Brown Defends Lax Player Suspension, Lawyers Say It Is a “Death Penalty”
GoLocalProv News Team
Brown Defends Lax Player Suspension, Lawyers Say It Is a “Death Penalty”
The university contends that the player constitutes a “significant threat" to the college community while the investigation takes place.
As GoLocal reported earlier in January, two members of the men’s lacrosse team at Brown University were accused this past fall of sexual assault.
GET THE LATEST BREAKING NEWS HERE -- SIGN UP FOR GOLOCAL FREE DAILY EBLASTThe two unrelated incidents took place over the Halloween weekend and Brown placed both students on suspension. For both men, their federal lawsuits seeking reinstatement are ongoing.
New court filings show the sworn testimony of Brown officials regarding the actions taken against the second player — who filed his lawsuit under the pseudonym “David Smith.”
Latest in Legal Battle
Documents filed in federal court show that Brown’s Associate Vice President for Campus Life and Dean of Students Koren Bakkegard defended the university’s actions.
As the Associate Vice President for Campus Life and Dean of Students, Bakkegard reports to Eric Estes, who is the University’s Vice President for Campus Life.
“As the Associate Vice President for Campus Life and Dean of Students, I evaluate a recommendation by the Threat Assessment Team that an emergency removal of a student is warranted. If I agree with the Team’s recommendation and impose an emergency removal, a student’s appeal of my decision is received by [Estes], the Vice President of Campus Life,” Bakkergard testified.
“On November 12, 2021, Jane submitted a formal written complaint to Brown’s Title IX and Gender Equity Office. Jane reported her allegations that David sexually assaulted her at his off-campus residence during the early morning of October 30, 2021,” testified Bakkegard. “Jane’s formal complaint raised allegations of David’s use of significant force, restraint, and violence that inflicted physical injuries upon her.”
“The Threat Assessment Team discussed two categories of intervention: measures to mitigate risk to the reporting student and measures to mitigate risk to the health, safety, and welfare of others or the University community,” testified Bakkegard. “The Threat Assessment Team considered the sufficiency of the mutual no-contact orders to be issued to Jane and David under the Complaint Procedure, and it concluded that the mutual no-contact orders would aid in the protection to the reporting student and allow for further actions upon notice of any alleged violations of their restrictions.”
“The Threat Assessment Team considered the necessity of community-level protections,” Bakkergard testified. “In terms of the appropriate community-level intervention and given the egregious nature of the allegations, the Team members concurred that an interim suspension is warranted, because the alleged violent sexual assault poses 'a significant threat of harm to the health, safety, and welfare of others or the University community.'"
In his written testimony, Estes defended the process — and his decision — to uphold the suspension, despite multiple appeals by “Smith.”
“In my review of David’s appeal and all relevant records, I evaluated carefully the requirements necessary to warrant a student’s emergency removal under Brown’s Sexual and Gender-Based Misconduct Policy and Sexual and Gender-Based Misconduct Complaint Procedure,” testified Estes. “Based on my review of the relevant materials, two assessments by the Threat Assessment Team and two decisions by Associate Vice President Bakkegard, I concluded that there remains reasonable cause to believe that David poses a significant threat of harm to the health, safety, and welfare of others or the University community. Consequently, I denied David’s appeal.”
Student’s Legal Team Fires Back
In their response, “David Smith’s” legal team — led by Lynch — took issue with multiple steps in Brown’s suspension process — and more.
“It is entirely disingenuous for Brown to argue that the only harm a gap in education creates is a delayed entry to the workforce, measurable by lost salary. Many courts recognize that the gap will inevitably require a future explanation when applying to graduate school or employment. If David must truthfully disclose that the gap in his transcript was the result of an interim suspension following a sexual assault allegation, it is patently obvious that such a disclosure would cause untold and immeasurable harm in the form of lost opportunities and reputational damage,” wrote Lynch’s legal team. “David’s irreparable harm comes in numerous forms including severe and permanent damage to his otherwise impeccable reputation, loss of summer employment, and loss of athletics. If suspended, this damage will be complete and universal to him.
“In sum, Brown refuses to follow its own procedures and evaluate all the evidence, in light of the presumption of innocence that David is afforded and the high ‘reasonable cause’ standard necessary to suspend him. It is Brown’s flawed and fundamentally unsound evaluation of the evidence—not the multiple layers of procedure it seeks to hide behind—that demonstrates that its suspension of David violates its own policies and was arbitrary and capricious. Its actions show that Brown has already predetermined the result and sealed David’s fate with respect to the Threat Assessment Team. There is another active case against Brown in this District in which Brown took the same ‘suspend first, ask questions later’ approach,” Lynch added.
"Clearly, Brown’s patterns are motivated by the recent activity on campus and in court against Brown which we have previously cited has cropped up in the past six-to-nine months. Even though Brown had no evidence whatsoever to take any action against David, Brown ignored numerous less-punitive restorative options available to them (curfews, limited access to public spaces on campus, remote learning, etc.) and jumped immediately to a death penalty for David,” said Lynch.
This story was first published 1/24/22 1:22 PM