Replying to @DrCastner in this thread about how Universities should be part of the solution. First, it is amazing to me how progressive Europe is on so many things compared to US with orgs like @officestudents, @Help4StudentsUK, @1752Group & @NotOnMyCampusUK holding accountable
In May 2019 as 49 year old non-traditional @DrakeLawSchool student I was accused of academic misconduct for cheating. In reality, targeted as a student with disabilities fighting for my and other students #civilrights. You can read various posts on my feed so will not go into all
the details. When getting stonewalled by Drake Law School over #Accommodations, #Discrimination & no #Investigation being done on complaints filed. I started reaching out to @DrakeUniversity Leadership including @drakepresident. This all fell on deaf ears & 2 days before written
response due from University a software problem or glitch on final exam was used to accuse me of cheating. Despite no evidence or witnesses just pure hypothetical speculation on the part of IT support person who later committed #suicide I endured 7 month isolating process to
reach a predetermined outcome. This included an arbitrary, capricious, and biased investigation by the law school Associate Dean. The very same one I had filed a complaint about earlier in semester. Who was in charge of investigation, initial determination of guilt, and penalty
reccomendation. In this role a Summary of Factual Findings is presented to the Honor Board for a hearing. This document is the most one sided presentation of facts you could imagine and includes NOTHING exculpatory or positive things about investigation. For example NO mention
there was a Proctor for exam or that AD had interviewed the Proctor who stated every time the student testing area was visited the student appeared to be taking the exam, acted normally, and did not have anything in the testing area was not supposed to have. The Proctor stated
she never looked at student computer screen during visit but could have done so. Somehow this is the students fault and the possibility of cheating is real. Everything about the Summary of Facts shows this was not a search for the truth, it was a head hunting expedition turning
Innocent until proven guilty on its head. This 💯 forces a student to put on a defense because the only information provided the Triar of Facts is of supposed guilt. Student questions about the process go unanswered and University provides nothing regarding rules, policies, or
procedures regarding witnesses, evidence, civil procedure, expert witnesses, etc. except for the minimal information in Student Code of Conduct. Student is denied blank copies of @ExamSoft test for experts to use in testing to recreate the issue. The software company would not
provide to the student directly stating only can get from University. @ExamSoft also refused to answer any questions from student experts in effort to determine the issue. Student provides sworn affidavit denying charges along with two polygraph exams from different certified
examiners stating the student is telling the truth. Despite precedent from the State of Iowa Supreme Court allowing polygraph evidence at school disciplinary hearings the student is not allowed to introduce in hearing. Student is denied ability to call any character witnesses
despite his character as central theme of Hearing. Character witnesses was determined to include any classmates, Professors, business partners, politicians, or attorneys worked with extensively over career because could “backdoor” as character witness. After student turned in
exhibits and witness list he was forced to reduce the number and amount because would take to long. During the long and dragged out investigation period the 20 Year Chair of the Honor Board (Professor known as Student Advocate) was removed and replaced by a previous Dean of law
school who continues as Professor. Then the Associate Dean then takes role as Prosector therefore not allowing the student to ask any questions or ask why exculpatory items regarding investigation were not followed up on. The five person student/faculty Honor Board also has a
student member the accused student did not provide a positive job recommendation for at a friends law office. Remember student has 25+ years in community running several companies having a successful previous business career. Despite to objections about conflict of interest and
bias with the investigation, associate dean as prosector, and two members of honor board the hearing presses on. The student hired an attorney already seeing the writing on the wall, hearing the train that had been set in motion to run him down, and the blatant unfair way almost
everything had been handled. After the main witness (IT Support) person committed suicide in July days after the Associate Dean published Summary of Factual Findings the student attorney inquired with the law school attorney and Associate Dean how this witness testimony was going
to be handled. He inquired on several occasions in July & August receiving no answer before first hearing night in August. At this hearing the student had to defend a brief why he should be allowed to present any evidence in the case, be allowed to call any witnesses, or provide
any information whatsoever outside of the Associate Dean Summary of Findings. The Honor Board allowed student to introduce items on narrow scope and excluded items mentioned earlier including polygraph and character witnesses. The Student also objected to the deceased witness
being designated as an “expert” under any state or federal guidelines and to his previous written information allowed as evidence. Besides the student pointing out obvious problems with his conclusions it was so prejudicial against the student not being able to cross examine in
front of honor board as triad of facts. A date was set approximately two weeks for next hearing and none of those objections were decided upon with Honor Board going into into Executive Session to discuss. Three days before the next hearing date the Associate Dean sends e-mail
CV for a “substitute expert witness” to replace the deceased. No expert report was provided, no summary of testimony, no statements of conclusions only receiving notice and CV for a different University IT person the Dean was calling as “Expert.” The Student immediately objected
& was handled at the Hearing. Student objected to the timing, notice, provided no report or any information allowing for a preparation of defense, cross-examination, or to obtain his own experts. Also objecting to a “substitute” expert cannot be called to replace a lay/fact
witness. Student reminded the Honor Board of previous objection in his brief and at the hearing about this issue. Additionally, student pointed out he never received the previously requested CV from Associate Dean for the previous IT Manager he designated as “expert” witness &
@threadreaderapp please unroll
