Two wide receivers for the UMaine Orono football team, Paris Minor and Stefan Gomes, were suspended earlier this season for allegedly raping a former student. The Old Town Police Department and Penobscot County District Attorney’s Office have not been able to collect enough evidence to bring the case to court, but the students were still punished and expelled from school in violation of student conduct codes.
The purpose of the student conduct code is to ensure students’ ability to be secure on campus and to excel in their studies. The case in Orono has evoked criticism of the effectiveness of the conduct code. Orono abides by the same set of conduct codes as USM and the entire University of Maine system.
“The Old Town Police Department has done a detailed investigation and has good reason to not suggest prosecution,” said Harrison Richardson, attorney for the two players. “This is a felony charge and for the student conduct committee to permit branding them as rapists without sufficient evidence is serious business.”
Richardson mentioned repeatedly the issue of sufficient corroborating evidence as his major stance against the proceedings in this case. “The case should not have even been brought before the committee,” he said. “It is he-said, she-said, period.”
Under the student conduct code a student is disciplined if found guilty by the test of a preponderance of evidence, the same test as in a civil court – basically if it is most likely true that a person committed the crime then they are guilty.
In addition to requiring only a preponderance of evidence, the decision to take disciplinary action only requires a majority vote by the committee. In many cases the decision is made by only the conduct code officer. The university system makes it much less difficult to find a student guilty than the federal system would.
“It is why a district attorney may or may not take a case,” said Steve Nelson, assistant to the vice president at USM and conduct code officer. “In situations like this when the DA does not have enough information to be able to prosecute, a student can still be found in violation of the conduct code.”
Richardson is in heavy opposition to the student conduct code’s authority over the lives of students outside the university and attacks this case from many different angles. He believes the students in Orono were not given due process, meaning the committee did not handle the case properly. Also, he believes that the university should not have jurisdiction over what students do off campus. The alleged sexual assault was said to have taken place in June and off campus.
“It extends the authority of the university off of campus,” said Richardson. “Fraternities are recognized by the university. If they have a party in Cape Elizabeth and are caught with illegal drugs, they are still in violation of the conduct code.”
While Richardson’s opinion of the student conduct code is less than favorable, Steve Nelson supports the committee and its legality. He said if an incident that occurs off campus jeopardizes a student’s ability to perform successfully at the university, the case is under the jurisdiction of the conduct code.
“The code was written with the assistance of university attorneys. It has to comport with the state and federal constitutions and is built from previously rendered Supreme Court cases that date back to the 1960s,” Nelson said.
Of the constitutionality and fairness supposedly implemented and executed by the university and its conduct code committee, Richardson said, “It is just the opinion of one organization.”
Nelson advocated further the legal process of the committee. “We follow the code as intended and even cross-check ourselves. Especially in cases like the situation in Orono where the accused, the survivor, and the parents, as well as the rest of the university are affected,” he said.
The ultimate question in this case is whether the students have been given due process – whether the conduct committee in Orono properly followed procedure and whether it was right in its decision to discipline the accused students on evidence that was insufficient to bring the case to court.
Richardson has already filed a lawsuit against the university claiming the students were not given due process.
“It is clear that the conduct committee did not follow the rules,” he said.
Richardson not only stands in opposition to the way this case was handled but questions the ability of the code itself and whether it is the proper approach when dealing with situations of such magnitude.
The case is not near closure, but the noise it has created will impact future action by the committee.
“It is certainly a teachable experience,” said Nelson.
The code is reviewed every three years. Next year it will be examined again, and the committee might make changes.
“This is a major conduct case. Learning from this moment will help improve the code,” said Nelson.