Investigation Report: Mougheis Umar and Tumo Koontse

v

Association for Campus Entertainment (ACE)

 

 

To: Tinga Adiang, President of Thelomathesian Society

From: Rance Davis, Associate Dean for Student Life

Kimberly Flint-Hamilton, Associate Dean for Diversity and Inclusion

Date Submitted: April 30, 2018

 

1. Summary of Allegations/Complaint

• Background

a. Racial bias during the Spring 2017 elections

Steven Valverde Porras submitted an application for ACE President during the Spring 2017 elections. His was the only application for president. Fikiswa Tsabede submitted an  application for ACE vice president. Hers was the only application for vice president. At the close of the election, Valverde Porras was informed that he had won the election for secretary, a role for which he did not apply, and Tsabede was informed that she won the election for treasurer, a role for which she did not apply. Mougheis Umar and Tumo Koontse allege that ACE was unwilling to grant Valverde Porras and Tsabede the positions they won in the election because of racial bias.

b. Discrimination in ACE

During the regularly scheduled Thelmo meeting on Wednesday February 28, 2018, Senators Tumo Koontse and Mougheis Umar addressed the Senate with concerns about the Association for Campus Entertainment (ACE). The following allegation was made: “… this issue had to do with ACE members discriminating against minority groups on campus and assigning positions based off of race, or nationality.” A request was made for Thelmo to look into the matter.[1]

• Applicable Policy Provisions

a.  Discriminatory Harassment Policy

It is the policy of St. Lawrence University that all our employees and students should be able to enjoy a work and educational environment free from all forms of discrimination and discriminatory harassment, including sexual harassment. The St. Lawrence University Nondiscrimination, Discriminatory Harassment and Sexual Harassment Policies are located in the University’s web site www.stlawu.edu/human-resources/equity-policies. Formal complaints of alleged discriminatory harassment are heard by the Discriminatory Harassment Hearing Board, which is described in the SLU website www.stlawu.edu/humanresources/equity-policies (Hearing Board for complaints of Discriminatory Harassment – DHHB). For more information about the DHHB or other venues for complaints contact Lisa M. Cania, vice president for community and employee relations, Vilas 114, lcania@stlawu.edu, 315-229-5567, fax 315-229-7430.[2]

b. Statement of Student Rights: NONDISCRIMINATION

Students have the right not to be discriminated against by any agent or organization of St. Lawrence University for reasons of age, creed, ethnic or national origin, gender, disability, marital status, political or social affiliation, race, religion, or sexual orientation. Students who feel they have been discriminated against for any of the above reasons may contact the Office of Judicial Affairs at 315-229-5550, 238 Student Center; or the Vice President and Dean of Student Life at 315-229-5311, 234 Student Center; or Safety and Security, 315-229-5555, ground floor of The Diana B. Torrey `82 Health & Counseling Center, 76 Park St.[3]

c. Student Reported Bias-related Incidents

-What is a Bias-related Incident?

Bias-related incidents are defined as behavior that constitutes an expression of hostility against the person or property of another because of the targeted person’s race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, national origin, gender, age, marital status, political affiliation, or disability (definitions printed below). They may or may not constitute a criminal offense. • Examples of bias-related incidents include, but are not limited to verbal or written use of degrading language or insults motivated from a belief or perception about a person’s race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, national origin, gender, age, marital status, political affiliation, or disability regardless of whether the belief or perception is correct. How to report a Bias-related Incident: • Contact your Community Assistant, Residential Coordinator, or Safety & Security.[4]

II. Procedural History

• Timing of Investigation[5]

1. Tinga Adiang scheduled a meeting with Rance Davis and Kimberly Flint-Hamilton for Tuesday, March 13, 2018.[6] At that meeting President Adiang and Vice President Converse requested that Davis and Flint-Hamilton conduct an investigation into the allegation of bias/harassment. Davis and Flint-Hamilton agreed, and requested that the names of involved parties and witnesses be provided to them.

 

2. Adiang emailed an initial list of names to Davis on the evening of March 13, 2018. He announced at the regularly-scheduled Thelmo meeting on the evening of March 14, 2018, that the investigation would begin immediately, and invited senators to submit additional names.

 

3. Investigators Davis and Flint-Hamilton met on March 15, 2018 to review the names that had been submitted. Since Spring Break began at the end of the day on March 16 and extended through March 25 and students would be away from campus, it was decided to begin the investigation on March 26, 2018. They met again on March 26, 2018 to plan the interview process.

 

4. Investigators Davis and Flint-Hamilton interviewed both Umar and Koontse. Nine witnesses were also interviewed. Additionally, two email reflections on the incident were received from students who were studying on off-campus programs. Investigators prepared a written formal investigation report based upon the information reported during the course of the investigation.

 

III. Information Considered During the Investigation

a. Content

Investigators interviewed Mougheis Umar and Tumo Koontse (complainants). Investigators also interviewed the following witnesses: Grace King, Cecelia Rooney, Ryan Young, Steven Valvede Porras, Namarig Kram, Moemedi Wazzza Rakhudu, Rian Falcon, Tim Regan, and John Robert O’Connor. In addition, reflections on the allegations of bias were emailed to investigators by two students who are currently studying on off-campus programs:  Fikiswa Tsabede and Mary Santos.

IV. Factual Findings

Allegation 1: Racial bias during Spring 2017 elections

The constitution under which the Spring 2017 elections were held[7] states the following:

Section 2

• The President must hold a position on ACE a minimum of two semesters (not necessarily consecutive) in order to qualify for election.
• In the event that there are no eligible members of ACE to fill the position of President, it will be left to the discretion of the Executive Board to fill the position with a candidate who meets as many criteria as possible.

 Section 3

• The Vice President must hold a position on ACE a minimum of two (not necessarily consecutive) semesters in order to qualify for election.
• In the event that there are no eligible members of ACE to fill the position of Vice President, it will be left to the discretion of the Executive Board to fill the position with a candidate who meets as many criteria as possible.

Neither Valverde Porras and Tsabede had served in ACE prior to the election. Under normal circumstances they would have been considered ineligible, but because they ran unopposed, they were eligible for the offices according the revised constitution.

During the investigation it became clear that, because the Spring 2017 election was held just weeks following ratification of the revised constitution, there was confusion among the members of the executive board and they reverted to prior behaviors during the election. Traditionally, the membership had exercised the privilege of appointing candidates that they chose to whatever position they felt was appropriate, regardless of the position for which they had applied. The effect of this practice was to fill open positions with members’ friends and to recycle current leaders into new and higher-level leadership roles. Most students who had applied for roles within ACE didn’t question the practice. In the words of one interviewee:

“[Membership] was very fluid. If you wanted to be on ACE you would do any job. It wasn’t like you applied for just one position.”

This sentiment was echoed by several students. Yet, to students who were not part of the ACE culture and who did not have friends in the organization, particularly to students of color and international students, this fluid practice looked and felt nepotistic and exclusionary. Three witness statements reflect this sentiment:

1. That’s how they’re keeping their friends, from Commons. If they don’t get one position they were assured another.
2. They wanted to make sure their friends could stay in ACE.
3. There was a correlation between people of color getting into ACE – they weren’t getting in or weren’t getting the positions they wanted, but whites did, they got in and they got their positions.

During the deliberations to fill the position of president, a concern was raised about Valverde Porras’ candidacy involving an assertion that he was overqualified for the position of president. There is a discrepancy in the way this was described to us. According to one witness who was present during the meeting, the “overqualified” statement was meant to discourage members from voting for him:

[Someone] said he was too overqualified. I remember it exactly. [The person] said, “He speaks more than two languages!”

Another eyewitness recounted the deliberation differently:

[During one of the open meetings] a question was raised, how can someone be overqualified for president but not for secretary? I said, no, how can that be? Then I remember [someone] saying during the deliberations, “Look at his list of accomplishments, if anything he’s overqualified!” [The person] was trying to support Steven.

A third eyewitness corroborated the second description above, explaining that the statement regarding qualifications seemed to have been intended to support Valverde Porras, but that it wasn’t entirely clear. This witness indicated that, in subsequent conversations with the ACE membership, some thought it was a “weird train of thought” to describe Valverde Porras’ candidacy.

After Valverde Porras was asked to serve as secretary, he spoke with O’Connor (advisor to ACE) and expressed his concerns that the constitution was not followed. Valverde Porras and O’Connor approached the executive board with these concerns, and the board agreed to nullify the election results and hold a new election. This process was confusing for all, but especially for the candidates.

Several interviewees questioned the legitimacy of Mary Santos’ presidential candidacy. Although she had the requisite two semesters of experience, Santos ended up serving in the office of ACE president for only one semester and traveled during the Spring 2018 term, which would have been the second term of her presidency. ACE presidents are required to serve for a full year. Santos’ decision to study abroad, however, appears to have been made subsequent to the ACE election. In addition, several interviewees questioned the legitimacy of the candidacy of the person who won the vice presidential election on the grounds that she did not have the requisite two prior semesters in ACE. It appears, however, that none of the candidates for vice president had the requisite two semesters of experience.

Conclusions for allegation 1:

The chain of events that lead Valverde Porras to lose the ACE presidential election and Tsabede to lose the ACE vice presidential election is very troubling to the investigators. First, the leadership team failed to follow their own constitution. Then, after admitting that they had made this error, they opened a new election cycle that allowed additional students to declare their candidacy. 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. Here, the distinction between intent and impact needs to be noted. 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.

 

Allegation 2: Discrimination in ACE

Most of the students we interviewed, both students of color and majority culture students, agreed that bias exists within the organization. Virtually everyone agreed that the nature of the bias is to favor the friends of current or recent members. There was also an acknowledgement among many interviewees that there is a bias in favor of Commons College.

The investigators were not presented with clear evidence of direct, intentional bias against non-white or international students. However, the impact of the bias in favor of members’ friends affected students of color and international students deeply. In other words, what appears to majority culture students as an innocent and fun strategy to ensure that their friends continue in leadership roles in ACE, students of color experience as exclusionary and biased against them based on their social identity. This is problematic, especially since the budget controlled by ACE is in excess of $300,000 and the organization is meant to provide entertainment for the entire community, not just the friends of past and current members. Problematic also is the fact that not only does this practice fail to promote diversity and inclusion; instead it promotes homogeneity and exclusion.

The investigators found the practice of “blind voting” particularly concerning. This process was described to investigators as a request for members to close their eyes and raise their hands for their preferred candidate while one member of the leadership counts the votes. This process is completely lacking in transparency – there is no way for the membership to confirm the number of votes that each candidate receives.

The investigators also found it troubling that, in the shadow of the conflict regarding racial bias, it did not occur to the ACE leadership to consider how rapidly students of color were leaving the organization.  Of the five students of color/international students who have held leadership positions in ACE over the last several years,[8] 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. It is significant that a student of color, who had experience in ACE, was not elected for his desired position. Not only did he not benefit from the friend-bias; a majority-culture student with no prior ACE experience was elected in his stead. Even if the bias is not overtly or intentionally against students of color, it still manifests in exactly that way and affects the entire organization. In fact, the bias affects the entire campus. Majority culture students as well as students of color that we interviewed expressed feelings of embitterment, cynicism, and embarrassment, based on the biases they witnessed. Below are quotes from the transcripts of several interviewees:

 

• I honestly felt trapped and a black token just to cover a certain quota. I was seen and not heard. I didn’t feel welcomed at all. I dreaded ACE meetings and events because it was a constant reminder of that fact that this was not my space.

 

• I can’t say whether these biases were overt, implicit, or structural. All I can say is that they exist and are very strong.

 

• It’s disappointing to see what’s happening, and that students of color are leaving the group. Less than two semesters ago we had three [people of color].

 

• I’m emotionally and physically drained. This is really disappointing. I don’t think you guys understand.

 

• I resigned … it was psychologically draining.

 

• A lot of students … say they’re just trying to keep their friends in positions, it’s not outright racism. But it’s still racism – either way it’s a problem.

 

• I think people aren’t aware of their own implicit biases.

 

• The events … are tailored toward a certain demographic. Like, they’re not inclusive. … They don’t try to promote diversity and inclusion in any way.

 

• I’m personally embarrassed that I didn’t think this was an issue. Someone thought they didn’t have a fair shot but I didn’t even notice. It’s [my] white privilege …

 

• The internal conversation that I’ve been having with myself is the idea of intent vs. impact. I don’t think the intent of last year’s events was nepotistic or biased. But the impact, no matter the intention, made it appear that way. … I don’t remember anyone discriminating against anyone, no one was trying to be malicious or nepotistic, but the impact, the way it panned out, it still had consequences like that. It’s been hard.

Conclusions for allegation 2:

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. This is deeply troubling and unacceptable. While the investigators applaud ACE for taking the concrete steps to revise their constitution and to make the election process more open and transparent, there is still quite a bit of work to do before this organization can be considered truly inclusive.

V. Recommendations:

In the words of our University Diversity Statement: “To integrate diversity meaningfully into our curricular and extracurricular community life, we acknowledge the need to challenge previous habits and assumptions understanding the structures of power and injustice in which they exist.” The wisdom inherent in this statement is particularly relevant in this situation. Structures of power and injustice – structures that had been invisible to the leadership in ACE – must be challenged, and the difficult and uncomfortable conversations describing the power and injustice and attempting to find a solution must be undertaken. This has been a difficult process for all involved, but especially for students of color and international students, who felt all the more marginalized and silenced as they attempted to be included as part of this organization. Even if the bias was unintentional, we have an obligation as a community to address it.

 

1. The current ACE executive board (Grace King, Cecelia Rooney, Kate Bosworth, and Brittany Welch) must make a public apology. This apology should follow the guidelines outlined in attachment 3.[9] The apology must be made in front of Thelmo before the conclusion of the Spring 2018 semester, and sent to the student body via list servs before the end of the Spring 2018 semester.

 

2. Each incoming ACE executive board, chairs, and co-chairs, including those seated at the present time, will be required to participate in mandatory inclusion, micro aggression & bias training, to be conducted by Associate Dean for Diversity and Inclusion continuing as the Associate Dean for Diversity and Inclusion sees fit.

 

3. The ACE executive board, chairs, and co-chairs will be required to reach out to multicultural student organizations and clubs, a list of whom will be put forth by the Associate Dean for Diversity and Inclusion and approved by the Thelomathesian Society Senate to solicit ideas for programming throughout the following academic year. This outreach must take multiple forms – open meetings, round tables with multicultural student groups, and, personal outreach by ACE members to the regularly-scheduled meetings of these student organizations. ACE members must keep records indicating the nature of the outreach, the names of the organizations they visit, the date and time of the discussions, and a list of ideas from each meeting. These records must be submitted to the Associate Dean for Diversity and Inclusion, the Associate Dean of Student Life and the President of the Thelomathesian Society twice per semester, once mid-semester and once at the end.

 

4. The practice of “blind voting” during meetings, in which members close their eyes and raise their hands and a single member of the organization counts the votes, must be discontinued. Instead, future elections must take place in a transparent way that allows for membership to see the number of ballots cast for each candidate. We recommend the use of paper ballots that are counted by two members of the organization, preferably, one person in favor of each candidate in question.

 

5. The practice of considering members’ friends for positions for which they did not apply must be discontinued. Only candidates who complete the applications should be considered, and only for the positions for which they apply.

 

6. The ACE executive board, chairs, and co-chairs will be invited to participate in a restorative circle during the Fall 2018 semester. Leadership during the 2017-2018 academic year, members and former-members, and leadership during the 2018-2019 academic year, will be invited to participate as well.

 

7. Thelmo, as the governing body for all funded student organizations, should require ACE to present an update of their status with respect to these recommendations by mid-semester Fall 2018 and subsequently will present an update on their status once every semester as part of the report as referred to in article 3. Should they fail to do so, or should their progress be unsatisfactory as deemed by the Thelomathesian Society Senate, the Thelmo Senate can and will re-evaluate their organizational status.

[1] Attachment 1: Minutes from the Thelmo meeting of February 28, 2018. Allegation of discrimination in ACE begins on p. 24.

[2] From Student Handbook, p. 98 (http://www.stlawu.edu/sites/default/files/resource/Student%20Handbook%202017-18%20final.pdf)

[3] From Student Handbook, p. 99.

[4] From Student Handbook, p. 98.

[5] Attachment 2: Timeline for Investigation.

[6] Kimberly Flint-Hamilton was out of the office on university business, attending a conference in Washington, DC, for most of the previous week.

[7] Constitution revised and updated on March 1^st, 2017.

[8] The names of these students are: Autumn Rolack, Tumo Koontse, Moemedi Wazzza Rakhudu, Fikiswa Tsabede, and Dana Austin.

[9] Attachment 3, David Karp, The Little Book of Restorative Justice for Colleges and Universities (Good Books, 2015), pp. 40-41.