Important new information about the events of April 27

1. There are clear university regulations governing the university’s response to “obstructive or disruptive demonstrations,” which you can read at the bottom of this web page.  
2. Rose Hill Dean of Students Christopher Rodgers and the Public Safety Officers at Cunniffe Hall violated nearly every one of those regulations.
3. Those violations are at least in part responsible for the altercation that took place on 4/27.

The remainder of this post is devoted to demonstrating these three points.  

The petition sent to President McShane last week refrained from making accusations against Public Safety Officers or Dean Rodgers because at the time few had a clear understanding of what had occurred. But based on all reports that have been made public, and on the reports of faculty eyewitnesses some of whose accounts you can read here on the blog, it’s clear that:

• The students entered the administration building through an unlocked door, carrying not weapons but flowers. They had entirely nonviolent intentions. They were seeking a reply to questions they had about the President’s stance on Fordham’s use of contingent faculty--a reply they had been promised days before.
• The Public Safety officers responded by physically blocking the students’ entry to the President’s office suite. In other words, they used physical force to prevent a peaceful group from entering the president’s office to ask questions.

Pointing this out is not to say that the Public Safety officers initiated the altercation. That is not clear, and the claim here is not that all students are innocent of every charge against them. But it does mean that Public Safety and the Dean of Students violated the university’s written procedures about how to handle an unruly demonstration. Specifically (quoting, in red, from the procedures, which you can find in full at the bottom of this web page here. In bold and in brackets following each item you'll see some commentary and questions relating those regulations to the events of April 27):

• “The Dean of Students, in consultation with the Dean of the College or the official responsible for the specific building or area affected, will determine the point at which the normal operations of the specific building or area are disrupted.” [Is a group of students entering an office to ask questions—even loudly and boisterously--a disruption of a building’s normal operations? Was Dean Mast or an official responsible for Cunniffe Hall asked to help determine the nature of this alleged disruption? If not, then Dean Rodgers and the Public Safety Officers violated university procedures]
• “If it is decided that the demonstration is disruptive or obstructive, the Dean of Students will take the following steps:
• Inform the demonstrators that their actions are disrupting the normal process of the area in question and that they should cease and desist their activities. The demonstrators will also be informed specifically how they may continue their demonstration in a manner which is not disruptive or obstructive.
• If the demonstrators fail to respond to the request to cease and desist their activities or if they fail to modify them in such a manner as to permit the undisturbed operation of the area in question the warning will be repeated and clearly stated as a final warning.” [There is no video of the event showing either of these warnings taking place. If they did, there should be video to prove it. If not, then Dean Rodgers and the Public Safety Officers violated university procedures]
• “If the second warning is ignored and demonstrators persist in the obstructive or disruptive action, the Dean of Students will apprise the President and/or Senior Vice President for Student Affairs of the situation and based upon the situation will recommend:” [Were the President and/or Senior Vice President apprised of the situation? If not, then Dean Rodgers and the Public Safety Officers violated university procedures]
• “That the New York City Police be summoned and that they be requested to arrest violators and clear the area.” [It is very clear that this did not occur. This is an unambiguous violation of university procedures.]
• “The University initiate action to obtain an injunction against the continuance of the disruptive activities.” [It is very clear that this did not occur. This is an unambiguous violation of university procedures]

Nothing in these procedures authorizes Public Safety Officers to take physical action to force demonstrators to “cease and desist their activities” or to “modify them in such a manner as to permit the undisturbed operation of the area in question.” Nothing instructs them to prevent students from passing through hallways and opening doors. It now seems clear that if Public Safety Officers had simply allowed the demonstrators to proceed from the vestibule of the building, which they entered through an unlocked door, and into the President’s office suite, no physical altercation could possibly have taken place.

To continue quoting the official procedures:

• “If at any time during a demonstration, physical violence and/or destruction of property occurs, the Dean of Students will instruct the demonstrators to leave the area immediately.  If the demonstrators do not leave the area immediately upon hearing the Dean's instruction, the President and/or Senior Vice President of Student Affairs will be informed of the situation and will be requested to summon the New York City Police to arrest violators and clear the area.” [No destruction of property has been publicly alleged. However, the Dean of Students alleges that physical violence occurred, resulting in injuries to two Public Safety Officers. There have been no allegations that those injuries were deliberate. Everyone regrets those injuries. However, it is very clear that the next step taken was not a request to summon the NYC police to arrest violators and to clear the area. This is an unambiguous violation of university procedures].
• “During actions to quell an obstructive or disruptive demonstration, an officer of the University, the President of the Faculty Senate, and the college Deans should be present to observe the actions of all involved.” [Evidently no effort was made to make the President of the Faculty Senate aware of the situation. No college dean was informed of the events at all, let alone brought to observe. Indeed, at the very moment the events were taking place, Dean Rodgers was scheduled to be at a Rose Hill College Council meeting, so he knew precisely where Dean Mast could be found. This is an unambiguous--and especially flagrant--violation of university procedures].

The point of this lengthy exposition is not just to demonstrate that that at least four unambiguous violations of University procedures took place, and that further investigations may reveal other violations. It is also to show that these violations by both Public Safety Officers and the Dean of Students were at least part of the cause of the altercation that took place. Every available account of the events on 4/27 underscores this point. If the Public Safety Officers had allowed the students to enter the space and deliver their demands, none of this would have happened.

This fact does not mean every student acted uniformly admirably, nor that they should be free from all sanctions for their actions. But these facts lead to two inescapable conclusions:

1. No sanctions should be imposed until all the factors in the case have been thoroughly investigated. These factors may not exonerate the students. But if university officials and employees violated procedures that were designed precisely to govern a situation like this one—and to prevent such conflict from escalating—those violations surely constitute mitigating circumstances that should be taken into account in any hearing and in any decision about sanctions. As should the fact that several of the students were sanctioned before any adjudication of their cases had occurred.
2. Because it is clear that Dean Rodgers participated in violations of University Procedures himself, and thus helped to cause the situation, he cannot possibly be the right person to hold the hearings on the students’ actions and to decide on their sanctions.

Now for the call to action: If you agree with these two points, you should communicate them both to those investigating these matters and to authorities who have the power to change the path the university is on. Please send these e-mails to:

• President McShane (president@fordham.edu or jmcshane@fordham.edu)
• Senior Vice President for Student Affairs Jeffrey Gray (jegray@fordham.edu)
• John Carroll, Associate Vice President of Safety and security (jcarroll@fordham.edu)
• Patricia Scaglione, Investigator, Office of Public Safety (pscaglione@fordham.edu)
• Elaine Crosson, General Counsel and initiator of the external investigation (ecrosson@fordham.edu)

Also, if you are willing to have your communications published on this blog, please send them to fordhamtestimonials@gmail.com.  Any explicit requests to keep your name and/or words confidential will most certainly be respected, but unless you say otherwise, by sending something to this address you are indicating that you are willing to have your words published and your name attached.