The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

Reply 2780
Original post by Athena

I'm unhappy with the way he was treated, and continues to be treated, by university disciplinary procedures. There's no transparency and no recourse to independent justice (you can't get an ombudsman in, for example).


I agree that there should be some recourse to appeal, however I don't think there's a need for an independent ombudsman. The punishment was a removal of his rights as a member of the university, not a fine or a deprivation of his liberty. Had they imposed an external punishment I agree there should be recourse to an independent body, since those kind of punishments should, in my view, be left to real courts. However I think it's right that the university has the power to grant and remove members privileges, and I don't think this should be able to be overruled by an independent body.

If someone were a member of a club and broke the club rules, you would expect that the club would have an internal procedure for deciding whether to remove the club membership from that person. Personally I think that should be a decision for the club, following their internal procedure. It would seem unfair to me for an external body to force the club not to remove their membership, so long as the club had followed its own procedures.

I tend to think the same of Cambridge University. If they had sought a penalty other than suspending his membership, I'd agree it needs independent scrutiny, but I think questions of membership should be within the rights of the university court to decide. The price of doing it internally is that they can only enforce university regulations and only punish by removing university privileges.

I do think their internal procedures could do with some reform, to put an appeal system in place for example, but I don't think it's inappropriate for the university to decide these matters.

Original post by hobnob
There's an important difference, though. A neo-Nazi interrupting a Nobel laureate would be charged in a regular court, the punishment would presumably be in keeping with the way a similar offence would be punished anywhere else in the country, and after the court proceedings, the detailed notes of what happened during the trial would be publicly accessible.


Not if there was no law broken and the neo-Nazi was a member of the university, it'd then be dealt with by the proctors and university court, as this was.

And there's no question that in this case the punishment was particularly harsh. I mean, a few years ago there was a PhD student who shouted and threw a shoe at Wen Jiabao and I think in the end he wasn't even fined. In all fairness, the shoe-thrower missed, and he was a lone heckler who was thrown out of the room quite quickly, but the kind of interruption was very similar - if anything, I'd say it would have been a more aggressive action than a chant, let alone a chant after the speaker had left.

It's a bit as though in this case the guy is being punished far more harshly because other people agreed with him, and because the interruption wasn't sorted out quickly enough and Willets didn't stay around to deliver his speech after all.:s-smilie:


While I can see throwing a shoe to be in some ways worse, and I agree the punishment seems a bit harsh, I think there is a question given the reasoning the university put forward: the charge was disrupting freedom of speech, which this had the effect of doing whereas Wen Jiabao was still able to give his talk; there is a clear danger of repeat protests, so the deterrent effect is important in this case whereas I imagine the Wen Jiabao incident was a one off due to that specific speaker; and having contested the charge and maintained that his actions were appropriate, he hasn't shown the remorse that would yield a reduced sentence. I still think the punishment is too harsh, but the reasoning is clear as to why it is at least somewhat harsh.

I think he is being punished more harshly because the effect of his protest was that Willetts didn't deliver his speech, however that was always a likely outcome of a 20+ minute disruption that others didn't know when it would end. Indeed the epistle mentioned removing his right to speak, suggesting it was the intention rather than an unwanted by-product. I don't think it's inappropriate to punish an act more harshly because the outcome it led to was worse - it's why committing a robbery in which someone innocent is injured yields a higher penalty than the same robbery would without the injury, or why GBH is punished more harshly than a similar assault that didn't cause that level of harm.

Original post by Feefifofum
My problem with it is not with the procedure as much as with the lack of possibility for appeal. Given the extremely harsh nature of the punishment, the student is going to have real problems finding academic employment, since he will have to explain the long gap in his studies. For a relatively minor offence, a punishment that will severely limit his future career prospects seems over the top. After all, if that report is accurate, then Willetts walked off when people climbed onto the stage, not when the letter was read, and the guy who has been punished only joined the group on stage when it was already there, he did not instigate it.


No, Willetts walked off ten minutes into the epistle, which lasted over twenty minutes. The occupation of the stage happened after he'd left.
Reply 2781
Original post by Craghyrax
I really don't. I think that evening was shaping up to be one a proud moment in the Senior Proctor's life, which was then ruined by some students, and that the authorities are having a throwing-toys-out-of-pram response to a mild embarrassment, but on a grand scale. And as hobnob says, the whole trial was a farce. They'd decided what they were going to do about it and clutched at any old excuse to do it, even when that reasoning was inconsistent as the article showed.


I don't think being conducted by the university, as Hobnob says, automatically makes the trial a farce. His defence council seemed to give a pretty good account and the court has explained its reasoning. I'm not sure what inconsistencies the article showed, as I didn't notice them, and I don't think anything in it suggests they'd already decided and clutched at any excuse. Their reasoning fits the outcome and, from what that article says, what happened in the court. That's not to say it's correct, but it seems consistent and explain their actions well enough.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on the characterisation of the procedure. I agree that it's flawed, but I don't think it's anywhere near the sham, toys-out-of-pram type process you do.

Also I disagreed with the theory behind the idea that he robbed Willets' freedom of speech, and if he had, the response that the University gave was extremely over the top - and, as others have pointed out, - in no way consistent with how they've treated other worse offences by students, and by their own staff.


Can I ask, what worse offenders? If this is the case I'd very much agree it shows inconsistency, but I it may be a question of what is considered 'worse'. I get the impression the court considers impeding freedom of speech to be a more serious crime than most people outside the university do, hence the harsh punishment compared to people who committed what most people (but not the university court) would see as greater crimes.

I'm in two minds about this. I like the idea of a university being a bastion of free speech, with acts that impede it being considered serious, however it does lead to outcomes that seem unjustified to most people.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by Drogue
No, Willetts walked off ten minutes into the epistle, which lasted over twenty minutes. The occupation of the stage happened after he'd left.


The article that Craggy linked to (which is pretty much all I know about this, so apologies if it's incorrect) says the following:

"If the defendant had been impeding free speech it was the duty of the Proctors to intervene and they did not do so; it was the occupation of the stage [which Holland did not lead, but only later joined once it had started], not the 'call and response' chant led by him, which caused Mr Willetts to leave"

That's a quotation from his 'defence representative' though, perhaps it was clear at the time that it was the letter that made Willetts leave, rather than the occupation of the stage.
Reply 2783
Original post by Athena

They've given him a suspension so long it will ruin his academic career. It's an extremely petty way of forcing him to leave without Cambridge looking even worse by actually expelling him.


I agree, it seems too harsh. Though if you were to take a sensible sentence and multiply it by the aggravating factors (the lack of admission or remorse, the likelihood of copycat protests and thus need for a deterrent, etc.), as courts are usually required to do, you'd probably end up not a whole world away from this.

I also dispute it would ruin his academic career entirely. I've known people to take a year or two out in the middle of their PhD to do other things. His is enforced rather than voluntary, but there will be no criminal record or such that employers could disqualify him on. That's not to say this isn't a harsh punishment, it clearly is, but I don't think it's a career-ending one.

I don't want to justify the length of suspension as I don't agree with it myself, but from that article and the courts reasoning I can see how they arrived at a harsh sentence in a considered, legitimate manner.
Reply 2784
Original post by Feefifofum
The article that Craggy linked to (which is pretty much all I know about this, so apologies if it's incorrect) says the following:

"If the defendant had been impeding free speech it was the duty of the Proctors to intervene and they did not do so; it was the occupation of the stage [which Holland did not lead, but only later joined once it had started], not the 'call and response' chant led by him, which caused Mr Willetts to leave"

That's a quotation from his 'defence representative' though, perhaps it was clear at the time that it was the letter that made Willetts leave, rather than the occupation of the stage.


Sorry, I misread the bit that said "the University Advocate drew "particular attention... to the fact that, about 10 minutes after the call and response began, Mr Willetts had said that he thought that he should leave"". However I'd contend that the epistle, being the act that started this and led to the chanting and occupation, is the primary action. Moreover were this in a normal court (and I imagine similarly here), it isn't only the ringleader but those who join in who have committed offences, so his excuse that he was only the leader for the epistle, and only joined the chanting an occupation, doesn't excuse his actions. It would seem incredibly harsh to charge someone who only joined in and didn't instigate any of it, but he did instigate the act that started it, so the fact that other related acts he was involved in but did not lead also contributed to the impediment to freedom of speech doesn't absolve him, in my view. Given the stated intention in what he read out to stop Willetts from speaking, making this point seems like arguing over a technicality rather than the substance, though this is just my view.
Original post by Drogue
I don't think being conducted by the university, as Hobnob says, automatically makes the trial a farce.
The description in the article showed that it was a farce.
His defence council seemed to give a pretty good account and the court has explained its reasoning. I'm not sure what inconsistencies the article showed, as I didn't notice them, and I don't think anything in it suggests they'd already decided and clutched at any excuse. Their reasoning fits the outcome and, from what that article says, what happened in the court. That's not to say it's correct, but it seems consistent and explain their actions well enough.
The reasons they used to defend their choice were crap.
Can I ask, what worse offenders?

You shouldn't. Hobnob already gave one famous example, and it has also been pointed out that Cambridge has happily turned a quiet eye to its own fellows being convicted of child pornography (Caius a few years ago, Jesus this year) which is obviously a million times more serious than interrupting Willetts.

Sorry for being short with you but I just get the impression that you very much dislike hearing anybody criticised, and that you have some sort of innate urge to dilute or neutralise any criticisms you hear from people. I can't really relate with the seeming need to always defend the status quo and the actions of authorities.
Reply 2786
Original post by Craghyrax
Sorry for being short with you but I just get the impression that you very much dislike hearing anybody criticised, and that you have some sort of innate urge to dilute or neutralise any criticisms you hear from people. I can't really relate with the seeming need to always defend the status quo and the actions of authorities.


I don't dislike hearing anybody criticised, though I do tend to provide the other side to arguments (positive or negative) as I usually think there are two sides worth hearing. As for defending the status quo, I guess that's mainly because I usually happen to agree with the status quo, or at least can see the reasons why it's the status quo.

I'm not sure why any of that's a reason to be short with me, but I've no real issue with it :smile:
(edited 11 years ago)
While I know that I don't see eye to eye with some regards the freedom of speech issue here, the punishment seems hugely dispproportionate to the offence. Is there anywhere which discusses the reasoning for the length of punishment awarded? I agree with Athena - this is essentially a backhanded way of expelling him.

I disagree with the kind of protest in which they engaged - basically 'who shouts loudest wins the right to free speech' - but such strong punishment suggests to me that Cambridge is trying to frighten all its students into being submissive and not to engage in any kind of protest. As a public body, can they be subject to judicial review for this kind of decision? I can't remember what the admissibility criteria would be for such a kind of hearing.
I don't think I knew the name of the person rusticated before. I've just realised I vaguely know him...and from what I vaguely know about him, I doubt this will be the last we hear of this...
Original post by Drogue

I'm not sure why any of that's a reason to be short with me, but I've no real issue with it :smile:

Well it was last night I was short, and I think it was just because I was very angry after reading that article and pretty much everyone I know also is. And you seemed to be backing up the other side just for the sake of it rather than because they're actually right. So its not a justification, but a reason :p:

flying plum
As a public body, can they be subject to judicial review for this kind of decision? I can't remember what the admissibility criteria would be for such a kind of hearing.

From what I heard no. I have a friend who is a barrister, and since he was a postgraduate student at Cambridge last year, and is now doing some research for the Uni apparently they approached him for advice. From what I understood, Cambridge is essentially isolated from regular legal proceedings. All the parties involved in the trial (the judge and so forth) were in house not independent.
I'm reading an awesome article on World of Warcraft :biggrin:

:awesome:
Trainee scheme application for the BBC sent off! :afraid: I don't like this real world stuff :nope:
Reply 2792
Wish students had the decency to reply to their emails :mad:
Original post by apotoftea
Wish students had the decency to reply to their emails :mad:


:console:
Wish my Bradford assay had the decency to work :s-smilie:
Original post by Craghyrax
I'm reading an awesome article on World of Warcraft :biggrin:


:awesome:

I used to play that game, back in the day. Not for very long though, got banned after a few weeks. :mad: I have a lvl 30 Druid called Nobzurmom. Goodtimes.
Reply 2796
Original post by The_Lonely_Goatherd
:console:


Thanks, nothing major, more a lack of manners.

In other news got my meetings sorted thankfully and the book I'm trying to read to review is awful :s-smilie:
Original post by apotoftea
Thanks, nothing major, more a lack of manners.

In other news got my meetings sorted thankfully and the book I'm trying to read to review is awful :s-smilie:


It would piss me off if I were in your situation, so I think you're justified in your frustration :console:

What do you do in such an instance? Do you still have to pretend it's good? :ninja:
Reply 2798
Original post by The_Lonely_Goatherd
It would piss me off if I were in your situation, so I think you're justified in your frustration :console:

What do you do in such an instance? Do you still have to pretend it's good? :ninja:


I can be critical if I justify it. I just can't write 'this is crap'. Unfortunately.
Original post by apotoftea
I can be critical if I justify it. I just can't write 'this is crap'. Unfortunately.


Life would generally be a lot easier if we could keep things short and blunt :sadnod:

Latest