University of Oregon (UO) student protesters who were offered a choice between pardon and punishment for violating the student code by shouting down the university president last month responded Monday by demanding the administration "cease the punitive measures."
In the open letter, UO President Michael Schill and the trustees were accused of having "potentially endangered" the student protesters, who brand themselves the "UO Student Collective," by discussing the incident in the national media.
The dozens of students who rushed the stage where Schill was to give his State of the University address on Oct. 6 and chanted for some 15 minutes about student rights were termed a "minor protest" in the letter, which is signed by Chris Sinclair, president of the university senate; Imani Dorsey, the state affairs commissioner of the student government; Jessica Neafie, president of the Graduate Teaching Fellows Federation; and Michael Dreiling, president of United Academics, a collective bargaining group representing UO teaching and research faculty.
The letter said, "it is time [for the administration] to de-escalate" after exposing students to "national mockery."
The letter's specific complaints against the administration include "intimidation"; "investigatory errors"; "derailing due process"; "lack of just representation and counsel"; "anticipation of conflict, not engagement" prior to the event; "factual ambiguities" in how UO has discussed the incident; and "lack of oversight" by the Student Conduct and Community Standards Committee in bringing the misconduct charges.
After Schill was unable to give his speech live that day—his comments, some of which dealt with the Student Collective's many demands, were later released in a pre-recorded video—Katy Larkin, the university's associate director of student conduct and community standards, sent an email to the alleged student protesters charging them with violations of two sections of the student code, disruption and failure to comply with a university representative's reasonable request.
As student paper the Daily Emerald reported, the university offered the students two choices: to go through the regular student code violation process; or a "special option," which includes the promise of no sanctions and an invitation to meet with administrators and discuss the protesters' demands.
The administrators also waived the $30 fine usually associated with a conduct violation, regardless of which option the students choose, according to the email.
It is unclear how many students received this email.
The Student Collective have rejected the offer to meet with administrators, as that would be tacit admission of misconduct that they believe themselves innocent of "on the grounds that students are the business of the university."
"Student protest and student dissent cannot be a disruption of university business, student protest IS university business," wrote the collective on Tuesday.
"The allegation that we disobeyed a reasonable order from the administration is to say that it is reasonable to order marginalized people to be silent. It cannot be deemed that silence to our oppression is reasonable. What is reasonable is justice, liberation, and equality. This is what the Collective fights for. This is why we protest," they continued.
The collective said it will have its first meeting with the administration to contest the misconduct allegations later this week.
One of the protesters, Charlie Landeros, told the Washington Free Beacon he does not expect anything of the university, and that his "is a movement to empower students."
Tobin Klinger, UO’s senior director of public affairs communications, said the university "views the conduct process as educational, not punitive."
"We hope to use it to open the same productive dialogue students are requesting," said Klinger.
He said the university's "special option" remains on the table.
In response to claims that individuals have wrongfully received a misconduct notice, Klinger said students are welcome to speak with the administration.
Klinger said the "process is moving forward," but declined to discuss where it currently stands, out of protection of students' identities.