Formal Committee Report, In Re Connell3Complainants allege that Professor Connell has engaged in conduct thatconstitutes racial harassment,
and retaliation under the Code.The burden is upon complainants to demonstrate to the Committee that there is “clear andconvincing” evidence of these accusations.The “Record” in this matter is voluminous, comprising more than 1,500 pages of transcripts, affidavits, communications, committee instructions, and legal reasoning andreferences. It consists of: a. The formal hearing transcript; b. affidavits wherein theaffiant acknowledges the duty to tell the truth; c. relevant non-testimonial evidence, andeither an original document, photocopy or reprint of an original document; d. such other evidence as the Committee allowed at its sole discretion;
and, e. cross-examinationquestions.
Notice of Pre-Hearing and Hearing Procedures and Rules
, May 19, 2011,item 2. The Record also includes a 3-ring notebook of documents compiled by Vice DeanKelly, who is also the University’s designated “Grievance Officer” assigned to thismatter. Code, Section 6(a).
The Code requires that the Dean of the Law School appoint a Formal HearingCommittee to consider unresolved formal complaints. Code, Section 6(d)(i).Accordingly, Dean Linda Ammons appointed a Formal Hearing Committee consisting of
Neither complainant accuses Professor Connell of Racial Discrimination under theCode.
Ms. Tandoh does not contend that she has been the subject of sexual discrimination. Neither complainant has alleged sexual harassment under Section 4(c) of the Code.
Professor Connell submitted copies of 29 supportive emails that he received fromformer students, five of whom were enrolled in his Spring 2011 Criminal Law class and24 of whom were not in that class. While the Committee did not discount these emails, because the comments they contained were not accompanied with an acknowledgementof the sender’s duty to tell the truth, they were given less weight than sworn affidavitsand in-hearing testimony.
This report notes the extent that the Committee either considered anything notspecifically listed, or deemed irrelevant something that is listed.