DATE:
information not available
PARTIES:
University of Toronto v. Ms. R.K.
Hearing Date(s):
information not available (charges laid on February 14, 2006)
Panel Members:
Ms. Julie Hannaford, Chair
Prof. Sarah King, Faculty Panel Member
Ms. Candace Ikeda-Douglas, Student Panel Member
Appearances:
Mr. Rob Centa, Counsel for the University
Ms. R. K., the Student
In Attendance:
Prof. Roger Beck
Ms. Lucy Gaspini
the Student’s parents
Student charged under s. B.i.1(a) of the Code. The charges related to allegations that the Student altered and submitted two term tests for remarking, and that she forged and submitted an anonymous letter which purported to be authored by another Student and which described the Student as being the victim of racial discrimination. The Student pleaded guilty to the charges. The Student had previously been expelled from an American university for violating the university’s mid-term examination honor code, authoring a similarly racially discriminatory anonymous note, and for committing perjury. The Panel found the Student guilty of three offences under s. B.i.1(a) of the Code. The Student claimed that she was chastened by the events and she apologized for committing the offences, and argued that she was entitled to a “second chance.” The Panel considered the principles that applied to considerations of when a “second chance” should be considered in relation to penalties to be imposed. The Panel observed that the concept of “second chance” related to the principle that an individual who displays flawed behaviour is entitled to reflect upon the error of their ways, integrate the error, and be given an opportunity to demonstrate that their views and their character is reformed. The Panel found that the Student’s evidence did not demonstrate that she had reflected on the error of her ways. The Panel considered the evidence of the Student’s witness and found that he unaware of the full nature of the case and the background and complete facts related to the situation. The Panel found that the Student’s misconduct constituted a case of premeditated, calculating, deliberate and intentional acts, designed to obtain an advantage by the promotion of racial hatred, racial stereotyping, and the insertion of the Student into the situation, cast as a victim of racial hatred. The Panel found that the Student’s fabrication depended on the stirring up of racial hatred, and that all racial antagonism must be sanctioned. The Panel imposed a recommendation to the President that the Student be expelled, further to s. C.ii.(b)(i) of the Code; a permanent notation on the Student’s academic record and transcript; and that a report be issued to the Provost.