At the final week of the Thelomathesian Society (Thelmo) on May 5, the Thelmo Senate read and discussed the findings of the investigation against the Association for Campus Entertainment (ACE).

The report concluded that there were instances of bias that affected students of color and international students within ACE, although they did not find tangible evidence that this bias was intentional. Associate Dean for Diversity and Inclusion Kimberley Flint-Hamilton and Associate Dean for Student Life Rance Davis ran the investigation.

They closed the report with seven recommendations that ACE should take going forward. The Senate amended and voted on whether to turn these suggestions into mandates, and ultimately all seven were passed.

The investigation centered around allegations made by Mougheis Umar ’20 and Tumo A. Koontse ’19 concerning discriminatory policies and practices in ACE, particularly regarding last year’s executive board elections. The two specific allegations that the investigation looked into were 1) that there was racial bias during the 2017 spring elections and 2) that there was discrimination in ACE based on race or nationality.

According to the report, during the 2017 spring elections, Steven Valdere Porras and Fikiswa Tsabede submitted applications for president and vice president of ACE, respectively; they were the sole applicants for each position. According to the ACE constitution, both those roles require two semesters of experience in ACE, which neither of the applicants had, but because they ran unopposed, they were eligible for the positions.

However, the constitution had been newly revised, and the ACE executive board acted as they would have under the old constitution, delegating Valdere Porras and Tsabede to different roles. Ultimately, after they were told the constitution had not been followed, they reopened the elections and allowed new applicants to run. Two new applicants, Mary Santos and Cece Rooney, won the positions of president and vice president, respectively. The investigation looked into the circumstances and nuances around these events.

The report concluded that “while no tangible evidence was presented indicating that the leadership was attempting to ‘stack the deck’ by pressuring their preferred candidates who had the requisite two semesters of experiences to run, it is possible to interpret the leadership’s actions in just that way.” The report further stated: “The intent of the leadership may have been an honest attempt to correct an error, but the impact was to create a level of distrust in the leadership and in the voting process, and because students of color and international students were the ones most directly affected, it became easy to conclude that intentional bias was involved.”

The second claim was that there is bias in general towards majority culture students in ACE. According to the report, many of the students who were interviewed agreed that such bias exists, that it favors friends of current or recent members, and that there is a bias in favor of students from Commons College.  The investigation found that “of five students of color/international students who have held leadership positions in ACE over the last several years, three have resigned and one was not selected for a chair position for which he applied. In other words, only one student of color out of the group appeared to have had a positive experience.” The report also included several anecdotes from their interviews with students describing frustrating or negative experiences.

The report praised ACE for revising their constitution and taking steps to make their election process more open and transparent; this past semester, they changed the voting system for president and vice president so that students can vote online, similar to Thelmo senior executive board elections.

However, the report also concluded: “The investigators did not find tangible evidence of intentional racial bias or bias against international students. We did, however, find evidence of what appears to be unintentional bias that affected students of color and international students in a profound way.”

The first change they recommended was that the current ACE executive board members give an apology, both in front of the Thelmo Senate and to the student body via listserv. Current ACE president Grace King ’18 read the apology aloud in the May 2 meeting, with other executive board members present.

The second recommendation was that ACE executive board members, chairs, and co-chairs will be required to participate in mandatory inclusion, micro aggression, & bias training;

Third, they will be required to reach out to multicultural student organizations and clubs, keep record of their outreach, and submit reports twice per semester.

Fourth, they must abolish the practice of “blind voting” during meetings, where members close their eyes and raise their hands while a single member counts the votes.

Fifth, the practice of considering members’ friends for positions for which they did not apply will be discontinued; candidates will receive a position only if they apply for that specific position.

Sixth, all executive board members, chairs, and co-chairs will participate in a restorative circle during fall 2018. Past members will be invited as well.

The seventh and final recommendation is that Thelmo will require ACE to update them on their status every semester at the risk of having their organizational status revoked if they do not follow the prescribed measures.

After the senate finished approving these measures, Moemedi Wazzza Rakhudu ’20, who was recently elected as vice president of ACE for next semester, spoke to express his frustration regarding the actions taken by the Thelmo senior executive board.

He expressed the sentiment that people had been hurt by the actions of ACE members, that enough action had not been taken quickly enough by the executive board, and that the outgoing ACE executive board had gotten off too lightly. Thelmo Chair for Diversity and Inclusivity Sadaf Delawar ’19 also claimed that the students who came forward with the allegations had faced threats as a result.

Members of the senior executive board responded by saying they didn’t take other steps because they wanted to use the investigation to look at what happened. They also said the investigation took the length of time that it did so everyone who wanted to share information was able to do so.

A complete version of the report can be found here.