Updated Aug 7, 2024, 8:53 a.m.
On May 8, Syracuse University distributed an unsigned letter on campus, telling student protestors to move their Gaza Solidarity Encampment (GSE) from SU’s main lawn, to make way for commencement ceremonies. The protestors stayed put and graduation events took place, separated by a fence from the GSE, which would end on May 15.
(This story contains language some might find offensive.)
Nearly a month later, several students received notification from SU’s Community Standards Office, accusing them of violating the order to relocate. Among them was Mary McLoughlin, a graduate political science student in SU’s Maxwell School who goes by the pronouns they/them.
On Tuesday, a panel of University staff picked by Community Standards determined McLoughlin violated the Student Conduct Code by allegedly remaining on the Quad on May 8. The verdict follows a nearly two-month conduct process of shifting accusations from the university.
Throughout, McLoughlin has never denied being near the GSE on May 8 but, they say, as a legal observer, trained by the National Lawyers Guild to serve as a witness to potential police violence against protestors. McLoughlin’s role was confirmed to WAER by Alan Rosenthal, a Syracuse attorney retained for $1 by legal observers of the GSE, to serve as a legal advisor. (Rosenthal says he is not McLoughlin's attorney, nor has he spoken to the student.)
However, in June, McLoughlin was accused by Kyle Dailey – an assistant vice president in SU’s Student Experience office – of being in the camp from May 9 through 12. McLoughlin says that was not true.
Facing conduct probation, which could lead to being stripped of leadership positions at SU, McLoughlin opted for a conduct hearing, which is overseen by Community Standards, a division of Student Experience.
The hearing was scheduled for July 17 and in preparation, McLoughlin says they double-checked with Zach Phillips – the conduct officer in charge of their case – whether they were in trouble for their activities as a legal observer on May 8.
McLoughlin says Phillips said no, they were only in trouble for their alleged presence in the GSE from May 9-12. But the university’s only evidence, according to McLoughlin, was the alleged sighting in Dailey’s report, leaving it to the student to prove that they were not at the encampment.
Not only was the burden of proof on the accused, McLoughlin says Phillips also said they [McLoughlin] had an “incentive to lie” about their whereabouts while Dailey did not.
McLoughlin’s procedural advisor in the case, who accompanied the student through much of the closed-door process but does not wish to be named, confirms McLoughlin’s account for WAER.
For the July conduct hearing, to prove they weren’t at the GSE, McLoughlin provided SU with four days of screenshots, receipts and texts documenting their whereabouts (which they also shared with WAER), some of which were personal.
“I went on a Tinder date and tried to describe it to my employer, which is really bad form,” said McLoughlin. “They shouldn't be learning these things about us.”
McLoughlin also brought witness statements to the conduct hearing, and says that’s when Dailey claimed he had made a mistake in his original report. He had not actually seen McLoughlin in the camp after May 8. But the case then shifted to where McLoughlin was on the day the SU relocation letter was distributed.
“They moved the goalposts,” McLoughlin said, “and told me I would be responsible for proving where I was May 8th.”
Moreover, according to McLoughlin, Dailey said that the new allegations, which were not recorded in a new incident report, were based on secondhand information.
“I had never met Kyle Dailey, so I asked him how he was able to identify me,” said McLoughlin. “It was revealed in the formal hearing that after the fact someone told him I was there, and then he verified it against a photo.”
That “someone” was actually two other administrators, according to McLoughlin, one of whom is Sheriah Dixon. As Dean of Students and an Associate Vice President of Student Experience, Dixon oversees Community Standards.
This back-and-forth is not uncommon, says Amy Kristin Sanders, who teaches media and law at the University of Texas at Austin.
In the former prosecutor’s experience, university conduct hearings often devolve into a “‘he said-she said’ sort of affair that often pits university officials or university employees against students...and this system is tilted in favor of believing the university official.”
Per SU’s Student Conduct System Handbook, hearsay is as admissible as any other form of evidence. Since the conduct process is an internal administrative one, it is not held to the same standards of evidence as actual legal proceedings. Nor can students have attorneys present (except in sexual assault or sexual discrimination cases), although SU can.
“You have to dispel the notion that anything about these proceedings resembles the rights that a defendant would have in a criminal trial,” said Sanders. “It does not.”
WAER reached out to Community Standards with a series of questions, but an SU spokesperson says they “do not comment on stories [regarding] student conduct cases.”
McLoughlin has no transcripts of their formal hearing, which is the only part of the conduct process that is recorded, and only by SU. Students can request and pay for transcripts, but McLoughlin tells WAER the cost of theirs, for the roughly three-hour hearing on Zoom, starts at $770.
On its website, Community Standards says the primary goal of the conduct process is education. Sanders calls “bullshit” on such statements – literally.
“You can print that. Bullshit,” said Sanders. “An educational body would not have the ability to suspend or expel students or engage in any kind of punishment that would permanently affect a student's life negatively.”
While another SU student was offered conduct probation (which they have refused, opting for a conduct hearing instead) for their active role in the GSE, McLoughlin has received a semester-long conduct warning, and must also create a presentation on “how to properly educate and support students engaged in demonstrations” at SU.
But the political science student has said they thought they were properly supporting other students – as a legal observer. Early in the protest, McLoughlin says they brought food and supplies to protestors, some of whom were students in their school, but feared that joining the protest could cost them their job at SU.
However, McLoughlin says after an SU parent was arrested at the encampment on May 5, they thought that as a witness on the sidelines they could protect students while still abiding by University policy.
“Being a legal observer felt like the minimum obligation I had to students as an educator, to keep them safe in a way that was within the bounds of the Student Code of Conduct,” said McLoughlin.
“I made sure to read what the directive that the students were given was, and I made sure not to be on the part of the Quad where students were. I was there because I believe that less institutional violence happens in the presence of witnesses, so being there as a visible witness was important to me.”
Legal observers, however, have no legal standing, even when they make themselves visibly distinct from protestors by wearing neon green hats. Universities are under no obligation to recognize the role, or to distinguish legal observers from active protesters.
Throughout the conduct process, it has been McLoughlin’s word against SU’s.
McLoughlin says they will probably appeal the conduct hearing verdict. Appeals are reviewed by the head of Community Standards, one of the people who identified the student in the first place.
