Complaint against Union College alleges disability discrimination
August 2, 2019
Union College boasts itself as a “close-knit educational environment” where students can get “personal attention from caring faculty,” on its website. One student claims that these are false promised.
A student filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights, alleging that the College denied him accommodations for his learning disability and retaliated against him for complaining. The student alleged that throughout his four years at Union he was denied assistance for his disability, the Times Union (TU) first reported.
The name of the student did not appear in the TU document, nor in the leaked complaint that they received.
The “John Doe” was repeatedly denied extra time on tests and assignments, distraction-free testing environments and access to a notetaker among other things, the article stated.
In addition to not providing him the proper accommodations, the student claimed that he was ridiculed and attacked when he complained. Retaliation came in the form being accused of academic dishonesty: He was subjected to four hearings due to these accusations at his time at Union — the first three hearings were overturned due to prejudice on the College’s behalf, according to the TU. The student filed the complaint after his fourth disciplinary hearing.
Dean of Faculty and Vice President for Academic Affairs Strom Thacker did not comment to inquiries about the existence of these cases, or cases like them, but he did say that appeals could only be made on the grounds that “the hearing was materially inconsistent with the established judicial procedure,” new information that is relevant to the case coming to light and unreasonably harsh or otherwise inappropriate punishments.
The student wrote an email in May to a dean stating that the “mental and emotional toll” of these ordeals had caused him to become suicidal, the TU reported.
Allegedly, the parents of the student reached out to the dean of diversity and inclusion, the dean of faculty and academics, and the disability services office during his time at Union, according to the TU. The TU also reported that the student reached out to the “dean of students,” but did not specify which dean of students.
“Unless a dispute concerns a College-wide academic requirement, I am not formally involved in disputes or appeals of specific accommodations,” Thacker said. Thacker, who has been in his position since July of 2016, declined to comment about the specific case, as did Dean of Diversity and Inclusion Gretchel Hathaway.
Director of Disability Services Shelly Shinabarger and the Office of the Dean of Students did not respond to questions from the Concordiensis.
The College declined to comment on the case or confirm that a complaint was filed “out of respect for the privacy and the confidentiality of the student,” according to Wajda.
If these accusations are true, the College could be found guilty of violating the Americans with Disability Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The Department of Education even specifically outlines extra time on tests and notetakers, two things the student claimed he was denied, as academic adjustments that schools should be able to accommodate under Section 504.
“The College is confident it complies with all laws and regulations regarding the education of students with qualified and documented disabilities,” Wajda said.
The Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights has investigated Union College for civil rights violations in February 2015 and May 2017. Both of these cases were dismissed due to lack of evidence.
This is a developing story. Check back for updates.
Union Student • Sep 30, 2019 at 8:41 am
Interesting follow up article in the Daily Gazette
https://dailygazette.com/article/2019/09/29/in-court-fight-union-college-asks-for-authority-to-expel-student
Union Student • Aug 7, 2019 at 2:34 pm
The Honor Council is Broken
Here are three ways to fix it
After years of little to no transparency about the Honor Council, it was surprising to see an article in the Concordy about it this week. Even though it was not a particularly detailed report, it was more than we have seen in years about the council and its work. However, the article failed to take a critical look at the cryptic and often unfair process of the Honor Council. It’s a system that seems to be set up for student failure, with nine out of ten students brought up on honor council charges being found guilty through hearings or Chair Dean Reviews. That’s a conviction rate that is far higher than the rate of convictions in US criminal courts which is closer to six in ten. I recently got a crash course on the Honor Council and saw glaring problems that urgently need to be addressed.
Here is how it happened. A friend of mine got brought up on Honor Council charges. The Council rules say that all accused students have the right to an advisor, but unlike other colleges Union does not connect students with trained advisors to help them through the process. It leaves them on their own to figure it out. This is bad, I mean seriously bad. It stacks the deck against students in a terrible way that can have very serious consequences. My friend couldn’t find a professor who would serve as his advisor so he had me, but I am no expert. So I did my best to read up on the rules and help my friend prepare. But here is the thing: they didn’t follow the rules.
The hearing is supposed to be run by the student chair as a moderator, but at the hearing I attended the Dean ran the show like a prosecutor while the students hardly even paid attention. It seemed like there was a presumption of guilt rather than one of innocence. The Dean rejected evidence from my friend that did not fit with her view that he was guilty. If it didn’t fit her story, she changed the rules to block it. The college also blocked a college administrator from appearing as a witness in my friend’s case, telling her she was not allowed to appear. How is that fair?
The case was pretty simple. Three students took an unproctored exam. Two students had some similar wrong answers. Only one student, my friend, was blamed. All three students in the room said that my friend did not cheat in their presence. The other student with similar answers was a C or D student and actually ADMITTED to cheating off my friend when he was in the restroom – in a sworn statement. The professor was not in the room at anytime, but he suspected that my friend was involved in cheating based on conjecture but no actual proof. There was not even close to enough evidence in the case to prove my friend was the one at fault. But the students of the honor council did as many students would do. Given the power dynamics at play, the students deferred to the Dean and the professor who were not even present at the exam over the sworn statements from the students.
Overall, the hearing seemed like it was just for show. The decision was made by the Dean long before the hearing and the students just seemed to go along with the Dean and the professor. Was there even any real deliberation? To say the hearing was unfair would be an understatement.
Ultimately, my friend won an appeal for a new hearing based on one of the broken rules. Once again, I planned to serve as advisor to my friend – now armed with more knowledge about how the process actually worked in practice, not that I expected a more fair hearing. It’s kind of like casinos – the house always wins.
Honor Council rules say that they have to work around your academic schedule so for the new hearing my friend provided the council with a bunch of dates and times that worked with his classes and exams as well as my own. But the Honor Council went ahead and scheduled his hearing for a time where both of us were in class, my friend in a midterm exam. Only after my friend pushed back did they bump the schedule to avoid direct conflict with his midterm. But the Honor Council refused to schedule it at a time when I, his student advisor, could also attend. To be expected to take notes during testimony while also crafting and asking questions and looking out for inconsistencies, lies and violations of the Honor Council rules is too much for anyone.
In this case, it was even worse because my friend has a learning disability that makes note-taking in real time extremely difficult. So much so that he has qualified for having a scribe or note-taker throughout high school and college. To deny him that in the Honor Council, which is an academic activity, is not only wrong, it is illegal. But we did not know that until my friend’s new class dean told him this a short while after the hearing. If only she had been around earlier, maybe she could have helped.
As it is, my friend’s hearing went as expected given the stacked deck. Rules bent and broken to suit the whims of the Dean and professor. The whole experience makes me scared at how easily each of us could be penalized for a false allegation.
So how can we fix Honor Council? First we need trained advisors. Just as we have a group of students and professors steeped in rules to serve as judges, we should have a group of students and professors steeped in rules to serve as advisors to the accused. Second, we cannot allow this body to operate in darkness. Union needs to be more open about how the process works in practice – especially if it continues to operate so differently than written procedure. Third, we need a student-run process that starts with a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Right now, the council instead starts with a presumption of guilt. Having a student-run council where the students truly manage the process and propose the penalties is the best way to ensure fairness and promote integrity. The stakes are too high for us to continue to just defer to the conjecture of professors who come with their own biases. It’s time to fix the Honor Council.