Written by The Catalyst Editorial Staff
Liz Forster, Editor-in-Chief; Candelaria Alcat, News Editor; William Kim, Opinion Editor; David Andrews, Sports Editor; and Zita Toth, Life Editor
On Thursday, Nov. 19, the Colorado College administration contacted junior Thaddeus Pryor, informing him that an unknown student had given his and junior Lou Henriques names to the administration as the contributors to the thread of controversial Yik Yak posts on Nov. 9. Less than 24 hours later, Pryor was suspended from the school for two years and Henriques was expelled.
Pryor was charged with and found responsible for Abusive Behavior and Disruption of College Activities by Senior Associate Dean of Students Rochelle Mason and Assistant Dean Cesar Cervantes after posting a controversial comment on the anonymous social media application Yik Yak. Because of these findings, he was suspended from the college for two years.
The original post published on Nov. 9 read “#blackwomenmatter.” Pryor commented on the post, “They matter, they’re just not hot.”
Henriques, who was expelled permanently, posted on Yik Yak a screenshot from an episode of South Park of a character featured on the Wheel of Fortune who incorrectly answers a “People Who Annoy You” question with the letters N_GGERS displayed. The correct answer was NAGGERS. His other post, “RACE WAR,” was a reference to a South Park episode during which a character ran down the hall yelling “RACE WAR.”
An unknown person revealed to the administration Pryor and Henriques’ association with the posts, whereupon the administration scheduled individual meetings with Pryor and Henriques.
Due to federal privacy laws, CC officials are legally not allowed to discuss the issue.
Both Pryor and Henriques appealed the school’s decisions.
According to the Appeals subsection of the Student Conduct Procedures section of the Pathfinder, a student can appeal a disciplinary sanction for three reasons: new evidence or information, failure of hearing process, and bias in the decision process. They cannot, however, appeal if they simply disagree with the decision.
Pryor argued in his appeal, which was due by Nov. 25, that his case represented a failure of the hearing process due to the alleged failure to follow the conduct procedures stated in the Pathfinder. He also argued that the conduct hearing contained bias in the decision process because Mason and Cervantes “were acting under the assumption” that Pryor posted more than the one aforementioned comment, according to Pryor’s appeal.
“The school’s actions and decisions will not hold up to public scrutiny,” Pryor said. “It’s my hope that my appeal will lead to a retrial and that retrial will be met objectively and without bias.”
Pryor also hopes the school will allow for such a retrial to be heard by the Student Conduct Committee instead of the administration.
“I am a student, and I offended students. As the offender, I’m incredibly sorry to that party and want to make things right,” Pryor said. “The administration’s involvement and their bias revealed that they lacked a comprehensive understanding of the situation. Because of that, students should be the ones to deliver the justice.”
The administration has not contacted Pryor since he submitted his appeal.
Henriques appealed on the grounds of a failure of the hearing process in regards to the determination of the sanction and the breakdown in the education of the members of the CC community. He argued in his appeal letter that the school should have allowed him to speak with the offended as an education opportunity, since the Pathfinder states: “The hearing process is intended to be a learning process for the student.”
“I don’t think the student body condones or should condone what I said, and I don’t expect them to,” Henriques said. “I also don’t think many students condone the expulsion. The school took a very hard line and was probably reacting to the racism going on at colleges throughout the country.”
In response to his appeal, the school allowed Henriques to withdraw from CC rather than expel him.
“I’m sorry that people were offended by them,” he said. “I said them merely as jokes. I understand that they were offensive.”
As Pryor and Henriques’ cases unfold on the administrative level, students have again taken to Yik Yak to express their opinions on the situation. Some praised the sanctions, arguing that Pyror and Henriques deserved the punishment, some said that they should have been punished but not to the extreme that they were, and others argued that the two should not have been punished at all.
To attempt to move the conversation from anonymous social media to a formal setting, CCSGA is hosting a forum called “Continuing the Conversation” on Sunday Dec. 6 from 4 to 6 p.m. in Bemis Hall.
The Catalyst
Latest posts by The Catalyst (see all)
- CC Prison Initiatives Begin Programs – Jan 26, 2017
- Celebrating 30 Years of Dance Workshop – Dec 17, 2016
- CCSGA Candidate Statements – Dec 10, 2016