On April 16, 2009, the Office of the Dean of Student Affairs called for an administrative disciplinary hearing to address the racial incident that took place in Lewis Hall lounge approximately two weeks ago. The hearing was scheduled to begin at 9:00 a.m., on Friday, April 24, 2009.
In the days leading up to the hearing, the administration was advised that the thirteen members of the Korean Students' Association and the other student involved in the incident wished to discuss a possible resolution of the dispute. At the specific request of the students, the university provided space where these discussions could take place, but did not otherwise become involved in their discussion.
At the further request of the students, the start of the disciplinary hearing on April 24 was delayed from 9:00 a.m. until 12:00 noon, so that the students could continue their discussions. Shortly before noon that day, the students informed the Dean's Office that a disciplinary hearing would not be necessary, because they had reached an agreement that would resolve all of their grievances relating to the Lewis Hall incident. The agreement, which was later given to university officials, had been signed by the thirteen members of the Korean Students' Association and by the other student involved in the incident. The meetings and process that led to this agreement were not mediation; no university officials were involved.
The agreement document acknowledges that the other student "accosted the KSA students in the common area of Lewis Hall, where they were practicing for a dance performance." It acknowledges that he made "racial and ethnic slurs directed at the KSA students," and that he said "I'm going to kill you all." It also states that the offending student wished to "make amends" for his "inappropriate, offensive and hurtful behavior" and that "all parties wish to resolve this matter without litigation or other proceedings." Advocates for the two sides said that all of the students wished to dismiss their previous statements about any physical altercation.
The agreement between the students proposes a set of outcomes that the parties have urged the Office of the Dean of Student Affairs to accept as resolution for the incident. The main elements of the students' proposal suggest a number of consequences for the offending student: that he issue a public apology to be published in the Tufts Daily; that he refrain from joining a fraternity at Tufts; that he request a suspension from the university for the Fall 2009 semester; that he pursue substance abuse counseling and other therapy; and that he participate in an anti-bias/anti-hate education program.
The Office of the Dean of Student Affairs respects the arduous and painful work that goes into trying to resolve conflict, whether in direct conversations (as was the case here) or in mediation. The outcomes produced by such efforts are often more meaningful than those reached in fact-finding hearings. We see it as critical to respect the decisions and suggestions made by the participants in these alternative dispute resolution processes. I am therefore hesitant to impose a consequence that differs from the students' proposal. However, given the seriousness of the behavior to which the one student has admitted, I do not feel that his automatic return to the university community after the suspension is appropriate. My office is therefore requiring the student to complete an anger management program, in addition to the substance abuse counseling and participation in an anti-bias program that were proposed in the students' agreement. Following the initial period of suspension, this student will be eligible to return to the university only if he has completed these three requirements and only if he can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Dean's Office that he has learned from this experience and will contribute positively to the community.
In this incident, the student to be disciplined admitted to being intoxicated, which in and of itself constitutes a violation of the university's policy banning under aged or irresponsible drinking. Regardless, university policy expressly rejects intoxication as a mitigating factor in judging student conduct. Being intoxicated does not reduce one's responsibility for treating others in the community with dignity and respect; it does not excuse the repeated use of racial and ethnic slurs against others; it does not excuse spitting on others; it does not excuse making life threats against others, regardless of the speaker's intent.
This incident has caused deep and long-lasting harm to the Asian-American community and to the broader Tufts community. It continues to reverberate within Tufts and beyond, and it makes us aware that as an institution Tufts must continue to educate every member of our community that all are valued equally and must be treated with respect.
Thank you to all those who worked so hard to find the learning opportunity in this situation. Unfortunately, as is so often the case, it came at a very high price.
Bruce Reitman
Dean of Student Affairs
