ݮƵAPP

Table of Contents

Nassau Community College punishes students, but won’t tell them why

The Long Island community college found two students responsible for discrimination and harassment after blatant due process violations and refusing to share any actual complaints.
Sad college student at school on steps

Shutterstock.com

Email Nassau Community College now and tell them due process is not optional

If actions speak louder than words, then Nassau Community College has made its stance crystal clear: it is not a fan of the First Amendment. This New York institution has an astounding track record of disregarding the rights of students and faculty, but even ݮƵAPP was shocked by the brazen lawlessness of NCC’s recent actions against two student leaders.

The students, NCC Board of Trustees student member Jordon Groom and Academic Senate student chair Grant Peterson, were punished for alleged discrimination and harassment. While these are serious charges, the college fatally undermined the credibility of its sanctions by violating the most basic tenets of due process in doling out its discipline. 

Groom and Peterson both found themselves embroiled in NCC’s broken disciplinary system late last year. NCC administrators initially told them that other students filed complaints against them for “discrimination” and “harassment,” but did not provide any further information. Now both students are left with no recourse, as they wonder how their due process rights could have been so badly violated by their local community college. 

Last November, Peterson received formal notification of two complaints against him from NCC. But “formal” doesn’t mean it gave him any idea of what he allegedly did wrong — NCC just told him that complaints existed.

Peterson was left to use his imagination about the substance of the allegations until Dec. 2, when he met with an NCC administrator, who finally allowed him to see the complaints. The complaints cited a number of instances of Peterson using strong language — like telling another student, “You have no idea what you’re talking about, once again,” or calling an administrator an “idiot.” Doing so was alleged to have been discrimination and harassment.

Importantly, however, the college forbade Peterson from obtaining a copy of the complaint. NCC expected him to review the complaint — one that cited numerous alleged instances and charged him with high-stakes policy violations — and provide a substantive response to those allegations in the same meeting. There was no opportunity to provide a written defense or conduct a substantial review of the complaint. This was the sum total of Peterson’s “hearing.”

Due process protections, when properly followed, ensure fairness in proceedings and outcomes that can be trusted by all participants in the justice system. 

Groom never received formal notification of any complaints. He got an inkling that something was amiss only when he was asked to leave a meeting of the Nassau Board of Trustees in December because of an active investigation—which was news to him.

Days later, he met with the same administrator as Peterson. Only this time, the administrator told Groom the complaint against him had been found meritless and had been closed, without offering any specifics. Great news, right? Wrong.

On Jan. 22, NCC informed both Peterson and Groom they had both been found responsible for discrimination and harassment. The college suspended Peterson from all club and organizational leadership roles for the remainder of the academic year — including from his role as student chair of the NCC Academic Senate. Whatever it was Groom did, he was required to complete a training module. There was no mention of an appeals process.

Obvious and basic principles of due process include:

  • Timely and adequate written notice of charges
  • A hearing process that includes the right to present evidence in your defense
  • A right to appeal

NCC’s failure to provide even these basic requirements doesn’t even pass the “laugh test.” Sitting Peterson down for the first time with a stack of allegations and demanding he defend himself, now, is manifestly unjust. Groom didn’t even get to see the allegations against him before being found guilty, and was given outright misleading information to boot.

FIRE wrote NCC on Feb. 7, explaining how badly the college compromised its disciplinary process by neglecting the basic tenets of due process: 

Simply put, NCC’s procedural abuses have now muddied the waters so severely that they have adversely affected everyone even peripherally involved in the case except NCC administrators. NCC subjected the complainants’ concerns to a broken process. It subjected Peterson and Groom to disciplinary measures without any chance to properly respond to the substance of the complaints — without any due process.

Accusations of discrimination and harassment are supposed to be taken seriously. This kind of total neglect of basic standards screams that it’s not being taken seriously at NCC.

The college responded to us two weeks later, effectively declining to substantively engage with our concerns. With no appeals process available, Peterson and Groom have no internal recourse for this discipline. 

Due process protections, when properly followed, ensure fairness in proceedings and outcomes that can be trusted by all participants in the justice system. Someone needs to tell that to NCC. As we told the college in our letter, “NCC’s failure is comprehensive and total.” The damage this will do to the college and its students down the road still remains to be seen.

 

Recent Articles

FIRE’s award-winning Newsdesk covers the free speech news you need to stay informed.

Share