100%

Scanned image of the page. Keyboard directions: use + to zoom in, - to zoom out, arrow keys to pan inside the viewer.

Page Options

Download this Issue

Share

Something wrong?

Something wrong with this page? Report problem.

Rights / Permissions

This collection, digitized in collaboration with the Michigan Daily and the Board for Student Publications, contains materials that are protected by copyright law. Access to these materials is provided for non-profit educational and research purposes. If you use an item from this collection, it is your responsibility to consider the work's copyright status and obtain any required permission.

December 01, 1994 - Image 5

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily, 1994-12-01

Disclaimer: Computer generated plain text may have errors. Read more about this.

The Michigan Daily - Thursday, December 1, 1994 - 5
Who protects theinnocent?

'U'

student alleges miscarriage of justice in harassment hearing

Continued from Page 1
of this young man by this University is
no less than appalling."
University lawyers are no less
adamant in their defense against the
lawsuit, calling it frivolous and
groundless in fact and in law. "It's
ridiculous from our perspective," said
Assistant General Counsel Daniel
Sharphorn, who declined further
comment.
Jerome Hill, a Detroit attorney the
University contracted in the Schauber
case, also declined comment except to
chide Schauber's lawyer for "stirring
up public interest" in the case. "I think
our position is well-known," Hill said.
Broken romance
Marc Schauber met his future
fiancee while both attended high school
in East Hills, N.Y. They were friends,
but theirromance blossomed only after
the woman graduated and enrolled at
the University.
Schauber, one year younger than
his future fiance, invited her to his
senior prom in June 1993. After a brief
but intense romance, in August the
couple secretly engaged to be married.
They had planned to share the news
with their parents when they returned
to New York over winter break. But
then the relationship came unglued.
The day after Christmas, the would-
be fianc6e called Schauber to tell him
that the engagement - and their
relationship - were over.
The twospoke only once during the
remainder of the break. They agreed to
meet when both returned to Ann Arbor
,,in January
The wo weeks following their
return were a time of intense emotion
for Schauber and a time of reckoning
for the former couple. For the woman,
she charges that those days were also a
time of unwanted contact, harassment
and stalking.
Harassment?
* On Jan. 5 and again the following
day, the two met in her room in Mosher
Jordan. The meetings were
uncomfortable for the woman, who
was trying toputthe relationship behind
her even as Schauber pleaded for a
reconciliation.
"Atonepoint last night,I was scared
of you," the woman wrote in an e-mail
message to Schauber Jan. 6. "Is that
how you want me to come back to
you?? Afraid that if I ever do something
to you that you'll hit me, orstalkme??"
Schauber denies that he ever
threatened his ex-fiancde. His lawyer,
Tom Daniels of Ypsilanti, said that in
all meetings between the two, the
woman invited Schauber into herroom.
And Schauber broke off all contact
with the woman at her request, Daniels
said. All interaction between the two
zeased on Jan.15, with the exception of
a party in March in which the woman
alleged that Schauber pushedher to the
floor. Daniels said both students were
at the party, but no contact occurred.
The third and final face-to-face

meeting between the former couple, in
her room Jan. 10, cemented the
allegations of harassment. Schauber
later admitted in the judicial hearing
that he had told his ex-fiance that he
thought of hitting her and throwing her
off of a bridge in front of moving
traffic.
Daniels does not dispute this
account, but asserts that simply telling
the woman he had thought of hitting
her is different from actual harassment.
The woman, her parents and the
University's hearing officer
misconstrued the incident to suit their
case, Daniels claims.
The woman "reasonably believed
her personal safety was threatened as a
result of your statements," the hearing
officer wrote to Schauber.
In meting outpenalties on Schauber,
the officer said he repeatedly contacted
the woman "when you knew that (she)
wanted to avoid contact with you and
was uncomfortable being in your
presence."
'Kangaroo court'
Schauber's lawsuit alleges the
University's hearing officerabandoned
her role as an impartial judge in his
judicial hearing on charges of
harassment. As a result, Schauber was
denied his constitutional right to due
process and unfairly expelled from his
dorm, Daniels charges.
Attorney Hill, in the University's
formal resp6nse to the lawsuit, disputes
Schauber's version ofevents. Although
the University could have prohibited
Schauber from living in any residence
hall, it only barred him from Mosher
Jordan.
That the University only ordered
Schauber to move - not to leave
University housing altogether -
invalidates Schauber's claims that he
was deprived of property in violation
of the 14th Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution, Hill wrote.
Daniels, however, charges the
University with running a "kangaroo
court" in direct contradiction to the
principle of being presumed innocent
until proven guilty. The University
Housing Division's hearing officer in
the case, Monique Washington, did not
even claim to be unbiased, much less
conduct a fair hearing, Daniels said.
Daniels claims that Washington
bent to pressure from the woman's
parents, who pushed for Schauber's
expulsion from Mosher Jordan in calls
tothehearing officer andotherofficials
in Housing. Extensive telephone
communication between Washington
and the ex-fiance's parents before the
hearing prejudiced Washington against
Schauber, Daniels said.
"The ultimate decision was
Monique Washington's," he said. "It is
our position that she was clearly
influenced by this ex parte
communication."
Daniels said Washington shed any
pretense of objectivity when she
originally listed herself as the
complainant - a role traditionally
reserved for the alleged victim - as
well as the hearing officer at the Feb.15

LIST O >TELEPHON ECALLS,
MADE FROM JANUARY 5 TO MARCH 31, 1994,,
TO OFFICES OF U.OF M PERSONNEL
FROM MCI BILLING NUMBERS (516) in '& (516)"Owl -T
AE,,ROSLYN HEIGHTS, NY 11577-M
DAT TJIE TO #/LSTED TO ENT
Jan. 17 15:21a 763-2472/ M. Washington 1 min.
10:22a 763-2472 '/ M. Washington 9 ruin.
ATE TIME T#/TM. E H
Feb. 3 11:05 a 7G44132 jM. L. Antieau 13 min.'
Feb. 4 12:2 'p 764-51321 M. L. Antieau 24 min.
Feb. 8 12:28 p 764-5132 IM.'L.Antieau 14 min.
12:42 p 764-51321/1 .L. Antietu 16 tin.,
Feb,9 11:14 a 763-2472 /.M. 'Washington 5 min.
11:44 a 763-2472 f M. Washington , 47 min.
Feb. 16 2:24 p 753-2427 I M. W hingtn 1 mif..
Feb. 17 2:41p 763-2472/ M.. Washingtn min-
DAE TME TO / LISTED TO 'ENGTU
Mar. 4 11:Ota. 763-2472/ M. Waahington 1 min.'
11:23 -a 763-24721M Washington 25 min.
Mlar. 7 9:69 a 763.24721/ M. Wasingtn 1 I nn
1 -36 a 76..2472"/ M.'Washing on 2mi.'
Mar. $, 9.46 a' 7632472 /M, Washigton 31 min.
Mar. 9 1:27 P 763=2472 / M. Washitngtn 3 miri:
These phone records document phone calls made by the parents of Marc
Schauber's former fiancee to Univeristy Judicial Adviser Mary Lou Antieau
and hearing officer Monique Washington. The records were admitted into
evidence in the trial of Schauber against the University.

be perpetrated upon (the woman) by
Marc," the parents wrote.
To separate Schauber from his ex-
fianc6e, Washington barred him from
entering Mosher Jordan and from
contacting her in any way. Schauber
also was placed on probation.
Failed appeals
Schauber filed an appeal March 9
of Washington's Feb. 25 decision on
three grounds: that the verdict was
"clearly not supported by the evidence
presented at the hearing," the
punishment was inappropriate and the
hearing was procedurally flawed.
Schauber's appeal was denied. In a
written decision dated March 15,
appellate hearing officer Archie
Andrewscalled Washington's decision
"an adequate balance between allowing
(Schauber) to remain in the residence
halls and lease termination."
After Washington's verdict but
before filing an appeal, Schaubersigned
aleaseforMosherJordan the following
year. The lease was invalidated.
"In defiance of the determination of
the hearing officer, Mr. Schauber took
it upon himself to sign the lease for
1994-95 even though he knew the
standing decision of February 25,1994
required that he reside in South Quad
rather than Mosher Jordan Hall," Hill
wrote. "Plaintiff's signing of the 1994-
95 lease was a fraud on the U of M and
he should not be permitted to assert, in
an appeal to equity, that he is entitled to
due process of law when that fraud is
voided by the University."
In his final appeal through the
University, Schauber was allowed to
remain in Mosher Jordan through the
winter semester of last year. Daniels
charges that all appeal hearings were
flawed because "the die was cast" with
Washington's decision.
Schauber now lives in East Quad,
where he has refrained from contacting
his ex-fiancde since January by his
account, and March by hers. The
woman still lives in Mosher Jordan.
Schauber and Daniels still await a
verdict by Wilder. The University,
meanwhile, will likely use the case as
an impetus to review its judicial
procedures, said Housing spokesman
Alan Levy. "Regardless of whether
we win or lose, we will want to see
whether any alterations in our policy
will need to be made," Levy said.
Daniels disagrees, arguing the
policy is sound, but its application -
at least in the case of Marc Schauber
- was anything but.

Case Chronology
Jan. 17, 1994
Marc Schauber is told in a meeting with
Mosher Jordan Resident Director Paul
Danao that his ex-fiancee is not
comfortable in Schauber's presence.
Danao suggested a meeting with the three
parties and would call back Schauber.
Schauber called Danao repeatedly and
was told that he was "working on it."
Jan. 24, 1994
Schauber met with Ellen H. Whitten, the
coordinator of residence education, and
was shown the incident report and the
complaint form that they discussed.
Jan. 25, 1994
Whitten sent letter to Schauber saying
he was on "residence hall probation."
He left a message on the answering
machine of Darlene Ray Johnson,
assistant director of student relations,
asking her to call him back.
Jan. 31, 1994
Schauber met with Whitten about her
actions which she apologized for "not
following proper procedure and for
taking a one-sided view of the matter."
Schauber was asked to sign the incident
report, complaint form and judicial
record, but he deferred and wanted a
copy of each of them because he
wanted to consult on them.
Feb. 7, 1994
Schauber was called by Monique
Washington, assistant director of
residence education. She told him of the
harassment complaint and eventually
scheduled a hearing on Feb. 15 after
telling Schauber that his ex-fiancee was
"hesitant" about being at the hearing.
Feb. 11, 1994
A letter was received by Schauber
stating that Washington would serve as
both "hearing officer" and the
"complainant" at the hearing.
Schauber's lawyer also requested a
copy of the complaint but Washington
was "unsure if this could be done."
Feb. 15, 1994
Minutes before the hearing Schauber
was given a copy of the incident reports
and the judicial record. There was no
complaint, but Schauber was told that
the incident record would serve as the
complaint. Schauber wanted to get the
hearing over with and therefore waived
the right to postpone the hearing.
Washington told Schauber the woman
would receive the final decision only and
not information about the sanction.
March 3,1994
Schauber finds out that his ex-fiance
received the decision, including the
sanction information, two days before
he did. The decision was that Schauber
was to vacate his room by March 7.
Schauber made sure that he would not
be physically removed on March '7 and
"confirmed his absolute right to remain
in his room while an appeal was filed
and decided." He also signed a lease
for a room for '94295 school year which
was voided by the Housing Division.
March 15, 1994
The initial appeal was officially signed
and dated and received by Schauber.
He was told to vacate his room no later
than March 16. Again he had to confirm
that he would not be physically removed
because of the appeal was pending.
Schauber also heard from Ray Johnson
for the first time in which she said he
was charged with having some form of
contact with his ex-fiancee. Schauber
denies these allegations.
March 18, 1994
An order for his arrest was still ineffect
if he returned to Mosher Jordan because
he was in his room past the deadline
even though the appeal was still under
debate. Schauber explained the
situation to the arresting officer and he
was not arrested.

judicial hearing. The ex-fiancde
assumed therole ofcomplainant shortly
before the hearing began after having a
"change ofheart," Washington testified.
In a deposition by Daniels on June
7, Washington said she did not "see
myself as the complaining student."
"At the time, (the woman) felt that
she could not represent her situation in
the hearing, and didn't want to serve as
a witness," Washington told the court.
"So I saw my role - when I use the
word complainant - as someone who
was really presenting her case on behalf
of the Housing Division and the
University."
Washington also was intentionally
or subconsciously presenting the case
on behalf of the ex-fianc6e's parents,
Daniels alleges. He cites telephone
company records that show phone calls
as long as 47 minutes between
Washington and the woman's parents.
Washington testified that the phone
calls were intended to explain
procedural issues relating to the hearing.
But she also admitted that other issues
- including Schauber's mental state

and possible use of the psychiatric drug
Prozac - were broached.
Washington testified that she told
the woman's mother that she "would
be consulting with colleagues within
the University appropriate for me to
make a determination, and that I would
send written notice to Marc, which is
the appropriate procedure to follow,
and that I would also inform (the
woman) in an appropriate fashion of
the outcome.
"So again, I was trying to bring a
reasonable amount ofdistance between
the two of us, but at the same time,
respond to what I felt was a parental
concern as an administrator,"
Washington said.
The woman's parents sent a letter
to Washington the day after the hearing
in which they expressed concerns about
their daughter's safety.
"We feel strongly that the University
of Michigan has a responsibility to (the
daughter) to ensure that she is protected
from any injurious action or threat or
harassment by Mr. Schauber ongoing.
We will hold theUniversityresponsible

ECONO-CAR
OPEN 7 DAYS=
A WEEK
* Choose from small economical cars to fine luxury cars
" Special weekend rates
* Pick-up services upon request
* We accept cash deposits
Rent a car from ECONO-CAR
438 W. Huron, Ann Arbor 761-8845
Student Directories

THURSDAY NO COVER AT
'e
RESTAURANT SPORT S Al
Also featuring:'
20* a wing
$3.25 pitchers Coors Light
$5.00 pitchers Long Island Ice Tea

BEACH!IN
Bed and Breakfaston
Cozumel Island, Mexico
ARIB 40miles from Cancun)
Friendly, Comfortable $135 per person per week*
Full Breakfasts, American Owned Clean/efficient/i 0 rooms,
Harold & Cindy Mondol most with private bath
of Michigan, Innkeepers
1-80-8305558 6 blocks to the beach
1-800-830-5558
*Per Person/Double Occupancy
Leasing Now For Fall 1995!
May-to-May Leases Too! I

1220 South University

665-7777

U and over after 9pm

"

Campus-wide, free distribution to
students has been completed.

I

It

I R

I

I 1N l

I

Back to Top

© 2021 Regents of the University of Michigan