03/24/2009 Federal Appeals Court to Hear New Paltz Free Speech Case
New Paltz is an organism. The wiki is the brain.
| Video of the encounter for which the student leaders were suspended. This video shows that police reports filed by Corinna Caracci were false (see Incident Report: Encounter between Student Government Officials and Corinna Caracci). |
The Second Circuit Federal Court of Appeals will hear oral arguments in a case involving the controversial suspension of student leaders at SUNY New Paltz.
The Plaintiffs, Justin Holmes and R.J. Partington III, were charged with “harassment” in police reports filed by SUNY Administrators one day after being elected Student Body President and Vice President, respectively, in April of 2006. Partington had already served as President. Video evidence taken by Holmes later showed the reports to be untrue.
Both students were involved in high-profile activism on campus, including large protests over the campus drug policy, which is the most draconian in New York State, and SUNY's relationship with Sodexho, a food distribution company with ties to the State's prison system. Both also participated in an effort to feign the creation of a “Student Militia” to protest the arming of local police officers with military assault rifles.
“As President I worked hard to voice the concerns of students, and SUNY's response was to make me a target.” said Partington. “Now we're ready for the truth to come out.”
Several witnesses have blown the whistle on Administrators' conduct, including William Pizzano, a member selected by SUNY to serve on the 'judicial committee' that decided to suspend the students. Pizzano came forward with audio recordings of closed-door committee proceedings showing bias and disregard for the campus' judicial rules.
One 30-year veteran faculty member, Foreign Languages Professor Peter Brown, says that a SUNY Administrator told him that “the college was looking for an opportunity to get rid of two or three of the worst student troublemakers.” Brown says that Holmes and Partington were mentioned by name as targets.
Several hundred students occupied the campus Administration building in December 2006 calling for the suspension to be reversed and for those responsible to resign. Four weeks later, a federal judge ordered the SUNY Administration to reinstate the students, but found that the free speech issues couldn't be decided because of a protection known as “qualified immunity.” The immunity is only be available if the defendants show that they couldn't have reasonably known that they were acting outside the scope of their duties.
“I'm excited to delve into the immunity issue; we have a case with several very specific indications that these state officials knew that what they were doing was wrong and illegal,” said Holmes. “This is a great opportunity to hit a legal home run and show that the first amendment rights of free speech and assembly do not stop at the edge of campus.”
Although the students have had help from several area attorneys, they say that they intend to argue the case themselves. The Court has proposed the week of May 18th to schedule the proceeding.
The case is Holmes and Partington v. Poskanzer et. al. -- 2nd Circuit Docket # 08-1475. New York Northern District Docket # 06-cv-977.
