Student Charged for Political Action, Unable to Appeal

In late 2023, Emerson’s Community Standards Office began charging students for engaging in political action. In the summer of 2024, the Office of Equal Opportunity followed with their own set of charges against pro-Palestinian activists at Emerson. As members of the Emerson community began to scrutinize these discipline processes, many were reassured that both OEO and Community Standards follow procedures that are thorough and fair, and that students (and others) are able to appeal any decision made.

Some students who faced charges from both offices for activities related to Palestine have related testimonies that paint a different picture.

Student X (asked not to be named) has been ‘found responsible’ by OEO and immediately asked to appeal the process because they felt it was biased. Sonia Jurado, the associate vice president who runs the OEO office, responded that disagreeing with the outcome is not a basis to appeal. There are only two grounds to appeal: procedural error or new information. The student added that they don’t know anyone who was able to appeal, “everything they’re doing fits a process that they set up and policies they created, so you can’t really make a case.”

Both OEO and its process is fairly new to Emerson. Prior to 2022, Emerson’s compliance with Title IX, VI and ADA was delegated to several different offices. Jurado came to Emerson to consolidate that work in one office and wrote policies specific to Emerson.

One of her most recent revisions to the policies is adding ‘Shared Ancestry’ to the list of protected categories at Emerson. A list that already included the categories ‘National Origin’ and ‘Ethnicity’. When Sonia Jurado was asked to explain how this new category is different from the other two, she brought up the example of Jewish students who have never been to Israel but feel a strong connection to that country. It was made clear that according to this new policy OEO can charge students and faculty who express views critical of Israel or even the US government.

In the last two months, Community Standards, which operates separately from OEO and is under Student Affairs, sent numerous charges against students for alleged violations of Emerson’s protest policy. Several Resident Assistants were found responsible and attempted to appeal, their appeals were denied. The impact of these charges on RAs is significant. Two of these RAs have been fired from their positions and lost their housing benefit and meal plan. Others are expecting a similar outcome. There has been talk about Conduct Board Hearings as an opportunity for students to appeal with a third party that includes members who are not employed by Community Standards, but students reported that they were assigned an appeals officer who is an employee under the same managerial structure as Community Standards, answering to the same VP, Christie Anglade.

According to a faculty member who was asked to serve on the Conduct Board Hearings, they have never been invited to serve on appeals for students charged for activity related to Palestine.

In the Fall, Student Q (asked not to be named) asked to appeal a Community Standards resolution for non-violent protest activities. The original decision to hold them responsible on several counts was made by Associate Director Danny Foster. When Q asked to appeal that decision, the appeal was handled by the same person, Danny Foster. The student received a quick response that one of the charges against them was removed and the rest of the charges stood, and the sanctions remained the same. Q was placed on probation.

Jurado stated in a presentation to staff that OEO does not make any determinations, and is not involved in the actual investigation, they only oversee the procedure. She said the investigation and final report are done by a third party, outside investigators that her office hires. The report then goes to a panel of faculty and staff that she hand selects and personally trains. The panel makes the final determination. Whether the person charged can appeal the decision or not is determined by her office since they oversee the procedure. There’s no community oversight into OEO’s policy making or enforcement.

According to Jurado, once the investigation is concluded, the investigators compile a report and send it to the accused party for review and comment before it goes to the panel. Several students, including Student X have stated that comments on their reports were dismissed. Whenever they requested that additional context be added to the report, including information they already shared in their interviews that wasn’t included in the summary of events, their requests were rejected, they said.They could only suggest edits to factual statements already in the report, not ask to include additional context. Requests to add more witness testimony were also denied.

Faculty at other colleges who have witnessed similar administrative processes used against student protestors moved to demand disciplinary boards that include both faculty members and students.