On Dez

The recent details of the expulsion of Dezmine Wells have
once again whipped Xavier’s student body into controversy.
District Attorney Joe Deters decided not to press charges
against Wells, and made a subsequent plea for Xavier to reconsider its decision. Many at Xavier wondered if Wells had been treated unfairly, or if he was the sacrificial lamb as a result of past transgressions the university committed in regards to sexual assault. As far as if Xavier made the right decision, it will be impossible to determine. Legally speaking, Dez Wells is not guilty. This does not negate the decision reached by the review board. However, the strong statements
coming from Deters’ office should at least make Xavier examine their Conduct Review Board. Many argue that Dez was not given a fair trial, and his lawyer shares that same sentiment. Those who do serve on the board are put in a tremendously difficult situation. It would be difficult for most to make a decision regarding the fate of another student for an indiscretion such as underage drinking or plagiarism, but deciding on matters as severe as what Wells was facing is another matter. Are students, professors and the administration adequately prepared to handle these cases? The Conduct Review Board uses the legal burden of proof standard of preponderance of evidence that is used only in civil cases.
The grand jury indicts on a standard of probable cause, which is the criminal standard for the same burden of proof.
This discrepancy is what caused the fierce debate across campus. Although it may make for decent talking points at times, these types of situations are often exhausting regardless of one’s opinion. If reviewing and possibly modifying the process in which Xavier reviews disciplinary cases can result in the prevention of another controversial event at the University, then this option should be fully explored. Ultimately, the review board did what they believed was necessary, but in an inherently flawed system.