<p>The quotes ARE from the VV story.</p>
<p>(I apologize if I’m missing something - wouldn’t be the first time.)</p>
<p>he couldn’t identify him from the facebook photos (which, if you’ve ever seen the facebook, are tiny and look like photocopies). when he saw O’Neil in the store 2 weeks later, he was positive that was the guy in his room.</p>
<p>True, after describing him as a light-skinned, high-cheekboned male with an African accent (he’s darkskinned, roundfaced, and from NY.) Whatever - we don’t know - except that the common thread is alcohol.</p>
<p>Having been involved in more private school closed door judicial procedings than I care to enumerate, I can tell you that it is seldom if ever beneficial to the student that these things are kept private. The questions asked, conclusions drawn and punishment meted are nearly always far worse than any court case on the subject. There is no due process, no 5th amendment rights, nothing. The reason most kids do not insist on the “trials” to be taken out of the school are because they are scared of the outside, the expense of an attorney and because the school is going to do their own investigation anyways–no either/or situation in these cases. What has to happen if there has been abuses in the school’s justice, is to turn around and sue the school, an expensive and painful endeavor. Believe me, I know as I have gone this route many times.</p>
<p>
He’s originally from Jamaica.
<a href=“http://mt.middlebury.edu/middblogs/ckoh/Diversity/cat_ethnicity_and_race.html[/url]”>http://mt.middlebury.edu/middblogs/ckoh/Diversity/cat_ethnicity_and_race.html</a>
But as you say, whatever. The facts will out.</p>
<p>I’ve read many reviews posted on StudentReview.Com, and I find that many of the comments are well thought out and reflective of an honest personal assessment. Of course, there ARE some comments that are obviously best taken with a grain of salt, unfair comments that stem from some sort of “agenda”. </p>
<p>I took the comments about Midd seriously because they were unusual in their sheer number, and overlapping theme. Vermont is, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, the “Whitest state in the union”. Very few blacks reside there, and it’s not unreasonable to assume that many of it’s young people grow up without having ever never held a meaningful exchange with anyone of color. What they have is television and other media outlets that present a very narrow, and not infrequently negative stereotype of black people. Having grown up with the tacit (though many times, unconscious) assumption that theirs is the “superior race”, I can see how some portion of Midd’s student population would base their actions and comments on that premise.</p>
<p>I admit that much of my reaction originates from my own experience, when I attended a small private liberal arts college in Upstate New York. Many of my wealthy white classmates had never spoken to a black person who wasn’t a maid, a garbage worker, a wait person, or gardener (and often not even to the aforementioned). They so much as told me so. I spent a LOT of time dispelling myths about “what black people are like”. I grew weary of people assuming it was realistic that I should “speak for my whole race”. I grew tired of reactions of obvious amazement that I didn’t speak “ebonics”, that I could comment cogently and with insight on complex issues. It’s a number of years later, I grant you, but I believe that things haven’t changed as much as many on this forum would like to think.</p>
<p>If Middlebury wishes to dispell the negative impression their actions concerning this student have engendered, if they truly wish to attract a larger number of African American students to their campus, they must stop hiding behind their “closed corporation” policy and openly prove that their banishment of O’Neil Walker was unquestionably justified.</p>
<p>From my unfortunately extensive experience in situations like this, I would surmise that the kid was involved in the room hopping epidsodes in some shape or form, and the school well knows it. The interogation would not pass any form of muster in terms of personal legal rights and was much harsher than what any court would put the kid through. The school is standing tough on this because it wants to put an end to these episodes and by punishing this kid severely, and I do not believe is the lone ranger in these episodes, it hopes it will send the message loud and clear. Unfortunately, the kid is being sacrificed in the process, and this often happens in these situations. I do not believe for a moment that this is a racial thing, and am willing to bet that Middlebury wishes the kid caught were not black. By being such a minority in the area, it makes him more easily identifiable. Being white is no defining feature there. The queston now is whether what the school has done passes legal muster. As I stated before, if the kid happened to have been from a deep pocketed family with lawyers ready to charge, the oucome may well have been different, and some sort of a deal worked out since in such a situation, it could cost the school more than it feels it is worth to make an example of the kid.</p>
<p>Apparently the kid now does have lawyers ready to charge. It seems that he has a very high powered litigator from Baltimore representing him. Someone must be paying the legal fees.</p>
<p><a href=“About UBalt: Bachelor's, Master's and Law Degrees”>http://www.ubalt.edu/glance/ur_releases/2004/02_19_04_houston_award.html</a></p>
<p>It appears that there may be more to this case than we know.</p>
<p>"School officials insist that they have strong evidence, but Billy Murphy, a Baltimore lawyer brought into the case by the father of Nolan Weltchek, one of Walker’s classmates, tells the Voice, “It was a kangaroo court. No lawyers were allowed in, and the burden of proof was set very low.” </p>
<p>After a five minute google search, it appears that Weltchek (the guy who brought in the Baltimore attorney) may also be an attorney in Baltimore that has worked with Murphy in the past. One case noted was a $185 million dollar suit against Ernst & Young.</p>
<p>Is it possible that Weltchek and Murphy saw this as an opportunity to get some notoriety because of the potentially high profile nature of the case?</p>
<p>Poetsheart…I concur that kids who have not grown up around other people of color, can be quite “unaware” as you say. And yes, Vermont is a very white state and so for kids who grew up here, your comments appear valid in reasoning. However, the bulk of the student body at Middlebury is NOT from Vermont. Middlebury attracts kids from around the country, as well as internationally. So, the line of reasoning as to who you grew up with and what exposure you have had, really doesn’t relate necessarily to Middlebury just cause it happens to be located in Vermont. The students for the most part are not Vermonters. </p>
<p>I think it is very hard to judge this situation fairly (even though the Village Voice article points to some unjustice) without knowing the entire story. Middlebury might have had compelling evidence of very inappropriate behavior. One would like to think so for them to take such a drastic action. Trouble is, as outisders, we don’t know as the necessary information to “judge” this case is not available.</p>
<p>The proceedings in most private school matters is always a kangaroo court and the burden of proof is set very low. Schools are not bound by the same judicial rules that our system have. And when you enroll in a school, the handbook makes it clear what the rules are, and there is always that failsafe clause that covers every and anything. The question becomes whether the school has gone even farther than the law will permit because the courts do permit these kangaroo courts. This is not new and is the situation at all schools. Much of this is driven by the necessity to keep order and standards in the school since the law is way to lenient to have much clout in these situations. The question now becomes whether or not MIddlebury, in this case, has gone too far.</p>
<p>Around 5% of Midd students are from Vermont, and close to 70% are from outside New England.</p>
<p>Walker was implicated in a string of room break-ins (implicated and not charged–they had proof that he was in all the buildings where the break-ins occurred at the time of the occurences, but the other victims could not identify him because he ran away). In some of these other break-ins, the accused was rubbing himself, etc. While I am of the opinion that he is a sexual predator, Middlebury college only found him guilty of “behavior unbecoming to a middlebury student” and one other charge. Why would having a sexual predator on campus be damning to Middlebury’s reputation? Indeed, it would be solely damning to the accused’s reputation.</p>
<p>What would be damning is failing to protect the student body. Sexual predators are typically turned over to police, locked up for multiple years, forced to register, and must post to the community where they are living. </p>
<p>I would urge you to be very careful with your language. “Sexual predator” has a particular legal meaning, and, even just for posting on a board such of this, you could find yourself in a very nasty lawsuit.</p>
<p>
One point of clarification … generally the student doesn’t “pick” if the case is handled by the school or not. The school decides on it’s own if it will address the alleged offense or not. The civil authorities, on their own, decide it they will address the alleed offense or not. Schools often used to try to keep cases quiet and on campus but that seems to have changed dramatically (I would guess because of PR and fear or law suits).</p>
<p>For example, the Milton Academy case was referenced in this string. Consentual oral sex between a minor girl and multiple boys. The school’s disciplinary process acted quickly … the school also reported the facts to the local authorities … who then decided what action to take independent of the school’s decisions.</p>
<p>School disciplinary hearings are a mixed bag. On one hand, they can resolve issues quickly and with minimal publicity for the parties involved; if the objective is to remove a threatening individual from the campus environment, they can be more expedient than the legal system.</p>
<p>On the downside, though, they rarely embody the same rules of evidence and the right to confront one’s accuser. This can lead an individual to feel (sometimes rightly) that he/she was railroaded out of the school without due process. This seems to be particularly true in accusations involving “he said/she said” disputes; a college disciplinary process might simply interview each party separately, with no right for the accused to cross-examine (or perhaps even hear) the accuser.</p>
<p>There’s no perfect solution, but I think it makes sense for colleges to keep the disciplinary process for the bulk of problems, but to recognize that some percentage will end up being decided in the legal system.</p>
<p>Ironically, it’s quite possible that in the incident that launched this thread that the college kept additional details quiet to protect the reputation of the accused student.</p>
<p>
I agree, and said as much in #13. I also agree with the he said/she said analogy, where colleges have to deal with very personal issues that have the <em>potential</em> to become very serious criminal/civil legal cases, possibly to the detriment of both parties. This particular case has race and, possibly, gay aspects which serve to charge things up even more.</p>
<p>Hmm, I would like to note a few things about the case, having just graduated from Midd myself.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>The first thing I must preach is skepticism. We should be no less skeptical of Mr. Walker’s claims of innocence than we are of the process that found him guilty. Skepticism is always good practice. If we are skeptical, we can be convinced by a weight of evidence but are not swept up rashly. As it stands, the only side of the story we’ve heard is his, so that’s the only thing I have to be skeptical of right now. I am not skeptical of the proceedings because I have no reason to be.</p></li>
<li><p>The only person who has violated the mutually agreed confidentiality of the judicial proceedings is Mr. Walker. So we have NOT heard any of the other side of the story. I also note that Mr. Walker broke the confidentiality to impugn another student’s character.</p></li>
<li><p>In Middlebury’s judicial hearings, one HAS the right to confront one’s accuser. And by Mr. Walker’s own account, this happened.</p></li>
<li><p>The Middlebury judicial process is not likely a kangaroo court. It is not controlled by the administration, but instead is a panel of students and faculty. Actually, there are two: one for academic matters; and another for ‘community’ matters.</p></li>
<li><p>I believe the judicial proceedings indeed have a lower standard of evidence than the criminal courts. They use the “preponderence of evidence” standard and not "beyond a reasonable doubt. This lower standard (also used in civil court) does seem appropriate as it pertains only to school disciplinary action.</p></li>
<li><p>On a related note, if Mr. Walker had not broken the confidentiality agreement, no one would know ANY details of his case–certainly not that he might be the “Ross Toucher.” [Ross is a dorm where the incidents occurred. And where, by Mr. Walker’s own admission–if indeed the email I read purporting to be from him and sent by his supporters was genuine–had been at the time of each incident as evidenced by his access card use. He claims that these actions are consistent with his innocent behavior.]
However, even if we accept what mr. walker said as the whole truth, I would want to know exactly what mr. walker was doing at the time of each of these incidents–in particular when his accuser says he was in his room.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Mr. Walker’s failure to provide any compelling evidence of his innocence leaves me deeply skeptical of his claim of innocence. (I do not consider accusing his accuser of racism is compelling. Nor do I consider the poor description of the intruder as compelling. Nor do I consider the fact that the accuser IDed 4 other people as possible suspects as compelling.)</p>
<p>I find your post compellingly …confusinmg…</p>
<p>Guilty until proven innocent?</p>