ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1995, Roanoke Times
DATE: Saturday, December 2, 1995 TAG: 9512030032
SECTION: VIRGINIA PAGE: C1 EDITION: METRO
DATELINE: BLACKSBURG
SOURCE: ALLISON BLAKE AND BETTY HAYDEN STAFF WRITERS
Virginia Tech on Friday took the unusual step of releasing some of the previously confidential records of a sexual assault hearing involving a football player, a case that had prompted the woman who brought the charge to suggest that the university went easy on him because he's an athlete.
The records detail why the university granted Tony Morrison a second hearing that found him guilty only of using abusive language. They also show the university's second-in-command then reduced his two-semester suspension for that offense because she found the punishment "was not consistent with sanctions levied for similiar offenses."
However, the director of Tech's Women's Center said she has stopped sending sexual assault cases to the university's in-house judicial system because, she said, it does a poor job of handling such cases. "[The Morrison case] is one of our biggest successes, and look at the disaster," Peggy Burge said.
Burge said the University Judicial Board is "woefully inadequate" to deal with alleged sexual assaults. But Tech spokesman Larry Hincker called the system "something between not doing anything and going to the criminal system."
Allegations against Morrison, a highly recruited linebacker, became public this week when his accuser, former student Christy Brzonkala, came forward to express her dissatisfaction with the outcome of the case - Morrison's reinstatement to school, which allowed him to stay on the football team. Morrison has not been charged with a crime, and the case has been handled only through the university's internal judicial system.
Schools usually say records of such proceedings are confidential under federal law. But Hincker said Tech released the information after Morrison gave his permission, by way of his attorney, David Paxton.
"We are not free to discuss the facts of the incident," Hincker said. However, Hincker said a general statement on the incident will be made to the university community next week.
According to the findings released by Tech, Morrison was charged in April with sexual misconduct. The hearing officers "delivered findings" agreeing with the charge.
However, the university adopted its definition of sexual misconduct in August 1994, just missing the deadline to publish it in the student handbook. The omission from the handbook means it "was not yet policy" at the time of the incident in September. On those grounds, Morrison was granted an appeal.
"The university agreed to a second hearing based upon the student life policy in effect at the time of the incident and thus, [Morrison] was charged with sexual assault," according to an account of findings issued by Hincker.
The assault charge is considered more serious than sexual misconduct, but under the conduct code in place in the fall semester of 1994, abusive conduct is defined as "any use of words or acts against one's self or others that causes physical injury or that demeans, intimidates, threatens, or otherwise interferes with another person's rightful actions or comfort. This includes, but is not limited to, verbal abuse and physical batteries."
At a second hearing, both Morrison and Brzonkala were represented by attorneys, Hincker said. During the second hearing, the hearing officers "were unable to come to a conclusion of sexual assault and concluded that Morrison's actions represented only abusive conduct, because of language used toward Brzonkala," according to the account.
Morrison was suspended for two semesters. He appealed, and university Provost Peggy Meszaros reviewed the case. She overruled the sanction on Aug. 17, "because it was not consistent with sanctions levied for similar offenses - the use of offensive and demeaning language," according to Hincker's statement.
Media attention has focused on the specifics of the case, but an attorney with the Student Press Law Center said, "This case at Virginia Tech is the perfect, albeit the worst, example of what's wrong with these campus court systems."
Many universities created campus court systems to handle academic offenses such as cheating. They have ended up hearing serious accusations, including sexual assault, that are beyond the scope of what they should be considering, said Mike Hiestand, of the Washington, D.C.-based, national nonprofit organization that provides free legal advice to high school and college journalists.
"They just don't know what they're doing, for the most part," he said, because the hearing officers - whether students or administrators - are not attorneys or judges.
More frustrating, said Hiestand, is the shroud of secrecy surrounding campus judicial proceedings.
"You just have no faith in a judicial system that conducts itself in private," he said. If a criminal act happened "a foot off campus, we'd know all about it."
Universities need to open up campus court systems to prove they have nothing to hide and because it's in the best interest of the students, no matter what negative publicity results from public knowledge of campus criminal acts, Hiestand said.
Too many schools "put their image ahead of student safety."
LENGTH: Medium: 93 linesby CNB