College responds to frequently asked questions on this issue

What does the judge's ruling mean?
The judge only held that in the specific instance when a student facing a judicial charge on campus also faces a criminal charge, the student should be allowed to have an attorney present, but only in an advisory role.

The judge's ruling does, however, state the college acted appropriately in many ways and that several of the claims that the students made had not shown a likelihood of succeeding on the merits. For instance, the judge said that SUNY New Paltz employs a disciplinary procedure that is generally consistent with constitutional due process requirements. He also found that the college's administrators and hearing officers acted fairly. He believes that only in this limited circumstance (where a separate criminal proceeding is pending) was the college's process defective.

Will the college now allow attorneys to be present at judicial hearings on campus?
As we have said before, we will abide by the judge's ruling. When students are facing a parallel criminal charge, they will be allowed to have an attorney present at their judicial hearing in a purely advisory role. This ruling is unclear as to whether it will set precedent in extending the presence of attorneys to violations and lower level infractions.

Why was no lawyer allowed at the students' judicial hearing?
The college followed the longstanding, court-supported practice of many colleges and universities across the country in not allowing an attorney to be present-a practice designed to reinforce the distinction between an administrative hearing and a legal proceeding.

What does the college mean when it says its judicial procedure is designed to be educational or administrative in nature as opposed to legal?
When students choose to attend a college, they agree to live by the rules and regulations of an academic community. As educators, our role is to teach students how to be responsible and engaged members of that community-which is very different and more demanding than just being a public citizen.

Criminal law is designed to punish individuals for breaking the laws of society. Accordingly, the stakes are radically different in a criminal trial than in a campus judicial hearing. Criminal penalties deprive people of their liberties (For example, they are subject to incarceration and a criminal record that follows them throughout their life). The worst thing that can happen to a student in a campus judicial proceeding is that he or she may be separated from the college for a time, or in severe cases may have to study elsewhere. For that reason, colleges use a different type of judicial process and a different standard of proof, which courts across the nation have long supported.

What will be the college's next step?
The college is consulting with its attorneys, both in SUNY Counsel's Office and in the Attorney General's Office, about how to proceed. The college's attorneys have 45 days from the date of the injunction (January 3, 2007) to respond to the judge's ruling.

What about the students' continued claims that the college violated their First Amendment rights and that this is the crux of their case?
The judge did not rule on this issue and the college steadfastly maintains that no one's right to free speech has been violated in this matter.

What about students' claims that the college retaliated against them for their speech?
These students faced campus judicial proceedings for their behavior, not for their speech.

What about the students' claims that they were not allowed to cross exam witnesses directly?
The judge held that the students were allowed to question their accuser in a manner that, while differing from trial-type procedures, still protected their rights, without unfairly burdening SUNY-New Paltz's resources. For that reason, the judge noted that the students had not shown that they were likely to succeed with their claim that their constitutional due process right to question witnesses directly was violated.

Does the college need to re-evaluate its judicial procedure and policies?
On all but one technical point-allowing attorneys to be present at judicial hearings when concurrent criminal charges are also pending-the judge stated that the college's judicial procedure was consistent with due process. In fact, he stated that he had full confidence that the processes employed by SUNY New Paltz will continue to maintain a civil and safe environment for the college community.

Will the students resume their leadership positions?
The college fully expects that this will happen, but this is up to the student government to decide for itself.