From: sbrack@jupiter.cse.UTOLEDO.edu (Steven S. Brack)
Subject: (none)
Originator: daemon@eff.org
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 07:08:40 GMT

To: caf-talk@eff.org, lighthouse!wiley@uunet.UU.NET (Wiley Hodges)
Subject: Re: Steven S. Brack case
Cc: ak541@cleveland.freenet.edu,bmiller@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu,rdixon@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu,mleugers@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk

In article <9211050132.AA12499@lighthouse.lighthouse.com> lighthouse!wiley@uunet.UU.NET (Wiley Hodges) writes:
: 
: I'm afraid I've come onto the tail end of this discussion, but I am  
: left with a couple of outstanding questions. When I retrieved the  
: files related to Mr. Brack's case from the archive server, I was  
: surprised to see that there was no formal decision from the  
: disciplinary board outlining findings of fact and rationale for the  
: decision amongst those papers. 
: 
	There was never a formal decision issued by the panel, only a
	finding that I violated said provisions of OSU's rules.
	It's kind of like fighting Jello.  There's nothing there, so
	I can't really argue to refute it.  Every blow I strike just
	sucks me deeper in. 
: 
: Was such an opinion issued? Are the documents on the server the only  
: documents which were ever sent to Mr. Brack?

	I currently have a sheaf of papers over an inch thick relating to my
	case.  What is on the archive server is what I typed in of the 
	documents.  If someone wants to OCR the documents, I'm willing to
	provide copies.  I don't have the equipment here.  The basic rationale
	of the committee's decision seems to have been that Academic COmputing
	Services (ACS) was correct, without question, in its findings about
	my case.  Translating this to he courtroom metaphor, this is the 
	equivalent of the judge deciding that the prosecution's evidence is
	beyond reproach before opening the case.  I was not allowed to 
	call witnesses from ACS, nor to compel any witnesses to testify, no
	matter what their relation to the case.  (Prof. John Bridge, who 
	brought the complaint about my posting the word 'fuck' to a 
	newsgroup, for example.)  I was not allowed to put questions to the
	witnesses, but rather could only suggest questions to the panel.
	I was not allowed to introduce documentary evidence that would have 
	shown that ACS gave me permission to do everything I did.  Matters of
	ACS procedures, including the lack of published rules, were likewise
	off limits.  Despite this, the hearing lasted over 5 hours, one of
	the longest they could remember, with my closing argument taking
	over 30 minutes, including interruptions by the chair, when he thought
	I was saying things that weren't "at issue." 
: 
: I ask these questions because I am surprised by what I *didn't* see  
: in the correspondence. While those documents very clearly outlined  
: the provisions of OSU policy which were allegedly violated, they  
: failed to provide much in the way of evidence or record of testimony  
: to connect specific actions with those alleged violations.

	The charge to the panel was strictly limited to their finding what
	rules were violated; they never even attempted to challenge any
	of the facts ACS presented them. 
: 
: I worked for over three years in the Judicial Programs office at the  
: University of Maryland at College Park, and I would be very surprised  
: to see a dismissal backed with such slim documentation, and no real  
: explicit rationale. My reaction to the OSU disciplinary panel's  
: decision (based on what I have seen) is that it fails to provide any  
: account of the mental journey which delivered the board to it's  
: conclusions.  
: 
	There was a tape-recorded transcript made of the proceedings, but,
	upon my asking, I was old that the actual deliberations of the panel,
	when I was held outside the room, were secret, so I guess we'll never
	know how the panel arrived at its decision. 
: 
: I apologize if all of this is redundant, but I am anxious to learn  
: more about what seems to be a very strange case...

	I'd like to bring suit against Ohio State, but I don't have that kind
	of money.  I'd like o find out how OSU reached the decision it did,
	after the Office of Academic Affairs told ACS that is could find
	no violations of academic policy.  I'd also like to know whether most
	Universities have a rule against violating "other university rules &
	policies," and, if so, if they also apply that rule to cover policies
	that have never been made available to the person charged.  It's 
	quite difficult, IMO, to avoid violating rules I can only find out
	about by violating.  I'd like to know how due process can be maintained
	without the ability to challenge prosecutorial evidence, without the
	power to compel witnesses to appear, or to compel the production of
	documents, or for that matter to directly question the witnesses that
	did choose to come forward?  Where is the due process?  Where is the
	Justice?
							
--
Steven S. Brack        |"But the greatest of|   sbrack@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu
2021 Roanwood Drive    | these is love."    |  STU0061@uoft01.BITNET 
Toledo, OH  43613-1605 \____________________/    brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu 
+1 419 GR4 1010        |  MY OWN  OPINIONS  |   sbrack@maine.cse.utoledo.edu 
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk