Guilty until proven innocent or innocent until proven guilty

The controversial expulsion of WSU football senior nose tackle Robert Barber raised questions about the fairness of Washington State University’s Student Conduct Board.

Barber, an obvious asset to football Head Coach Mike Leach’s team, allegedly left one student concussed in a brawl more than three months ago – shutting down the house party he attended. Exactly two weeks following the start of the school year, Barber had to appear before the Student Conduct Board.

According to the board’s process, a complaint must first be filed in order to be heard. Subsequently, if the case involves even the slightest possibility of suspension or expulsion, the Student Conduct Board automatically reviews the case.

According to WSU’s website, “University Conduct Board hearings are Brief Adjudicative Proceedings (BAPs)…BAPs are not formal adjudicative proceedings under the (Administrative Procedure Act), and are not civil or criminal court hearings; therefore, they have fewer procedural requirements.”

Nearly a week after the informal hearing, the Student Conduct Board declared Barber expelled from WSU. Now, I would be mistaken if I proclaimed that Barber had the absolute right to use physical violence. In no way am I advocating for the alleged assaults that occurred on that muggy July night in Pullman.

I advocate for reforms to Washington State’s Student Conduct Board so future students will proceed through a formal adjudicative proceeding with regulations that mirror a fair trial.

Under our current process, it seems as if students such as Barber are guilty until proven innocent – not innocent until proven guilty. After his expulsion from WSU and before a fair trial, Barber filed an appeal to the Board of Appeals. This resulted in a reduction from the initial expulsion to the current suspension which is in effect until July of 2017.

However, due to Barber’s status of suspension rather than expulsion, WSU President Kirk Shulz may not review the case in any way and at any time.

Seattle Times reporter Stefanie Loh quotes former WSU quarterback Jack Thompson and his disbelief by stating, “These young men are getting skewered … If there’s a violent crime and it’s obvious that the people are just and telling the story correctly, and there’s credibility going both ways, kick his (butt) off the team and put him in jail. I don’t care if he plays for UW or WSU; I don’t want that. If you’re bad, you’re gone. But I want a just system that would give you the rights whether you’re Samoan or Black or what. I don’t care, as long as it’s a fair system.”

I find it difficult to disagree with Thompson on this issue. Justifiably speaking, a university should allow both parties, the accuser and the accused, an equal and fair trial similar to a court of law. While WSU maintains that their system aims to be educational, the system puts the educational rights of the accused at risk.

In fact, to say there’s a lot on the line in a student conduct case is an understatement. An education that costs thousands of dollars, and Barber’s future, should be taken seriously. Rewind back to last spring and you’ll find that Robert Barber was in the talks of possibly being selected as a future NFL draft pick.

Again, I do not justify Barber’s actions, if the allegations are true. It’s not necessarily about the results that came from this case; it is the process that puts a fair trial into questioning.