Charges that the Koala disrupted a Movmiento Estudiantil Chicana/o de Aztlan meeting Nov. 19, 2001, were dropped by the UCSD administration after the campus-wide judicial board found that there was insufficient evidence against the student publication in a June 5 hearing.
Guardian
“”The complaint was dismissed by the designated dean of students based on the findings and conclusions submitted to the dean by the campus-wide judicial board,”” said Director of Student Policies and Judicial Affairs Nicholas S. Aguilar.
While the judicial board case against the Koala has been brought to a close, the conflict between the Koala and the UCSD administration has erupted into a national spectacle.
The struggle between the university and the Koala has gained attention from national media outlets, including The Wall Street Journal, Dr. Laura Schlessinger’s syndicated radio program and United Press International. The Freedom of Individual Rights in Education center has also posted a press release on its Web site accusing the UCSD administration of bias against the Koala for its content. Within its June 21 statement, F.I.R.E. accused Aguilar of “”abandoning even the appearance of impartiality.””
Guardian
Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs Joseph W. Watson asserts that the judicial board hearing was never a question of the Koala’s case, but was in regards to the isolated incident involving the MEChA meeting.
“”It is extremely important to understand that the actions taken by the university have nothing to do with the Koala’s content, but rather with its conduct of behavior,”” Watson said.
According to George Liddle, editor in chief of the Koala, the media’s attention of the conflict has stemmed from a set of e-mails between MEChA member Ernesto Martinez, the student complaintant of the Nov. 19 incident, and Aguilar. The series of e-mails, Liddle alleged, are evidence of the university’s “”gigantic amount of favoritism”” towards MEChA in the resolution process.
Also an issue, Liddle said, is the failure on Aguilar’s part to address violent implications made by Martinez in the e-mails.
“”It has crossed my mind several times to physically fight back so this can stop,”” stated Martinez in one e-mail. “”If no positive support is received from UCSD administration [such as putting a stop to the Koala], then we as students of color will have to retaliate.””
Liddle condemned the administration’s response to Martinez’s statements.
“”The idea that a student can make a threat against our organization directly to the man whose responsibility it is to oversee the enforcement of the student conduct code is absolutely shocking,”” Liddle said. “”He didn’t enforce the rules. He didn’t even mention to [Martinez] that it was against the rules to threaten with violence.””
Watson claimed that the university’s response was misinterpreted by some as condoning Martinez’s statements.
“”Our response was not to encourage students to use violence as a means of solving a problem, but to put the issue into the campus’ disciplinary process,”” he said.
According to Liddle, the Koala filed a suit against UCSD in a San Diego County courthouse on June 5, asking for, among other things, a failed request for an adjunction to stop the judicial board investigation. Liddle said that the specifics of the case could not be disclosed, but that it had to do with “”the abuse of power exhibited by the university.””
Both Watson and Aguilar contend that they are unaware of any lawsuit. The Koala’s legal representative, Elliot Canter, was unavailable for comment.
The university issued a press release June 19, stating that “”the charges against the Koala have consequently been dropped”” due to “”insufficient evidence to substantiate”” the initial complaint. Liddle believes the dropping of the charges is a relief when compared to just an acquittal of the allegations by the judicial board.
“”The judicial board basically found us not guilty, at which point the university decided to drop the charges,”” Liddle said. “”I make that distinction because, apparently, the verdict of the judicial board is a non-binding ruling.””
Liddle maintains that the university could have recreated the complaint into a civil suit if it desired, regardless of the judicial board’s recommendation.
After Martinez submitted a complaint via e-mail to Aguilar and a number of other UCSD administrators and organizations Nov. 20, 2001, the university charged the Koala with violating student code of conduct section 22.10.14.27 for allegedly disrupting a university event.
Martinez contended that the Nov. 19 MEChA meeting was disrupted by a photographer who took pictures of him in an act of retaliation against the content of a recent Koala issue. The Koala maintained that the photographer was not on the publication’s staff, that he was not asked to attend the MEChA meeting by any Koala staff member and that no disruption occurred at all.
According to Koala principal member Jeremy Rode, several of the publication’s members were in attendance at the MEChA meeting. The Koala members, Rode said in his testimony at the May 22 hearing, were not disruptive but were rather “”invited to come to another meeting”” by a MEChA member.
The June 5 hearing was the second time the Koala was tried in front of the judicial board. An earlier hearing on May 22 was nullified by Aguilar because of the presence of campus media in the proceedings. Aguilar said the nullification of the first hearing was in accordance with bylaws of the UCSD student code of conduct protecting a student’s right to privacy.
