Opinion ID: 323207
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Conspiracy Finding

Text: 39 In its 'Finding of Facts' the Disciplinary Hearing Board only made reference to the existence of a conspiracy in its statement as to Jenkins: 40 A conspiracy existed between Larry Jenkins, Louis C. Scott, Jo Ann Acorn, Elmer Glenn Pitre, Larry Campbell, Ernest Brown and others to disturb the peace and cause disruptive actions at the college. 41 Appellants argue that this means we should review the sufficiency of the evidence against the other individuals based upon their own separate findings of facts and absent the conspiracy finding. 42 We disagree. The 'Finding of Facts' wa contained in a single document addressed to the attorneys for the students and for the college and contained statements as to all six appellants, plus findings as to those original plaintiffs who did not appeal. It seems clear that the Board meant for the findings of conspiracy between Jenkins, Scott, Acorn, Pitre and others to apply to each of these named individuals. We do not think it unreasonable to incorporate these findings in the statements of facts as to each of those students mentioned as being a member of the group. 43 The evidence clearly shows that, at least as to Jenkins, Scott and Acorn, these 'leaders,' 'organizers,' and 'instigators' of the boycott did provoke group action which led to violence. They did so not only by the simple expedient of making speeches urging a boycott, but by actively going about the campus in an effort to gain support for the protest. They stimulated many members of the student body to an emotional state which erupted into the serious and destructive violence of the evening of November 2, 1972. The record in this case demonstrates that these three students, from time to time and in varying degrees, had a strong power and influence over the conduct of their fellow students. The mere use of the descriptive term 'peaceful boycott' cannot, under the circumstances of this case, be used to immunize and shield what was actually done. 44 The case against Pitre is not as strong as that against the other three organizers. Nevertheless, the record supports the Board's finding that he was a part of the group as an active participant in the series of meetings which led to the disruptions. 45