Protesters say case is biased

   
   
   By Andrea Lamberti 
   
   Ronald W. Francis G and Steven D. Penn G will appear before the
   Committee on Discipline facing charges of assault and assault and
   battery on a police officer. Penn and Francis assert that the cases
   are discriminatory and not grounded in factual evidence, and that the
   true motivation for the hearing is political harassment. The exact
   date for the hearing has not been set, Penn said. 
   
   "The disciplinary cases . . . exist solely for the purpose of
   harassing Francis and Penn for their long-standing willingness to
   express their political viewpoints," according to a pre-hearing motion
   for dismissal, which Penn and Francis submitted May 1. The two also
   submitted pre-hearing motions for discovery and for an open hearing to
   COD Chair Sheila E. Widnall '60, who denied them. 
   
   The charges stem from Campus Police statements on a March 2
   demonstration organized by the Coalition Against Apartheid. During the
   protest, demonstrators called for divestment in front of the home of
   President Paul E. Gray '54 and in the lobby of Building E52, during an
   MIT Corporation meeting and luncheon. 
   
   The police charge Penn and Francis with assault, claiming they "led a
   rush of demonstrators into [the] elevator at E52," and that this rush
   "caused an injury to Officer Rosie Sanders." But Penn and Francis said
   they did not lead the group into the elevator, and they will submit as
   evidence photographs that show they were not the first demonstrators
   into the elevator. 
   
   In an attempt to enter the sixth-floor Faculty Club, where Corporation
   members were eating lunch, eight demonstrators occupied the only
   elevator that was programmed to go to the sixth floor. 
   
   Francis is also charged with assault and battery on a police officer
   for allegedly kicking Officer Robert J. Molino while demonstrators
   were trying to enter the sixth floor from the stairwell of E52.
   Francis has denied kicking Molino. 
   
   The police charge that the two demonstrators violated section 3.33.3
   of MIT Policies and Procedures, which states that "all members of the
   MIT community are expected to conduct themselves with proper respect
   for one another and for each other's property." 
   
   Campus Police Chief Anne P. Glavin said she took the charges to the
   COD, rather than through the public judicial system, because "no
   arrests were made" the day of the demonstration. Widnall "decided a
   hearing [was] warranted" after reviewing the Campus Police complaint,
   Arnold R. Henderson Jr., the dean's office staff support to the COD,
   told Penn in a letter dated April 3. 
   
   
   
   Protesters say police 
   
   have other motives 
   
   
   
   One thrust of Francis and Penn's defense is that other motives exist
   for the charges against them. "I don't think we can deal on merely
   factual defense; we also have to question why it is these charges [are
   being] brought up in the first place," Penn said in an interview
   Sunday. 
   
   Also, "the fact that these cases are solely motivated by reasons of
   political harassment should be apparent from the sheer lack of
   credible evidence" presented by the Campus Police, Penn and Francis
   state in their motion for dismissal. 
   
   "There should be some evidence that distinguishes our actions" from
   those of the rest of the group, Penn said, because they were the only
   two arrested. He added that Glavin has to provide that evidence, and
   she "cannot do that." 
   
   The Campus Police report identifies several of the demonstrators in
   the elevator. But Glavin would not "comment publicly" on the fact that
   Penn and Francis were the only two charged with causing Sanders'
   injury. 
   
   Last month, though, she said they were the two charged because they
   were "the ones [Officer Sanders] could identify." In Sanders' own
   account of the events, she identifies one demonstrator and describes
   two others. 
   
   Penn and Francis also said MIT brought the case to take time away from
   their school work and, in particular, from their political activities.
   
   
   The two will submit photographs as evidence against all the charges.
   One photograph shows Penn and Francis outside of the elevator after
   several demonstrators are already inside. [See front page photo.] 
   
   They have named Professor Frank S. Jones and Adjunct Professor Melvin
   H. King, both from the Department of Urban Studies and Planning, as
   advisors for their case. In any COD case, the accused students are
   allowed "the right to assistance in preparation of [their] defense."
   Penn and Francis asked King and Jones to speak on their behalf because
   "these are respected professors," Francis said. 
   
   
   
   Demonstrators submit motion 
   
   to dismiss the case 
   
   [el5] 
   
   The pre-hearing motions, which Widnall denied, were an effort by Penn
   and Francis to apply Massachusetts state laws to their case. To
   stipulate that "the COD must comply with the basic procedures
   established by the Commonwealth's judicial system," their motion for
   dismissal cites the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act, which "in part
   guarantees the basic civil rights to employees, students, and clients
   of private institutions." 
   
   In a court of law, a motion for dismissal would be considered before
   the hearing. However, the rules and regulations of the COD do not
   account for the possibility of pre-hearing motions. In a given case,
   the only statement accepted from an accused student is a written
   response to charges against him or her. 
   
   In a letter to Penn, Widnall denied the motion for dismissal, and
   claimed that it "raises factual issues which must be decided on by the
   [COD] on the basis of evidence at the hearing." 
   
   Their pre-hearing motion for dismissal also cites the collaborative
   nature of the Campus Police report, stating that the reports were not
   "the officers' original or individual viewpoints." 
   
   
   
   Penn, Francis press 
   
   motion for discovery 
   
   
   
   Penn and Francis also submitted a pre-hearing motion for discovery,
   which in a court of law would give them access to all evidence
   possessed by the prosecution "that may be useful in constructing their
   defense," according to the motion. 
   
   The COD "will furnish [Penn] with all photographs which the MIT Campus
   Police intend to introduce as evidence during the hearing," according
   to Widnall's letter, as well as a list of witnesses that will be
   called to testify. Widnall otherwise denied the motion for discovery,
   though, because it "requests information outside the scope of the
   hearing." The students will not be given access to photographs the
   Campus Police do not introduce. 
   
   The motion listed 10 items Penn and Francis considered relevant to
   their case, such as records of their political activity on campus,
   written and verbal discussions of them and the CAA, and "all
   photographs and videos taken since January 1" by MIT employees,
   "specifically members of the MIT Campus Police, of [CAA] divestment
   demonstrations, or participants." 
   
   Widnall did not agree to accept Penn's photographs as evidence, he
   said, unless he provided her with the complete roll of film taken at
   the scene of the demonstration. They submitted four photographs, which
   show events happening on the sixth-floor stairwell and the crowded
   scene in front of the elevator. 
   
   Widnall is not required to follow a specific procedure for evidence.
   The "formal rules of evidence that apply to civil judicial processes
   shall not be applicable" to COD hearings, according to the COD rules
   and regulations. 
   
   Glavin said the Campus Police would turn over "whatever [evidence] the
   COD chair asks for." 
   
   
   
   COD chair denies motion 
   
   for open hearing 
   
   
   
   Widnall also denied the pre-hearing motion for an open hearing, which
   Penn and Francis submitted April 30. Widnall denied the motion,
   because all COD hearings "are closed to individuals who are not
   directly involved" in the hearing, according to COD rules and
   regulations. 
   
   Penn and Francis argued that the hearings "should be made open to the
   community," according to the motion for an open hearing. 
   
   "To close this case to the public would directly violate Commonwealth
   statutes and the principles of the university. . . . [We] would
   welcome a public hearing," Penn and Francis state in the motion.
   "Moreover we believe that the hearing, if it is not open to the
   public, will not receive adequate community scrutiny." 
   
   In an interview last month, Widnall would not discuss the case
   against Penn and Francis. "It's a serious right of privacy for
   students," she said. Widnall was not available for comment yesterday. 
   
   
   
    
     _________________________________________________________________ 
   
   
   
   Copyright 1990 by The Tech. All rights reserved.
   This story was originally published on Tuesday, May 15, 1990. 
   Volume 110, Number 27
   The story began on page 1 and jumped to page 2. 
   
   This article may be freely distributed electronically, provided it is
   distributed in its entirety and includes this notice, but may not be
   reprinted without the express written permission of The Tech. Write to
   archive@the-tech.mit.edu for additional details. 
   
   Other stories in this issue Tech home page Search archives
   ____________________