Westmoreland "4": Our Judicial System on Trial

Westmoreland "4": Our Judicial System on Trial

School discipline

Four college students on trial for vandalism and noise.

Mello, Michael A.

Mello, Michael. "The Westmoreland '4': Our Judicial System On Trial." HIST298, accessed February 11, 2014. https://hist299.umwhistory.org/admin/items/add

HIST 298, University of Mary Washington

1978-01-20

The materials in this online collection are held by Special Collections, Simpson Library, University of Mary Washington and are available for educational use. For this purpose only, you may reproduce materials without prior permission on the condition that you provide attribution of the source.

2 JPG

300 Dpi

English

Fredericksburg, VA

Like any disciplinary proceeding, the “Westmoreland Four” case has many different aspects to it. Often it is important to keep these aspects mentally separate. In particular, one must make a distinction between the ultimate verdict of punishment, and the manner in which that decision was reached-the process. The judgment and punishment in the case was justifiable: it is difficult to find fault with president Woodard’s actions here. The procedure for an Administrative Hearing deliniated on pages 28-30 of the Handbook were scrupulously followed. More importantly, the severity of the punishments may be justifiable because the Administration apparently approved its case against the four men-in both charges of the indictment. The noise count was never really in doubt; the defendants admitted that they often played their stereos too loud. The vandalism charge was more complex, since no evidence was presented at the Hearing which directly linked any of the four men to any acts of malicious vandalism; but, none was needed. A fifth student, who lives in another dorm was a frequent guest of the four Westmoreland men, had admitted committing some of the damage for which The Four were charged. And the Handbook provides that “Anyone in a residence hall to which he or she is not assigned a room by the college is considered a guest… All guests must abide by the rules and regulations of the college and the student is responsible for the conduct of his guest at all times. Any damages to property will be paid by the students and/or guest.” Thus were the Westmoreland Four indirectly tied to and liable for the vandalism for which they were charged. There was no glaring and obvious injustice in Woodard’s verdict in the case. But what truly bothers me about the whole affair is not the ultimate decision, but rather the process by which that decision was made. Specifically, the Westmoreland Four should have tried instead by President Woodard alone in an Administrative Hearing, the men were denied the due process of the law guaranteed to them by the Handbook as well as the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

It is wrong to blame the decision to convene an Administrative Hearing on Woodard, for the decision to turn this case over to the College President was not made by Woodard alone; it was a joint decision made by Cindy Reeves, Judicial Chairman, Barbara Stammerjohn, and Scott Sharer, Westmoreland Judicial Representative. Ms. Reeves was most emphatic on this point. In a taped interview, I asked her “if it was the students, not the Administration, who decided to send this case to Administrative Hearing.” Her reply was a forceful “yes.”

Of these three students, Ms. Reeves bears the brunt of the responsibility for the decision. This was a judicial matter and her job is to be aware of and proficient in judicial matters; such matters are her specialty within the SA. The Handbook states that she is “the official representative of the Student Association in all matters of judicial concern.” Sharer was her subordinate; she is “responsible for all Residence Hall Judicial Chairman.” Stammerjohn as SA Vice President has no official concern with judicial matters, and hence was present primarily in an advisory capacity. Thus, the person most concerned with judicial matters, the person whom we hope is as close to an expert on judicial practices and procedures that we have, the person most responsible for the decision to convene an Administrative Hearing to dispose of this case, was Cindy Reeves.

Reeves based this decision on essentially four grounds. First, she said that Judicial Court or Joint Council could not handle the case because non-students were “involved”- Dean Clement, a campus police officer, and Resident Hall Advisor testified at the Administrative Hearing. But non-students, particularly campus police and dorm mothers, frequently testify at both Judicial and Joint trials, a fact which Ms. Reeves herself acknowledged.

This is particularly true in visitation cases, for obvious reasons: the Handbook provides that the “Dean of Student Services, accompanied by the Residence Hall Director” should be present when a student’s room is searched for a suspected violation of a college rule or regulation. Further, “the College Police may assist in such a search.” Ms. Reeves’ principle of handling all cases, in which non-students are “involved” over to the Administration, if applied in all such cases, would mean that Woodard would be trying almost all of the cases which now are handled by Judicial Court and Joint Council. No doubt President Woodard would deal fairly with all of these cases, but his time is too valuable to waste trying Judicial and Joint Council cases; Ms. Reeves point might leave some credence if these non-students were plaintiffs in this Westmoreland Four case, but she herself stated that the charges were brought by a student: Scott Sharer. Dean Juanita Clement, Mrs. Janet Barnes, and the officer were only witnesses: as Mrs. Keel and Officer Prescott were witnesses at a Joint Council trial last year and Lonnie Stuterwant was a witness at the Madison Judicial trial last year.

Secondly, Ms. Reeves claims that there was a “loophole” in the section of the Handbook covering Noise Violations. Scott Sharer, who brought this “loophole” to her attention, explained: “let’s say that you’re in a room and I come and tell you its too noisy, would you please turn it down. I have to give you a warning, and if you turn it down, then that’s the end of the incident. Well, if you’re noisy the next night, I have to give you another warning; it’s treated as a separate incident. So even if I must come to your room every night and ask you to turn it down, and you do, then I can’t give you any hall offenses. That was particularly a problem here. When I asked them to turn it down, they did. But it was happening every night.” I will not argue the pros and cons of this warning requirement here, but in any case, this “loophole” does not mean that Judicial or Joint could not take this case. Ms. Reeves has stated that no hall offenses are necessary before these bodies may try a case involving a noise complaint. Noise problems are specifically in Judicial jurisdiction; further, one of the Joint Council’s jobs is to “hear cases of extreme complexity.” This noise matter seems to be such a case; this “loophole” thus is not a valid reason for taking the extreme and, to my knowledge, unprecedented step of handing a Joint Council case over to Administrative Hearing.

Thirdly, Ms. Reeves asserts that a “time element” problem necessitated the convention of an Administrative Hearing; “an immediate solution was needed. A lot of people were upset.” So Ms. Reeves, Ms. Stammerjohn, and Mr. Sharer concluded that because of the immediacy of the problem, the four men should be removed from the dorm until Administrative Hearing could be convened. But the moment they did this, the “time element problem” was to the three students’ decision to convene an Administrative Hearing, how heavily it weighed on their minds. They decided that the Administration should ultimately try the case. Fourthly, Ms. Reeves claims that neither Judicial nor Joint could hear this case because vandalism was involved, an offense not specifically within the jurisdictions of those bodies. She may have a point here, but one could argue just as forcefully that vandalism is not specifically out of the realm of Judicial or Joint either particularly in light of the fact that the need must be extremely compelling before the convention of an Administrative Hearing may be justified. Further, Judicial Courts in the past have heard and passed judgment on cases involving vandalism, although the vandalism in these instances was not committed against College property. When MWC property is involved, a problem arises because only the College may assess for damages. But this problem may be solved in the following manner: Judicial or Joint Council could decide innocence or guilt and then the Administration could assess the accused student for recompance in the event of a guilty verdict. I can sympathize with Ms. Reeves’ position as she met with her two fellow students, President Woodard and Dean Clement on that Wednesday morning. With exams staring her in the face and a complicated case before her, maybe she cannot really be blamed for an error in judgment. Perhaps the thing that bothers me the most about Ms. Reeves’ decision is that she is still defending it to the hilt and worse still, she is ready to repeat it again and again. Ms. Reeves made a mistake. She should admit it.

Newspaper

DeVito, Michael

Williams, Megan