executive head of the corporation and also those incident to his [or her] office, and, subject to the control of the Board of Trustees, shall be responsible for the effective administration and operation of the College.” The President is thus both literally and figuratively the head of the College, and similarly the Dean of Students is the literal and figurative head of student affairs. 
So while the administration is not directly responsible for either the expulsion verdict or its reversal, it cannot effectively say that it is completely removed from the situation. Though we cannot expect the College to answer for the assault itself, it is imperative that it answer for the handling of the assaulters’ sanctions.


Victim Excoriates Administration
May 11 Letter

To the Editor:

Within the next three years, the vast majority of students currently on campus will graduate from Oberlin College. Once we have graduated, we will, like it or not, officially become alumni of Oberlin College. As alumni, we will be asked quite often to donate money back to our alma mater to support the school and what it represents. I am sorry to announce that Oberlin College can scratch my name off of all of the alumni mailing lists right now because I will never donate a penny to this institution.

On March 17, I was asleep in my room when two large, masked men (and I am using this word in its loosest sense) broke in and proceeded to attack me. I later found out that my attackers were [seniors] Ryan Catignani and Richard Kocher, two members of the Oberlin College football team (another phrase that I use in its loosest sense) and that the assault was their way of responding to statements made in “Sticks & Stones,” a humor column that I write for The Oberlin Grape. In the coming weeks, I became increasingly horrified as I poured through police reports which confirmed that there had been discussion and planning of an attack on me for months prior to the night the assault occurred. I assumed that Oberlin had made a horrendous mistake in admitting individuals whose idea of constructive discourse is physical violence, and that the mistake would soon be corrected with the swift expulsion of the individuals.

Imagine my shock as the weeks began to pass, and the individuals were allowed to remain on campus, and even draw paychecks from the College for working in the Student Union during the entire 32 (32!) days leading up to the first Community Board hearing! Imagine my outrage as I sat in the hearing and listened to Catignani, Kocher and Nicholas Walker, who provided the masks and served as a lookout during the attack dismiss the entire incident as a “prank”! Imagine my confusion upon finding out that not only would Walker not be expelled despite his active role in the planning of the attack, but also that Catignani and Kocher, who were expelled, would be allowed to remain on campus and continue attending classes and drawing College checks for the duration of their appeal process. A process which would last nearly another month! And to top it all of, upon first appeal, Catignani and Kocher’s expulsions were overturned! All three of the individuals involved in this assault (and please don’t fall into the College’s trap of calling it an “incident,” because it was an ASSAULT) will receive Oberlin College degrees.

So in the future when the College contacts you and requests your financial support, please take a few moments to reflect on what exactly your money will be supporting. It will be going to support an institution that shows flagrant disregard for the safety and well-being of its students, does an awful lot of talking about the importance of free speech, and then stands by idly while that very principle is threatened and ultimately endorses violence and retaliation by awarding degrees to those who engage in such activities. 
After May 28, I for one, will never support this institution again, and I would ask that my fellow future grads think long and hard about what this place represents in reality as opposed to in theory and act accordingly.

–Jeff Harvey
College senior

Goldsmith: Review Misleading
May 11 Letter

To the Editor:

The article concerning the Barnard assault in the May 4 issue of the Oberlin Review may have misled students and others about the College’s handling of this case. As I and others have stated repeatedly, the exercise of free speech is a paramount value of this institution, and any physically violent reply to it must be condemned by all of us who care about truth and knowledge at Oberlin. The College’s response to this remains forceful and unequivocal.
The May 4 Review editorial reported that two students had had their sanctions changed upon appeal, from expulsion to a two-year withholding of their degrees. This is a sanction specified in our Rules and Regs: “In disciplinary cases involving second semester seniors when probation or suspension might otherwise be imposed, the College may withhold the student’s Oberlin College degree for a specified period of time.” Without a degree, such students are prevented from attending graduate or professional school or accepting jobs or engaging in any other activity which requires the completion of a college degree. Ordinarily such students are prevented from participating in Commencement or in other activities intended for graduating seniors.
Our judicial system, as outlined in the Rules and Regs, allows students who have been sanctioned by Judicial or Community Boards to appeal to a new Community Board panel. The panel –– consisting of three faculty members and two students –– reviews the full transcript and tape of the original hearing and all relevant documents. Unlike the judicial systems on many other campuses, decisions are made by faculty and students and not by administrators. Administrators have no vote in Judicial and Community Board decisions, and may speak only upon the invitation of the chair. 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. 
As a community, we must continue to uphold the values that are at the heart of this institution, including the value of a free and open exchange of ideas. We must also remain dedicated to the consistent, fair and even-handed application of our judicial processes in ways that not only apply appropriate punishments but also educate the individuals involved and enable the social fabric of our community to heal.

–Peter Goldsmith
Dean of Students