Editors’ Note: An abridged version of this article was published on the front page of the April 30, 2019, issue.
The treatment of many members of the former Connecticut College Disc Club (which has since split into separate men’s and women’s teams) by members of the Student Life Division this past winter is a stain on our community. As a student and outgoing club leader on this campus, I feel that I cannot write about this case acting solely as a neutral observer. What happened to members of the Ultimate Team could happen to me and could happen to you as a student here because of the powers that Student Life administrators possess under our College’s disciplinary regulations. A member of Honor Council, who wished to remain anonymous, claimed to me that every student here has at some point violated the Honor Code as a result of its broad failure to act provision, a provision that requires students to report other students who violate the Honor Code or Student Code of Conduct or face a charge of “Failure to Act” themselves if discovered (e.g. moving violations are considered violations of the Student Code of Conduct, so if your friend happens to enjoy driving with you around campus at 16 mph you are committing failure to act by not reporting them).
The Decision
In mid-February, a Dean’s Grievance Board decided that, as a student organization, Disc Club was not responsible for hazing its members. All students implicated in the case were found responsible for at least a Failure to Act violation related to hazing. Depending on the severity of violations they were found responsible for, students received sanctions ranging from a warning to Disciplinary Level II, which is a status indicating that a student is at severe risk of suspension and expulsion, and is the lowest level at which the College will disclose conduct violations to entities outside the institution, in addition to on-campus programs the student is involved in, if a request for the student’s disciplinary history is made (for up to seven years after the student is sanctioned).
The Investigation
On the morning of December 7, 2018, six days before the beginning of fall semester finals, all first-year students on the Ultimate Team received an email from Senior Associate Dean of Student Life Sarah Cardwell, who in her primary role at the College oversees discipline and writes disciplinary policy, requesting their presence at a mandatory meeting that afternoon. When students arrived at the meeting, they were informed that they would be interviewed by various Student Life staff about their activities on the Team. This marked the beginning of a six week hazing investigation into the Team, investigations are standard procedure when responding to hazing allegations at the College. Students were required to remain in the room until it was their time to be interviewed. Students were warned that if they chose not to remain in the room and follow the instructions of administrators present or answer the interviewers’ questions they would be subject to disciplinary proceedings. The students were not allowed access to electronic devices or to talk with each other while in the room, and were under the constant surveillance of administrators. In order to go to the bathroom students had to wait for an administrator to accompany them. Team members allege that some students were held for up to six hours in the room while waiting to be interviewed. The interviews were conducted by Director of Wellbeing and Health Promotion CC Curtiss and Assistant Dean for Residential Education and Living Sara Rothenberger, who are both trained to conduct investigations for the College, with additional help from Cardwell and Assistant Dean of Student Engagement and New Programs Geoff Norbert, who is in charge of student clubs at the College. Norbert was interviewed a month later by Curtiss and Rothenberger as part of the investigation.
When about ⅔ of the interviews were completed, Cardwell informed the Team captains about the commencement of the investigation. The two Men’s captains requested to be interviewed by Curtiss and Rothenberger, who did so. Cardwell also sent an email to all other Team members informing them that the Team was suspended from formal activities including meeting, practicing, playing games and holding social events as a student organization, which is standard College policy during investigations. During the finals period and over Winter Break all upperclass members of the Team were interviewed by Curtiss or Rothenberger either on-campus or via video conference; upperclass students were allowed to schedule their interviews according to their schedule and preference for being interviewed during the finals period or over break.
On the surface, isolating students involved in a hazing case — some of whom may be victims of the alleged hazing — seems incredibly harsh. However, sequestration is allowed under the College’s hazing policy as articulated by the Student Handbook, which states: “Given the group dynamic of hazing, the case administrator may sequester the group or members of the group (without advance notice) to conduct the interviews.”
Cardwell claims that this type of sequestration is a common practice in hazing investigations at colleges and universities. She notes that the College’s hazing and hazing investigation policies, as with most disciplinary policies, are produced in consultation with other college officials and attorneys who are experts in the field of student discipline and support these procedures as best practice. She denies that policies are produced primarily by attorneys. Cardwell declined to comment on allegations made by students about the harshness of these processes as related to specific disciplinary cases. In comparison, the Student Handbooks of Smith College, Trinity College and Wesleyan University make no reference to sequestration.
The Dean’s Grievance
Team members were subject to a Dean’s Grievance Board hearing as a result of the complaint. Since fall 2016 Dean’s Grievance Boards rather than Honor Council have been listed in the Student Handbook as the decision-making process for resolving all hazing-related complaints. In most hazing cases including the one against the Frisbee Team, the Board consists of the Senior Associate Dean of Student Life, one staff member, and one student member. Shortly after the announcement of the Board, Cardwell partially recused herself from the students’ Dean’s Grievance Board in response to objections from students and parents that she had interviewed eight witnesses during the complaint’s investigation, representing a conflict of interest. In an email to students sent four days prior to the hearing, Cardwell stated she did not believe there was a conflict of interest but would not serve as a member of the Board. Cardwell stated she would be present at the hearing because “Given the complexity of the process in this case, I will be present to facilitate the hearing to make sure that it proceeds in a manner that is consistent with our policy and is fair to all students involved.” Cardwell stated to the Voice that she always recuses herself from Grievance Boards if asked to do so.
This procedure appeared to violate college policy by virtue of not existing in the Student Handbook, which states that the Senior Associate Dean must either serve as Chair and a voting member on the Board or fully recuse herself. Cardwell declined to comment when asked specifically about this email. She did state that two other members of the College are trained to chair these proceedings. Cardwell refused to share the names of these people with the Voice. The Voice is aware of the identities of the three hearing board members who adjudicated the Ultimate case, but will not be releasing them for privacy reasons. I was unable to determine if any of these people are trained to chair Grievance Boards.
Within the hearing room itself, Cardwell’s presence appears not to have been a significant issue for team members. One member of the Team recalled Cardwell as only speaking to Board members when asked for clarification. A member of Honor Council told the Voice that Cardwell behaves similarly in Honor Council hearings.
Some senior team members believe that had Cardwell been a full member of the Board, the tone of the hearing towards them would have been less lenient, and the punishment they received likely harsher. Members of current Team leadership dispute this, claiming that their interactions with Cardwell at the time gave the appearance that she was attempting to resolve the complaint in as fair and unbiased a manner as possible in line with college policy. Cardwell does not believe her responsibilities as an associate dean make her biased in Dean’s Grievance Boards, arguing that as a professional who specializes in these types of cases, she is very familiar with avoiding having bias when going into these hearings.
My personal belief is that Cardwell should not adjudicate any Dean’s Grievance cases. She is the person who decides whether or not to refer a case to a hearing board, after the completion of an investigation that she is supervising, which is a conflict of interest. This already exists for Title IX sanctioning hearings, which Cardwell and not the Title IX Coordinator or investigators also chairs. A member of Honor Council who requested anonymity was shocked when I explained that Cardwell chairs non-Title IX Dean’s Grievance Boards, and agreed with me that she should not be doing so. This person had believed that Dean of Students Victor Arcelus served in her role (Arcelus hears appeals of all conduct cases, and therefore would invoke a conflict of interest himself were he involved in any other proceedings).
According to Cardwell there are two college committees currently discussing possibilities for increasing participation from faculty, staff and students in the adjudication process for Dean’s Grievances. One proposal under discussion regarding students would allow Honor Council members to sit on Dean’s Grievance Boards as needed. Only two students, the Chair of Honor Council and an at-large member appointed by the SGA general assembly, are trained and can hear Dean’s Grievance cases. Having a larger pool of students would be a better way of ensuring student representation on all hearing boards (an issue that did not occur in this case).
Previous action by Honor Council
There is evidence of precedent prior to the 2016 change in the Handbook that hazing cases were heard by Honor Council. An April 2013 article in the Voice by then-editor in chief Meredith Boyle indicates that in fall 2012 administrators conducted an investigation into the Swimming and Diving Team that resulted in charges against some team members for hazing and related violations. The charges were heard by Honor Council in January 2013. Cardwell, who is alleged as having administered the case for the College, declined to make any comment on the article’s veracity due to College policy. Several persons associated with the article did not respond to or declined a request for comment.
The article documents that members of the Swimming and Diving Team were subject to an investigative process similar to the one the Ultimate Team endured this past winter. Members of the Team were also sequestered in a room for up to six hours a week prior to fall semester finals. Unlike in the Ultimate case the Swimming and Diving Team was not suspended. In fact quite the opposite happened as its members were expected to practice and compete due to being on a varsity team while also facing potential suspension or expulsion as a result of the investigation and later hazing charges, a situation that members of the Team recounted as challenging. The case culminated in a 10 hour Honor Council hearing shortly prior to the end of winter break that lasted until 1 in the morning, a significant contrast from the precisely allotted four hours for Dean’s Grievance Board Hearings that were scheduled by Dean Cardwell in this case. All Ultimate Team members I spoke with felt the two hearings, each about two hours in length, were neither unreasonably short nor long.
Also in the 2012-2013 academic year the Ultimate Team had a hazing-specific bias report filed against it. According to a member of leadership from that year, the complaint resulted from a student who felt uncomfortable with an event in which first year students told stories about seniors on the Team. A student who sent an email soliciting these stories lost senior week privileges and no other action was taken against the Team. In an end of year report, a captain of the Team wrote, “We went to the administration immediately and did our best to accommodate the process every step of the way. While it was at times worrisome and was obviously an unfortunate incident, it brought us close together as a team. We took an internal look at how we welcome freshmen.”
Should Dean’s Grievance Cases have more student involvement?
I believe SGA (which has occasionally legislated judicial policy since the College’s founding) should debate next fall whether some of the cases currently heard by Dean’s Grievance would be better adjudicated if heard by Honor Council, particularly for offenses like hazing where the jurisdiction has changed only in recent years.
According to Dean Cardwell, there are several reasons why hazing should be adjudicated by Dean’s Grievance Boards; reasons that I view as quite compelling. As Dean’s Grievance Boards already have jurisdiction over a majority of cases that are investigated, it makes sense that hazing cases, which normally involve investigations, also be handled by that set of adjudicators. She also noted that this statement should not be misconstrued to mean that the only cases Honor Council hears are simple to decide. I’d note Honor Council holds jurisdiction over academic violations of the Honor Code during most of the academic year, which can result in very complex hearings. Cardwell additionally noted that there are greater concerns with privacy and conflicts of interest with regards to Honor Council hearing hazing cases, because these cases typically involve large groups of students.
Cardwell is also concerned about the risk of backlash towards decision-makers in these cases. She points out that every year she has been at Connecticut College, she has seen at least one Honor Council case that results in “backlash” towards its members from a subset or majority of the student body. She stated that she “hates” that this happens to students on Honor Council. An anonymous member of Honor Council told me that Cardwell appears open to acting as a scapegoat for Honor Council’s decisions. She has told Honor Council members that she would prefer they allow students blame her for decisions Honor Council makes, and that they should not defend her actions to other students if it would mean creating negative perceptions of themselves as Honor Council members. This Honor Council member told me they had never experienced backlash personally, but was glad a majority of students were not aware that they served on the Council.
Both Morgan Fowle ’19 and Helen Fulmer ’21, who were members of Honor Council this past academic year, expressed that they had faced backlash as a result of the Council’s actions. Fowle noted, “I have seen a change in some of my relationships with students that have come in front of the Council.” Fulmer was more direct, stating, “I have definitely received backlash from students as a result of an Honor Council decision, but I try not to let that bother me. My mindset is that I didn’t make the choice to do what that person did, and it’s not my fault that they got repercussions for their actions. They can get angry at me all they want, but at the end of the day, it’s their responsibility. Blaming us doesn’t help anything.”
Incoming Chair of Honor Council Conor Xanders ’20 had a different response to the question of backlash, stating, “Honestly not that I can recall [experiencing backlash] but I am pretty vocal about my feelings regarding certain policies and I think a lot of students know that if there was a way for me to help them out I was trying to do so. I also think there is a general fear of people on Honor Council even though I have never reported someone for anything and I simply deal with the case files that are put in front of me. I see myself as representing my class and the greater community, and having people be afraid of me makes it that much harder to do that in a healthy and productive way.”
One member of the Ultimate Team told me that since the Grievance Board’s decision was released, they had had a friendly conversation with one of the staff adjudicators on the Board. The Team member seemed to bear no ill will towards this adjudicator, and noted that the adjudicator took an interest in assisting the Team with future activities. I suspect this conversation would not take place were the adjudicator a student.
I believe SGA needs to have a debate over this question — it is the best opportunity Honor Council members can have to explain to our community why they support or oppose such a change. I personally am not sympathetic to arguments suggesting there’s a maturity gap. These are responsible adults who should know full well that by accepting these positions they might have some very horrifying experiences as a result of the cases they hear.
I also asked Honor Council members about their thoughts regarding Honor Council hearing non-Title IX Dean’s Grievance cases: Fulmer, who serves on Honor Council, told me in an email: “I think that there is a very fine line between Honor Council and Deans [sic] Grievance Committee that we as Honor Council members need to respect. I believe that Deans Grievance is important when it comes to feeling comfortable in a space. A lot of students who go through something like stalking or harassment want the information not to be known to other students … I also think that many of the Dean’s Grievances issues are things that have a lot of legal implications that are outside of the college’s hands, so as students we don’t necessarily have enough knowledge of laws in ‘real life’ to be able to serve effectively enough on the committee.”
Xanders ’20 has a different view. In an email statement he said, “I honestly do think in a lot of cases that students could adjudicate these cases, and if the student(s) involved (both on the council and those being accused) thought there was an issue of bias that then it could go in front of Dean’s Grievance or straight through the appeal process to Arcelus…. Whether Honor Council members should or not is probably the harder question and I don’t have a strong concrete answer to that. What does specifically bother me is that going from Honor Council to Deans [sic] Grievance greatly reduces the number of student voices involved in the process and for a school that says its governed by an Honor Code and by extension an Honor Council (made up of students) … many cases are either sent to a Deans Grievance hearing or to a one-on-one adjudication meeting …”
All of the Honor Council members I communicated with seemed opposed to the idea of sitting on Title IX sanctions boards. It’s clear however, that in non-gender or sex based cases, the jury is still out.
Appeal
Team leadership told me that shortly after the Grievance Board made its decision they broached the possibility of appealing it in a conversation with Cardwell. She informed them that if they to pursue such an appeal, the investigation could be reopened if Dean of Students Victor Arcelus (who decides appeals) believed it should be. And if more evidence was found that was not in the Team or individuals’ favor, the Team would likely be further sanctioned. Additionally, the Team would not receive a hearing with Arcelus. Ultimately, leadership decided that the Team would fall apart if it were suspended again as a result of an investigation or further subjection to other whims of the disciplinary process. After two months off it was time to start playing frisbee. Members of leadership sat together in the Charles Chu Room, and with great difficulty for some, drafted an email to Cardwell stating they would not appeal. The investigation had run its course.
Aftermath
The Dean’s Grievance Board issued several sanctions against the Ultimate Team. Sanctions affecting the entire Team are as follows: The men’s and women’s teams are currently finalizing the process of becoming separate but closely affiliated organizations; they plan to submit new constitutions for approval by SGA in the fall. Team leadership notes that this process might have happened without the conduct proceedings, since the women’s team has grown significantly in the past few years. The Team was not allowed to host events with alcohol this semester. The Team will sponsor an anti-hazing event led by an outside consultant for College club and varsity team leaders with money taken from its fundraising account (non-SGA funds) in the fall. A similar penalty was leveled against an a capella group a couple years ago. A member of a separate a capella group told the Voice that this event was mandatory for all a capella members, and that they were annoyed at having to attend because they felt they were being punished by having time taken away from them as a result of the other group’s actions. Finally, the Team was allowed to begin using College fields for practice and home tournaments, but lost travel privileges for the semester, meaning that they were unable to compete in postseason-ranked tournaments or qualify for or attend regional or national tournaments. Multiple senior team members told me this was a disappointing end to their college frisbee careers. One senior member of the Team claimed that according to one of the adjudicators on the Dean’s Grievance Board, the Board did not realize that removing Team travel privileges would result in the Team being unable to compete in the postseason.
Current team leadership notes that the captains of each team met biweekly this past semester with their current advisors in the Office of Student Life, Geoff Norbert and Anthony Turon. They state that both employees have been extremely helpful in advising them on how to rebuild and reorganize after the investigative process. They were also able to discuss how to avoid further allegations of hazing based on college policies.
Investigation Report
A copy of the “Investigation Report of Frisbee Team Conduct” by Curtiss and Rothenberger, and a letter signed by Cardwell and addressed to a student who faced conduct proceedings as a result, was given to the Voice by a source familiar with the investigation. The Voice was able to verify the documents as authentic in two ways. A reporter presented a copy of the letter’s signature to Cardwell, who confirmed that she customarily used it on letters related to student conduct, and that she was not aware of any fraudulent use of the signature. Cardwell declined to comment on the letter, or report or confirm that they were genuine. Shortly afterwards the reporter received a copy of an email Cardwell addressed to members of the Team from a different source familiar with the investigation stating that the reporter had approached her with evidence that the Voice had a copy of the Report, and denied that the College officially released it. Cardwell also stated that she discussed the importance of preserving student privacy in the Report. This was true, but these statements were made in response to questions regarding student privacy under the Federal Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA), which the reporter asked at a later point in his interview with Cardwell.
The Report charges members of the Team with violating policies in the College’s Student Handbook regarding hazing, failure to act, creating dangerous and/or unhealthy conditions, alcohol, open containers of alcohol, drinking games/drinking paraphernalia, providing alcohol to a minor, underage alcohol possession and/or use, drug possession and/or use, registration of private student events, hosting events and smoking. Additionally the Team as a student organization is accused of violating policies in the Office of Student Engagement’s Student Organization Handbook regarding required documentation for club sports teams, club conduct related to alcohol, alcohol use, hosting events with alcohol and off-campus travel/events. While the Report outlines the evidence from investigators for Team members having violated policies in the Student Handbook, it fails to outline what evidence the investigators found regarding the Team’s violation of the policies specific to the Student Organization Handbook; there are subject headers that appear to be placeholders for where this material should be inserted. The Report states that none of the Team’s or its members’ actions violated the College’s Title IX related policies on equal treatment of genders and sexual misconduct. While the Team was sanctioned by the Dean’s Grievance Board, I cannot stress enough that it was not found responsible for all of these charges, particularly since the Grievance Board found the Team not responsible for hazing.
Mystery Box
The main focus of the Report is the Team’s “Mystery Box” tradition, which the report describes as an initiation night. The Report focuses on the most recent Mystery Box in October 2018, which was an event where many players new to the Team were brought into a bedroom at a group of team members’ Winchester Apartment and told to eat and drink everything in it before coming out. The door to the room was not locked, thus the players involved seem to have been allowed to leave and enter as they wished. Players were officially not required to attend or participate in this event as a condition of continued membership on the Team. According to the Report, “Several witnesses [i.e. new players] and respondents [returning players] corroborated hearing and saying things like ‘we did it when we were new players and so should you.’” Speaking with a reporter for the Voice, members of Team leadership disputed that anyone on the Team would ever say something like this. They noted that the women’s team held a meeting prior to the event where they outlined what the new members’ experiences would be and that the event was entirely optional — information that was not in the report. Some Team leaders told me that they personally would never go to a party without awareness of what to reasonably expect, and had never attended team events without an understanding of what they would be doing. A screenshot of a group chat in the Report shows a member of team leadership reminding people “we do not recommend pregaming tonight’s event.”
The investigators estimate that 30-35 people between ages 18-20 were in the room, making it a very crowded space. Based on quotations from interviews, it appears that the large number of people in the room created an atmosphere of pandemonium with several of the new players taking on the roles of ringleaders and delegating other participants to consume various items in the room. In multiple instances, the Report cites that “3 men in the room … were pressuring people to eat and drink things by telling them things like ‘you won’t be on the team if you don’t’ and ‘other people will be too drunk if you don’t drink some.’” Current Team leadership notes that the chaotic atmosphere in this room was a result of first year members pressuring other first years. A senior on the Team told the Voice that, while Team upperclass members were not the ones who created such an initiation-like atmosphere and did not set out to do so, they did give these underclass students the tools and environment to do so. The Report cites evidence that for at least one participant the event may have been “a trigger” based on their statement “I had experience [with initiations] in high school and was worried.”
About an hour into the event, after several participants started becoming ill, senior members of the Team entered the room and instructed the players to stop. It is also worth noting that the event was already scheduled to end shortly after that time as the students living in the apartment had made a prior request to the Mystery Box organizers that it end by a certain time.
Several members who had been on the Team for multiple years recounted that the women’s team held a meeting the week after Mystery Box to discuss what had gone wrong at the event. At this meeting, new members of the women’s team identified the three men in the room who were making people uncomfortable. These men were informed of their actions, and complied with a Team leader’s request that they apologize to the entire Team.
A decision letter shown to a reporter signed by Cardwell regarding individual sanctions against a Team member stated, “The Hearing Board also wants to acknowledge those upperclass members of the team who took steps to address the problems that occurred during Mystery Box night. The hearing board appreciated their accountability for the consequences stemming from the event.” The letter’s recipient stated that this was in reference to Team leadership’s actions following the failure of Mystery Box.
Evidence of Hazing as a Result of Mystery Box
Documentation of Mystery Box occurring in October 2018 and during previous trips over Spring Break by the Team is the only alleged instance of hazing cited in the report. The Report claims that returning Team members as a result of Mystery Box “put students’ physical and mental health in jeopardy (several witnesses reported this event to be triggering of past trauma, and induced panic attacks. The combinations of random foods and alcohol caused multiple students to get ill.)” The Report also states that students’ illnesses did not occur exclusively as a result of alcohol, and there’s little evidence to suggest excessive drinking was a sole factor. This claim likely led the Dean’s Grievance Board to find the Team not responsible for hazing.
Evidence of Endangerment of Students’ Lives
The violation of Creating Dangerous and/or Unhealthy Conditions — alleged against seven team members — claims that at least three persons became ill as a result of the Mystery Box event. The first person did not report to investigators that they became ill; the evidence cited is an interview with another student. The second person told investigators that they were “more drunk than usual…” that evening. The third person told interviewers “I got sick a bit because of my sensitive stomach — not from drinking.”
A fourth person became ill as a result of an activity called Champagne and Shackles, which the College’s Report categorizes as a drinking game at a party in December. Leadership claims the Grievance Board determined the activity at the party was not a drinking game. A member of the Team told the Voice they had argued at the Grievance Board hearing that because Champagne and Shackles normally involved pairs of people splitting a bottle of champagne, it involved drinking less alcohol than three standard drinks, which in some jurisdictions is the minimum amount of drinking required for an activity to be categorized as a drinking game. According to current Team leadership the party was not an official team event, but was organized and attended by many Team members, which seems to reflect the close friendships formed on the Team outside practices, tournaments and official social events. The Report cites evidence that one first year participant was told by some sophomores that “if [what I and a friend were drinking] was too much we could dump it down the drain.” A senior on the Team pointed to this as evidence that upperclass members of the Team in general look out for their underclass counterparts. Similarly a screenshot included the Report of a women’s team group chat shows two upperclass players sharing their phone numbers with members in case they needed support or assistance getting back to their rooms during and after the party.
Team members are never accused of placing others’ health in jeopardy through the use of drugsin the Report, which alleges that some team members also engaged in a tradition of learning the song “Molly Cyrus” by the rapper Stitches over an annual spring break trip. The song includes lyrics about using hard drugs like cocaine and MDMA, although there is no evidence that Team members used these or similar drugs. The full lyrics are featured in an appendix of the Report. Current team leadership told me that a few individuals chose to learn it this past Spring Break for a talent show. They claim it was not a Team tradition to learn it, yet the investigators exaggerated their findings. The team leadership felt that the song was unrelated to the investigation or the Team, and that it was meant to paint a picture of them as having offensive behavior. I strongly agree with them that the mention of this song in the Report is ridiculous.
Aggregate impact – repercussions
Perhaps the “Aggregate Impact summation” section of the report best makes a case for why upperclass team members may have exerted social pressure on new members to participate in the various team events. This section claims: “From a new members [sic] perspective, attendance at this event was ‘highly encouraged’ and they heard from upperclass students ‘we did it and so should you’. The fear of missing out on the experience became a social pressure that was not to be ignored .… In one instance, a new member reported that their choice not to drink led them to have social consequences and believes they had limited playing time as a consequence which led them to ultimately leave the team. Once in the room new members were subject to behaviors of other students that at the least made them uncomfortable and at the most led to a panic attack and triggering of past traumatic experiences.”
Team leadership dispute the claim that students were given play time based on their attendance and participation at social events. A senior on the Team stated that this claim likely resulted from perceptions on the part of students who made it. Several persons involved in the decision-making process for who to play on the field told me that their decision-making process for putting people on the field was based solely on athletic strategy.
What the Team feels the report left out
Several members of the Team told me that aside from a brief discussion of the presence of alcohol at practices, which current leadership claims was done by a few members, and not condoned by official Team policy even prior to the investigation, the Report makes very little mention of the Team’s strong engagement in the sport of Ultimate. The Team attended College nationals in Spring 2016, and have in general been very successful and competitive. Rather, the Report focuses more on the social aspects. One senior member on the Team told me that while they participated in the social events that are the focus of the Report, they were on the Team primarily for the purpose of playing frisbee. Leadership believes playing frisbee as being the Team’s primary function, with one member telling me “We’re a frisbee team first and always have been.”
They also note that there have been players on the Team who did not attend Mystery Box at least in their first year, and later became leaders, and that there have been some leaders on the Team who chose to be sober during their four years at Conn.
Policy impacts
I believe that the College’s Report did establish a fair case, which has since its publication been found unlikely by the Grievance Board that the Ultimate Team engaged in acts of hazing as defined by the policy guidelines and definitions of Connecticut College’s Student Handbooks for the 2018-2019 academic year. However, I also believe that the policy guidelines regarding the definition of hazing and establishment of responsibility for conduct violations are very vague. If this hazing case was being judged under Connecticut state law rather than College policy, it would very easily result in no finding of responsibility or guilt due to insufficient evidence, because the state has a less broad definition of what constitutes hazing than the College.
Hazing is defined by Connecticut state law as “any action which recklessly or intentionally endangers the health or safety of a person for the purpose of initiation, admission into or affiliation with, or as a condition for continued membership in a student organization.” Several examples of hazing as cited by the law that are relevant to the Team’s alleged conduct include “Requiring any activity that would subject the person to extreme mental stress, such as sleep deprivation or extended isolation from social contact; Confinement of the person to unreasonably small, unventilated, unsanitary or unlighted areas; … Requiring the ingestion of any substance or any other physical activity which could adversely affect the health or safety of the individual.”
In contrast the Connecticut College Student Handbook, while using language similar to the state law, adds several more definitions of actions that constitute hazing. According to the Handbook, “actions that either … causes [sic] physical or psychological discomfort or harm; or demonstrates [sic] disregard for another’s persons dignity; or causes or encourages [sic] a person to violate college policy or the federal/state/local law” also constitute hazing.
The hazing policy also states, “Connecticut College recognizes the importance of students’ affiliations with groups, organizations, or teams and the integral role of ritual and tradition in the culture of those groups, organizations or teams … Connecticut College encourages activities [i.e. traditions] that build group cohesion in an affirming way that involves equal participation amongst new and experienced members.” When asked what activities build group cohesion, Cardwell stated in an email that “clubs, organizations, and teams often do things like group or team meals/dinners, community service projects, off-campus outings, movie nights.”
Besides the broader definition of hazing, I have several other objections to the Student Handbook’s provisions. The first is that Connecticut College uses a preponderance of evidence that is standard, also known as a more likely than not standard, when determining responsibility in all of its disciplinary proceedings. Preponderance of evidence is a controversial standard for determining responsibility that requires adjudicators to find a defendant completely responsible for an act if they believe more than 50% of credible evidence presented indicates that they are so. By contrast, in a state or federal courthouse a “beyond reasonable doubt” standard is used, which requires an adjudicating judge or jury to believe that at least 95% of credible evidence presented indicates a defendant is guilty.
In recent years preponderance of evidence has been a part of the national debate regarding Title IX-related judicial proceedings at colleges. The 2011 Obama administration Education Department “Dear Colleague” letter required schools to adapt the preponderance of evidence standard for Title IX proceedings, based on its use in civil litigation involving discrimination. A 2008 copy of the Student Code of Conduct indicates that the J-Board, the student judicial-body that preceded Honor Council, already used preponderance of evidence to determine responsibility, although it is unclear what standard the Dean’s Grievance Committee, which at the time typically handled what are now known as Title-IX cases, used. The Education Department under President Trump has retracted this guidance and proposed requiring schools to adopt the same standard for determining Title IX cases as non-Title IX cases. This regulation has been criticized by Title IX advocates for requiring some schools to adapt higher standards than that which the schools are currently using in Title IX cases, meaning that students who allegedly commit sexual misconduct will have an easier time getting away with activities they may have committed. Connecticut College already uses the preponderance of evidence standard to adjudicate all student conduct cases, so it would currently be unaffected by this regulation.
However, as a result of the use of preponderance of evidence at this school, administrators at Connecticut College need 45% less evidence in their favor than a government prosecutor to show someone is at fault in the eyes of the Honor Code or Student Code of Conduct. I believe these liberal allowances, while certainly not unconstitutional or illegal, are detrimental to perceptions of our College’s disciplinary system as they likely allow for a greater rate of false convictions. If the adjudicators at this College on Honor Council and the Dean’s Conduct Committee truly follow the greater than 50% rule, I do not believe that our system is a fair system; it introduces far too much risk of false convictions.
Cardwell notes that as with much of judicial policy at Conn, “the preponderance of evidence standard is pretty common at most private colleges and universities.”
Connecticut College does not offer students due process. Instead, conduct proceedings are governed by “fair practice” defined by the Student Handbook as “a flexible term generally indicating that the student accused of a violation of the Student Code of Conduct will be provided with full and fair notice of the alleged violation(s) and an opportunity to be heard.” This gives administrators a great deal of flexibility regarding how they treat students accused of conduct violations. It enabled the College to remove Carlos Antonio Alberti ’21 shortly after he was interviewed by New London Police as a suspect in the voyeurism case, despite the police not acquiring a warrant for his arrest from a judge, an exercise of due process, until three weeks after this event, an action that most of us including myself see as the “right” decision. However fair practice is, in my opinion, a term that allows administrators to take actions against students in any way they see fit as long, as they provide notice and grounds for these actions being taken and eventually follow up with an adjudication process.
Fair practice also allows for the kinds of policies that resulted in The Ultimate Team being suspended for over two months from the formal start of the investigation until the Dean’s Grievance Board restored it with sanctions. Members of current Team leadership note that this suspension likely lasted such a long time because the investigators gave upperclass team members the option of conducting their interviews over break, meaning that the evidence gathering phase was extended by several weeks longer than normally allowed under college policy.
Additionally, prior to the completion of the investigation into the Ultimate Team, Sean Soucy ‘20 was fired from his Housefellow position due to conduct uncovered by it. As a result of financial difficulties Soucy withdrew from the College between the fall and spring semesters, which was during the Investigation but prior to the Grievance Board hearing. Additionally, four members of the Frisbee Team who held several events in their Winchester Apartment were reassigned to Lazrus House. Applications for the empty apartment were opened to students including myself two days prior to the release of the report; with the deadline for applications being three days prior to the Dean’s Grievance hearing taking place. The housing contract does give the REAL Office “the right to relocate any student if their behavior is disruptive to the residential community.” It’s possible that these actions occurred so soon in the process as a result of Rothenberger’s position as both an investigator and the person in charge of decisions related to housing. It is not illegal or against college policy for her to hold both of these roles, and it is not illegal for her to use student information she learned from one of her two roles on-campus in both. Rothenberger refused to comment on these matters because they are topics related to student conduct and employment status within the REAL Office.
Finally the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution includes the clause “[No person] shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” This amendment was meant as a departure from the British justice system, which had allowed prosecutors to compel self-incriminating evidence from witnesses. This protection does not exist in the Student Handbook, as is completely legal and constitutional since the College is a private entity. Members of the Ultimate Team were given a choice between incriminating themselves to investigators or face additional penalties for refusal to cooperate in a College investigation. In response to a question about the lack of such a right, Cardwell noted that conduct processes are based on the Connecticut College Honor Code, which “asks students to be honest…I think we’re expecting students to live by the Honor Code.”
The role of the Senior Associate Dean of Student Life
I don’t think there’s any doubt among people who understand what Sarah Cardwell is responsible for on this campus that she is a controversial figure. I have heard many criticisms of her behavior towards students, and even some suggestions that she seems to make arbitrary decisions or make up policy (the Student Handbook is 185 pages worth of policy!). With the exception of her modified role in the Frisbee Team hearing, I have not found any concrete evidence that Cardwell has taken actions contrary to College policy in the frisbee or any other case. An Honor Council member made it very clear to me that for cases heard by the Council, as mandated by the Student Handbook, Cardwell only attends hearings and is not present when its members deliberate over cases. Cardwell noted that she strongly disagrees with perceptions that she is the sole decision maker when it comes to discipline on campus. She notes that even decisions about how a case will be adjudicated are normally not solely made by her but rather according to the case review team policy in the Student Handbook, which states:
“A Case Review Team (CRT) consisting of the Senior Associate Dean of Student Life, the Chair of the Honor Council or designee, and the Director of Campus Safety will normally review an incident report/complaint, determine the alleged violations and refer the complaint to the appropriate student conduct process. In its absence, the Senior Associate Dean of Student Life in consultation with the Honor Council Chair or designee may make this determination.
Alleged violations of hazing, harassment, discrimination, harassment, sexual misconduct, stalking, or intimate partner violence may bypass the CRT process and be directly referred to the case investigation and Dean’s Grievance process.”
In her twelve years as Associate Dean of Student Life, Cardwell has done an excellent job making sure the disciplinary process is transparent by clearly outlining how the College treats policy violations and investigations in the Student Handbook (and thus expanding it to 185 pages as of this semester’s edition). The Student Handbook is the only place a student needs to go to understand how discipline functions on campus (with the exception of some Title IX policy).
The Student Life Division has a blanket ban on comments regarding specific student conduct proceedings. I disagree with it because I subscribe to a more liberal interpretation of federal privacy law than is implemented at most colleges. President Katherine Bergeron, who is not a member of Student Life staff, recently announced the expulsion of Carlos Antonio Alberti ’21 for voyeurism without identifying him by name, which is more in line with the level of privacy I believe Colleges should maintain. I think that also in cases of organizations, the ability for students to understand their status at the College should trump concerns of student privacy when information can be released without identifying specific students. Cardwell was able to make general comments on some of the procedures the Team faced because they are in the Student Handbook.
It is also worth noting that while Cardwell’s role includes writing College policy (and she has written or formatted large portions of the Student Handbook in her twelve years here) she emphasizes the policy she writes is not solely determined by her, but is decided on by College committees usually in consultation with experts and peer colleges.
Can Connecticut College haze its own students?
Under College policy and state law, hazing is defined as an activity solely committed by students on other students. It is impossible under this definition for administrators to take actions that haze the students they serve. At the same time, is sequestering students from their peers for up to six hours in a room with the threat of conduct proceedings similar to the behavior that College policy and state law are trying to prevent? How about insisting afterwards that students not reveal anything about experiences that they felt were traumatizing to anyone, again under threat of conduct proceedings? One senior member described these actions as “straight bullying.”
Cardwell states the College’s disciplinary system allows students a right to disclose information about their own conduct records, but they do not have a right to disclose other students’ records that they have familiarity with. This sort of policy keeps hearings and investigations confidential, no matter if they are in regard to one student or sixty. I believe it is incredibly bad for public scrutiny of actions taken by the College that students cannot disclose that they may feel wronged by the process that leads to their conviction or acquittal, particularly since under FERPA students have the right to request access to their individual material retained by the College related to the hearing and investigation at any time.
Is the Dean’s Grievance process just?
Team members first became aware their status at the College and education was in jeopardy on December 7, 2018. Exactly two months later the case culminated with two back-to-back hearings regarding the Team and its members before a Dean’s Grievance Board, which after hearing Curtiss and Rothenberger’s findings, decided to allow the Ultimate Team to resume most of their activities. We are left to wonder and argue over whether the investigation and process brought against the Team was a fair one?
Current Dean’s Grievance processes and their related investigations are intended to move quickly; they bring swift justice. The earliest versions of the process, which were developed in the late 1980s to handle complaints of racial and sexual bias and harassment, allowed cases to be open from 2-4 months. This is a significant contrast to the current Student Handbook, which states that typically investigations should take 15 days to complete. In this case Curtiss and Rothenberger, who have the duties of their full time jobs in addition to doing occasional investigative work, completed their report over five weeks — not including the time off when College offices closed for Christmas and New Year’s.
Which version of these processes is fair? The one where victims and perpetrators are left waiting for an entire semester or more and hope that the investigation will work out in their favor, or the one where alleged perpetrators are thrust suddenly into the judicial process and promised that soon they will face the retributive power of a College investigation? I do not like the former, (four months is a long time in the life of a college student) but the latter, if hastily executed, may cause grave injustices.
Hazing is categorized in the Student Handbook as one of the “Most Serious Community Violations,” which are described as acts typically resulting in suspension or expulsion. No student on the Team received a punishment that severe as a result of this case, although some individual students were found to have engaged in acts of hazing and all students were at least warned that they failed to act to stop these students from doing so.
Even prior to discussing the report with Team members, I could tell it was a flawed document as a result of indications that it was likely compiled hastily. It is riddled with punctuation, grammatical and transcription errors that in any normal context would make it unpublishable. Sometimes the authors will try to hide a subject’s gender, only to inadvertently reveal it one sentence or phrase later. The report clearly cites with page numbers what evidence there is to justify individual policy violations, but when it lists policy violations regarding the Team as a student organization, there are only subject headers for where evidence should appear, and no evidence actually cited. When I raised these concerns in emails to Rothenberger and Curtiss they declined to comment due to their obligations under College policy and federal law with regards to student privacy.
Members of the Team claim that the original report misattributed quotes and misidentified certain subjects. Several members sent appeals to Cardwell who released a revised copy a day prior to the hearings, along with a letter, shared by a source with knowledge of the investigation, noting nine corrections. Despite this action, there still are claims that she failed to fully hear out team members and correct all of the report’s errors. It is unfortunate to think that important evidence gathered by the College may have been overlooked in the haste to produce this report, and bring it to the Dean’s Grievance Board.
Some Team members who went through these conduct proceedings told me they did not feel they were receiving a fair hearing until they went before the Dean’s Grievance Board. One senior member even described administrators as “talking at” themself and other students rather than “talking to” them.
A few weeks ago the College advertised that it was conducting a national search for a Senior Investigator and Compliance Officer, whose duties will include conducting investigations on the College’s behalf. Mary Savage and Ebony Manning, who are this future employee’s supervisors, did not respond to a request for comment. It’s unclear if this person is intended in part to improve the Dean’s Grievance process, but I cannot see why not.
I am not trying to downplay that the Team engaged in behavior considered in some degree a violation of community standards at Conn, or that hazing is a horrible act.I shudder to think about its impact on students on this campus or others who have been victimized by it. However, presenting a flawed report alleging hazing-related violations against 40-50 students on campus risks what is a real danger to our community being further downplayed. I hope that the Ultimate Frisbee Team’s anti-hazing event on-campus next semester will address the real dangers that hazing can put students in and not merely focus on the superficial concerns of College policy.
Perhaps in the future it will be possible for Connecticut College to complete a report on misconduct in a fair manner with only a month to investigate. But this recent investigation, in my opinion, was botched. It resulted in the College relying on a faultily produced Report in its attempt to prove its case against the Ultimate Team, as a result of an investigation that was poorly conducted.
Max Amar-Olkus contributed reporting.
