Harassed on campus and dismissed by campus police officer, student claims

16
5339
Kansas State University police assist during the football game against the University of Oklahoma in Manhattan, Kan. on Oct 21, 2017. (Photo by Cooper Kinley | Collegian Media Group)

A student senator at Kansas State claims to have been dismissed by campus police while attempting to file a harassment report.

In a written personal account emailed to campus leaders on Oct. 20, Ryan Kelly, student senator and sophomore in civil engineering, claimed that an officer from the K-State Police Department behaved unprofessionally on Oct. 19 when taking a report of Kelly’s claims of harassment at his apartment.

Kelly claimed to have been harassed as a result of comments he had made in a Collegian article the day prior, in which he stated that students of color are afraid to walk on campus. Kelly said he had received threats after the article was published and that multiple unknown individuals had come to his apartment looking for him, which Kelly said was unusual.

Kelly’s written statement identified Timothy L. Schrag as the officer who conducted the initial interview for the report. Jack Ayres, student body president and senior in chemical engineering, confirmed Schrag as the officer in question. Officer Schrag is not to be confused with Timothy J. Schrag, editor of K-State Magazine.

Kelly wrote that Schrag lacked empathy and immediately dismissed the “malicious” intent of the people harassing him during the initial interview for the harassment report. Kelly said Schrag cast immediate doubt on Kelly’s claims of harassment, attributing the alleged harassment to drunken college students looking for parties — despite the fact that Kelly does not live near a bar and lives on the third floor of a Jardine apartment building.

Schrag proceeded to discuss Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals recipients and his presence at a rally in support of DACA recipients, Kelly wrote in the report. Kelly wrote that Schrag said he didn’t understand why “illegals are trying to make an issue out of a non-issue.”

Kelly said he felt like Schrag was giving an argument for why he should drop the report of harassment. At the conclusion of the interview, Kelly said he noticed Schrag had written his race as white on the police report. Kelly, the son of a black father and white mother, told Schrag he was black, to which Schrag replied with a comment along the lines of “you never know these days,” Kelly wrote in the report.

Kelly wrote that Schrag then remarked that his body camera had apparently run out of battery power and had not recorded the interview, before giving Kelly his card and the case number for the report.

After Schrag left, Kelly said he received a call from Schrag, who explained that his superior had told him he needed to conduct the interview again for the sake of accuracy.

During the follow-up conversation, Kelly said Schrag began speaking about racial tensions in policing, speaking about police officers who had been shot while on duty in cities across the country. Schrag also spoke on recent protests in the NFL and referenced his armed forces background. Kelly said he did not know why or how the conversation had digressed from his initial report of harassment.

Schrag then allegedly spoke “about the difficulty in reporting racial incidents as a police officer … [and] how sometimes it’s best not for him to report things to his higher-ups,” Kelly wrote.

“I began to ask for clarification, ‘So what you’re saying is that Chief Grice doesn’t get the whole story sometimes?'” Kelly wrote. “He never said he had covered up anything or didn’t report something explicitly, but he implied that’s what would happen if it was an ideal world. I then asked very bluntly, ‘Have you ever not reported a race-based incident?’ He went around the question and never really gave me a satisfactory answer.

“I felt like he posed a direct threat to me,” Kelly said in the statement.

After the interview for the harassment report, Kelly said he felt coerced by Schrag to not report the incident.

Schrag told Kelly he had 28 years of experience with the K-State Police. The Kansas Open Records Act does allow for access to police disciplinary records, but Kelly said in his emailed statement that he does not believe he was the first person to have filed a complaint against Schrag.

Jonathan Peuchen, speaker of the student senate and senior in mechanical engineering, was present with Kelly for the follow-up phone call from Schrag. Peuchen said Kelly’s fear of harassment was “rational” and that Kelly had spent the night of Oct. 19 in the Student Governing Association office.

“It is certainly something that should not be happening, especially at K-State,” Peuchen said.

Heather Reed, assistant vice president of student life, said an investigation into the officer’s behavior is currently underway. Reed also said she was informed that the officer in question was not currently at work, though what that precisely meant was unclear.

Officials from the K-State Police Department, including Chief Ronnie Grice, declined to comment or referred questions to the university’s Division of Communications and Marketing. Schrag himself declined to comment on the issue.

A week after the incident involving Kelly and Schrag, K-State News released a statement in response to questions from the Collegian. The statement read:

“K-State Police are committed to the safety of our students, faculty and staff. In response to questions we have received from the media, the following information explains how the university investigates concerns about an officer’s conduct.

“Policies and processes are in place to address allegations about police conduct and ensure that they are investigated thoroughly, fairly and professionally. But campus police do not share names and other details about individuals involved in particular matters due to student and personnel privacy laws.

“Following department policy, complaints about officer conduct are submitted to the Assistant Vice President of Public Safety and Chief of Police. A formal internal investigation is then conducted. The officer whose conduct is at issue in a complaint is notified of the complaint and pending investigation. At the conclusion of the investigation, findings are made, the officer is notified of those findings, appropriate action is taken if applicable and a complainant is informed of the findings by the Assistant Vice President. Resources and support also are provided to the community members involved.”

Kelly said the experience with Schrag left him feeling “vulnerable.”

“I wanted to be done with K-State,” Kelly said in his emailed statement. “I wanted to be in a space where I felt comfortable, accepted and welcome.”

Klarissa Calvillo, senior in psychology and gender, women and sexuality studies, said there are other students, herself included, who feel vulnerable on K-State’s campus.

“Just from a student perspective, I am Mexican, and I am a part of that population that is feeling that threat,” Calvillo said.

Ayres acknowledged the growing feelings of discomfort among minority students.

“The unfortunate reality is that some students don’t feel safe in the K-State Family,” Ayres said. “Those feelings of fear are valid. Community-wise, everybody needs to understand that students do feel this way.”

Jessica Kerr, academic coach and adjunct professor in the Staley School of Leadership Studies, said a contributing factor to this discomfort is the university’s response to controversial events on campus.

“We as a culture at large are starting to question the ability of our institutions to deal with issues of sexual violence, harassment and racism in our ranks,” Kerr said.

Reed said she has a lot of hope for the direction that campus is moving in, regarding student responses to controversial events.

“Students have been out front in condemning these things and our students are willing and expecting to … be really involved in helping this develop,” Reed said.

Kerr said she believes the idea of the K-State Family to be “aspirational” for the university but not necessarily indicative of how all students feel.

“One of the things that I think about when we talk about those Principles of Community is that they are things that we want, but might not necessarily be achieving,” Kerr said.

Reed said she believes that while many students may not feel safe within the K-State Family, the K-State Family has not been lost.

“I don’t think that we’ve lost the K-State Family at all,” Reed said. “I would never say that. In all of the responses, there’s been that reinforcement of, ‘That’s not who we are.'”

Kelly said he does not want his experience to turn students against the K-State Police.

“This should be seen as an opportunity to educate our police force and to improve community relations between campus police and the student body,” Kelly said.

Advertisement
SHARE
I'm Monica Diaz and I'm a writer at the Collegian. I am a sophomore in journalism with a digital media emphasis and Spanish minor from Frisco, Texas. In my spare time, I enjoy a good cup of coffee and spending time with family. I have a passion for journalism because I believe that everyone deserves to have their voice heard and I want to help tell that story for them.
  • KSU grad student

    Great story. Thank you for exposing racism in our university. Please keep it up!!

  • Concerned Student

    I agree with “KSU grad student” that racism exists at our university. Is it a surprise? Racism is omnipresent – I feel that the question we should be ANSWERING is how we work toward building a community where people are not compelled to act on their racist ideologies. And, in a more idealized existence, how we work to reduce the development of biases across our communities.

    I disagree with the offended student’s representation of the administration and the author’s one-sided presentation of this story. If the student feels he is being targeted, and feels that the KSU PD is unresponsive to his circumstance, he has clear pathways to express himself in a manner that addresses the problem while maintaining a sense of order. The KSU PD and the campus administration have processes in place that likely would achieve satisfactory resolution of this student’s issues. When those systems fail, and the student is not treated justly, a different tact may be called for.

    This article begins with ‘A student senator at Kansas State claims to have been dismissed by campus police while attempting to file a harassment report.” Does it matter that the student is a Student Senator – how does his role on campus affect our understanding of this story? Also, why is thecollegian running this as a “news” story and not an “opinion” piece? This article presents a single student’s representation of his experience. I am not discounting or explaining away Mr. Kelly’s experience, or the impact it appears to have had on him, but this story does not represent the situation, it presents his opinion about the circumstances surrounding his experience.

    I see these representations of racism or bias presentation as “our problem.” And, when I say “our problem,” I mean we students. This is our campus and the environment is controlled by students – not the administration. Everyone on campus knows what behavior is acceptable and what isn’t – President Meyers telling us not to do something doesn’t solve anything. I believe that when students depend on the administration to solve their problems they are betraying their reason for being at KSU to begin with – to learn and grow, and to explore different ways to achieve outcomes and solve problems. Blaming the administration is avoiding responsibility we all share for maintaining civility and acceptance of others in our lives and experiences.

    If there are students on campus who are scared for their safety, their fear impacts all of us. We owe it to each other to build a community that lives the values expressed by the university, our predecessors, and our student body.

    We are grown ups in a grown up world – lets start acting like it and solve our problems. When we see behavior that violates those values – call them out. But our expression of these values has to be sincere and not an opportunistic outcry. It is hard to argue for the rule of law when we knowingly endorse 18, 19, and 20 year-olds drinking alcohol on campus or sneaking into bars in Aggieville. I am not relating underage drinking with racism, but I am making the point that living values goes beyond what we say – it is reflected in the actions we take and the actions we allow to occur.

    I am willing to meet with anyone who feels that their voice is not heard – INCLUDING anyone involved with the alt-right posters or other divisive actions/comments/statements . I believe that our fight begins with us, and we need to seek out those things that make us different and that often are used to rationalize unacceptable behavior.

    This is our fight to fight, and this fight will not be won through alarmist responses to issues that can be addressed in a reasonable manner or by running to the administration. If the policeman was wrong, I trust the KSU PD to take appropriate action. If the student was harassed, the student should file a complaint with the campus police, and use the existing systems to resolve his concerns – up until the moment those systems fail to provide the necessary support.

    Integrity matters. Honesty matters. Values matter. We have a voice, and we have a responsibility to build and maintain our community in a way that represents those values with honesty and integrity.

    “A concerned student”

    • Chad

      “Also, why is the collegian running this as a “news” story and not an “opinion” piece? This article presents a single student’s representation of his experience.”

      Except this isn’t a single student’s representation as the article makes clear. The student’s follow up interview with KSU PD was listened to by another party who backed up Kelly’s claims. This student asked another person to listen in to ensure that his feelings appeared justified and they were.

      It’s also clear that the student went through the appropriate channels as he was asked. His fear and safety matter. He did nothing wrong. His claims should be taken seriously.

      • Scott Heise

        I understand your point. Except that the other person only heard the responses provided by the student – the observer did not listen in on the other end of the line. All of which misses the point – the entire article was written using an emailed statement from the student – without follow-up, follow-up with the observing student, or a conversation with the police supervisor or the accused officer. As a critical consumer of media, this article does not pass the common sense test. Which, by the way is not an indictment against the student, or his experience, rather an indictment of the manner in which the article was verified.

        With ZERO corroboration on the part of the reporter this can only be considered opinion (in my view). Interviewing people not related to the incident about their opinion does not change the validity of the information.

        • Chad

          Except that they talked to the assistant vice president of student life, who confirmed the investigation is underway. The talked to the speaker of the student senate who confirmed Kelly’s account. A person who obviously heard the call on speaker phone otherwise he could not be able to confirm the threatening nature of it. They interviewed other students on campus who had similar experiences. They spoke with the student body president who was one of the individuals in talks with administration about the situation. They also asked KSU PD’s police chief for comment and he REFUSED.

          Zero corroboration? Sounds like the reporters here asked any and everybody available. Stop making ridiculous statements that simply reading this article would prove dead wrong.

          • Scott Heise

            Okay – One more time…
            First – confirming that an investigations “underway” is not verification of facts surrounding the account. It describes an expected future outcome, not verification of a past occurrence.

            Second – Quoting Jonathan Peuchen’s (the “speaker of the student senate”) summation of Kelly’s fear of harassment as “rational” does not qualify as verification of any action. It is a subjective characterization by Peuchen about Kelly’s fear of harassment. What harassment is he referring to? Harassment by the police (which Kelly never asserted), or the original harassment charge, which Peuchen has no way of knowing? In any case it is Peuchen’s opinion, not verification of a specific act.

            Third – It must be INFERRED that the call was on speakerphone, Neither the Kelly nor Peuchen, or the reporter indicate that the phone was on speaker. Any claim otherwise is inferred and therefore not verified or corroborated. AND, Peuchen never characterized the call as “threatening.”

            Forth – Causation, correlation, or neither? The reporter quoted Klarissa Calvillo as saying “there are other students, herself included, who feel vulnerable on K-State’s campus.” And, “Just from a student perspective, I am Mexican, and I am a part of that population that is feeling that threat,” I accept Calvillo’s comments at face value, but there is no indication that she was responding to any specific question related to Kelly’s event, or of what question generated these responses. The same with the SGA President Jack Ayres when he “acknowledged the growing feelings of discomfort among minority students,” and that “The unfortunate reality is that some students don’t feel safe in the K-State Family. Those feelings of fear are valid. Community-wise, everybody needs to understand that students do feel this way.” What questions were asked that generated these responses? I have no idea, and I am certain that no other reader of this article does either. I am not claiming that these quotes are not in response to Kelly’s story, but there is no way to know because the questions leading to the responses are not included in the article; which speaks to my points about validity, verification, and corroboration.

            Fifth – The administration and the reporter may have spoken to Ayres, but he was not present at any point during Kelly’s interaction with the police. Assuming his statements are true (which I believe they are), it doesn’t change my assertion and it doesn’t confirm or corroborate any part of Kelly’s story.

            Sixth – The police provided the statement that they would not comment until the investigation was completed – and then they provided the process for the Collegian to receive the findings from the investigation. They did confirm that an investigation was underway (paraphrased). The reasonable person theory suggests that the Chief’s response was appropriate considering the investigation was not complete and findings were not available.

            Finally, I appreciate your summation. Anyone who can read would see that the reporter did not verify much of anything. This article contains numerous claims without warrants – which qualify it as opinion and news. I am sure there are facts in this story, but that doesn’t mean the reporter represented them as facts, or did the leg work to verify information before rushing to print.

          • Chad

            What else is the reporter supposed to do? They spoke to numerous individuals, they asked for statements. They’re reporters. They’re not the ones doing the investigation, that is not their job. There’s nothing more that they can actively verify.

            My problem here is that a student felt threatened during a time when the campus has seen numerous instances of racially motivated offenses and people in the comments are going out of their way to try to dismiss how students like Kelly feel. I think that’s very dangerous. Yes, of course we must wait and see the results of an investigation before making any determinations about this officer’s actions. But during times like these, we must listen to minority students. We must treat their threats as real. That’s where my concern lies. I feel like many of these comments are unnecessarily dismissive of a student who seems to have used all of the appropriate channels necessary to report an incident in which he felt he was in danger.

            Casting doubt on the real fears K-Staters are feeling does no one any good.

          • Skeptic

            I understand your point but don’t you think there is a difference between a perceived threat and an actual threat? Isn’t there a difference between *feeling* unsafe and actually being unsafe? By any statistical measure, KSU students are pretty safe but we constantly are told that groups of students *feel* unsafe and that we should, unquestioningly, believe them. Ok, so where do we draw the line on that? More importantly, if we are unclear on the actual situation then how do we make people *feel* safe? Objectively, one could argue spending more money or building a multicultural student center hasn’t worked at other universities because those students still feel unsafe. So what’s the answer? I certainly don’t know.

          • Skeptical

            Chad – so wait… I want to understand what you are saying… you are saying another student was there when the officer called Kelly about a second interview? Was that student present when the second interview took place? If so, why hasn’t that been reported? That seems pretty important. Also, you seem to have a pretty good inside grasp on this situation so… did Kelly record the second interview?

            Regarding your other comments: confirming an investigation is underway doesn’t make something true. Further, the KSU police chief not commenting doesn’t make anything true. It simply means that there is an investigation underway.

            To which ridiculous statements are you referring? I haven’t seen any posters make ridiculous statements.

          • Chad

            It has been reported, which you would know if you actually read the article.

            Also, I didn’t say anything was true, I simply said that this article cited MANY sources, which Scott denied in his initial post. He said they didn’t corroborate with anyone, which is blatantly false. They sought out many different individuals. They even asked KSU PD for a statement, which they chose not to provide.

          • Scott Heise

            Seeking many individuals doesn’t mean anything – it expresses intent , but not impact. They did not contact most of the people , and when they did contact them, they didn’t provided a statement. In any case, you cannot point to a single example (actually in the article) of the reporter receiving information, from Kelly or anyone else, and CONFIRMING that information with an independent, or even a second, witness.

            My first response suggests that Kelly could have used the system to redress his grievance. He did not do himself,or any other student, any favors when he sent his statement to the Collegian and allowed them to use it as they chose. He could not anticipate how they were going to use the statement so (in my view), he should have allowed the system to work and not sent the statement. Kelly is no different than any other student when it comes to the expectation of a safe campus environment, and I would expect any other student to use the system before blowing it up in the media.

            When the collegian publishes unverified stories – like the deliberate destruction of the Jewish eating hall and the graffiti on the car as fact, and then tie these events to earlier events, it creates the impression of a trend that is then reported on to further fan the flames. It doesn’t matter to the paper if Kelly’s story is true – they are telling it anyway.

            I believe Kelly’s story, but I think he could have achieved the same results without contributing to campus unrest. And, Chad, I haven’t marginalized or minimized anyone’s experience. If you really want people to feel the way you do, pay more attention to the way the message is being sent. To the people who are trying to figure all this out, inaccurate information only complicates the solution – it doesn’t help anyone.

            That is why I made my comment.

          • Skeptic

            Interesting. You are correct. I misread that portion of the article about Peuchen and that is my fault. The paragraph in question isn’t super clear. I wish the author (or a follow up) would report on exactly what Peuchen heard. It says he was present for the follow up conversation but it isn’t clear if they mean a phone conversation or a follow up interview or if that was the same event. If Peuchen confirms what the officer said during the second interview that would go a long way toward verifying what Kelly said happened.

  • Skeptic

    Why does this story read as if someone invented a cartoon version of the worst cop ever? I’m not dismissing the notion that a guy who is terrified to walk across the KSU campus – despite declining crime rates – may have had a negative perception of his interaction with the police, but his story makes this cop sound like he’s straight out of central casting for “stereotypical racist cop” and now the damage is done. Even if this officer is cleared of inappropriate behavior, this will always be out in the public.

  • Scott Heise

    I agree with “KSU grad student” that racism exists at our university.

    Is it a surprise? Racism is omnipresent – I feel that the question we should be ANSWERING is how we work toward building a community where people are not compelled to act on their racist ideologies. And, in a more idealized existence, how we work to reduce the development of biases across our communities.

    I disagree with the offended student’s representation of the administration and the author’s one-sided presentation of this story. If the student feels he is being targeted, and feels that the KSU PD is unresponsive to his circumstance, he has clear pathways to express himself in a manner that addresses the problem while maintaining a sense of order. The KSU PD and the campus administration have processes in place that likely would achieve satisfactory resolution of this student’s issues. When those systems fail, and the student is not treated justly, a different tact may be called for.

    This article begins with ‘A student senator at Kansas State claims to have been dismissed by campus police while attempting to file a harassment report.” Does it matter that the student is a Student Senator – how does his role on campus affect our understanding of this story? Also, why is thecollegian running this as a “news” story and not an “opinion” piece? This article presents a single student’s representation of his experience. I am not discounting or explaining away Mr. Kelly’s experience, or the impact it appears to have had on him, but this story does not represent the situation, it presents his opinion about the circumstances surrounding his experience.

    I see these representations of racism or bias presentation as “our problem.” And, when I say “our problem,” I mean we students. This is our campus and the environment is controlled by students – not the administration. Everyone on campus knows what behavior is acceptable and what isn’t – President Meyers telling us not to do something doesn’t solve anything. I believe that when students depend on the administration to solve their problems they are betraying their reason for being at KSU to begin with – to learn and grow, and to explore different ways to achieve outcomes and solve problems. Blaming the administration is avoiding responsibility we all share for maintaining civility and acceptance of others in our lives and experiences.

    If there are students on campus who are scared for their safety, their fear impacts all of us. We owe it to each other to build a community that lives the values expressed by the university, our predecessors, and our student body. We are grown ups in a grown up world – lets start acting like it and solve our problems. When we see behavior that violates those values – call them out. But our expression of these values has to be sincere and not an opportunistic outcry. It is hard to say we have clear values that include integrity when we knowingly endorse 18, 19, and 20 year-olds drinking alcohol on campus or sneaking into bars in Aggieville. I am not relating underage drinking with racism, but I am making the point that living values goes beyond what we say – it is reflected in the actions we take and the actions we allow to occur.

    I am willing to meet with anyone who feels that their voice is not heard – INCLUDING anyone involved with the alt-right posters or other divisive actions/comments/statements . I believe that our fight begins with us, and we need to seek out those things that make us different and that often are used to rationalize unacceptable behavior.

    This is our fight to fight, and this fight will not be won through alarmist responses to issues that can be addressed in a reasonable manner or by running to the administration. If the policeman was wrong, I trust the KSU PD to take appropriate action. If the student was harassed, the student should file a complaint with the campus police, and use the existing systems to resolve his concerns – up until the moment those systems fail to provide the necessary support.

    Integrity matters. Honesty matters. Values matter. We have a voice, and we have a responsibility to build and maintain our community in a way that represents those values with honesty and integrity.

    “A concerned student”

  • Scott Heise

    Who are you and why do you keep taking down my post? I posted a response two times and you have removed it twice. Did I violate the terms of use or school rules in some way? Did I break some language rule or something? Or are students not allowed to be critical of articles? You have the ability to send me a message if I am violating TOS, So let me know what you don’t like about it?

  • Scott Heise

    I agree with “KSU grad student” that racism exists at our university.
    Is it a surprise? Racism is omnipresent – I feel that the question we should be ANSWERING is how we work toward building a community where people are not compelled to act on their racist ideologies. And, in a more idealized existence, how we work to reduce the development of biases across our communities.
    I disagree with the offended student’s representation of the administration and the author’s one-sided presentation of this story. If the student feels he is being targeted, and feels that the KSU PD is unresponsive to his circumstance, he has clear pathways to express himself in a manner that addresses the problem while maintaining a sense of order. The KSU PD and the campus administration have processes in place that likely would achieve satisfactory resolution of this student’s issues. When those systems fail, and the student is not treated justly, a different tact may be called for.
    This article begins with ‘A student senator at Kansas State claims to have been dismissed by campus police while attempting to file a harassment report.” Does it matter that the student is a Student Senator – how does his role on campus affect our understanding of this story? Also, why is thecollegian running this as a “news” story and not an “opinion” piece? This article presents a single student’s representation of his experience. I am not discounting or explaining away Mr. Kelly’s experience, or the impact it appears to have had on him, but this story does not represent the situation, it presents his opinion about the circumstances surrounding his experience.
    I see these representations of racism or bias presentation as “our problem.” And, when I say “our problem,” I mean we students. This is our campus and the environment is controlled by students – not the administration. Everyone on campus knows what behavior is acceptable and what isn’t – President Meyers telling us not to do something doesn’t solve anything. I believe that when students depend on the administration to solve their problems they are betraying their reason for being at KSU to begin with – to learn and grow, and to explore different ways to achieve outcomes and solve problems. Blaming the administration is avoiding responsibility we all share for maintaining civility and acceptance of others in our lives and experiences. If there are students on campus who are scared for their safety, their fear impacts all of us. We owe it to each other to build a community that lives the values expressed by the university, our predecessors, and our student body.
    We are grown ups in a grown up world – lets start acting like it and solve our problems. When we see behavior that violates those values – call them out. But our expression of these values has to be sincere and not an opportunistic outcry. It is hard to argue for the rule of law when we knowingly endorse 18, 19, and 20 year-olds drinking alcohol on campus or sneaking into bars in Aggieville. I am not relating underage drinking with racism, but I am making the point that living values goes beyond what we say – it is reflected in the actions we take and the actions we allow to occur.
    I am willing to meet with anyone who feels that their voice is not heard – INCLUDING anyone involved with the alt-right posters or other divisive actions/comments/statements . I believe that our fight begins with us, and we need to seek out those things that make us different and that often are used to rationalize unacceptable behavior.
    This is our fight to fight, and this fight will not be won through alarmist responses to issues that can be addressed in a reasonable manner or by running to the administration. If the policeman was wrong, I trust the KSU PD to take appropriate action. If the student was harassed, the student should file a complaint with the campus police, and use the existing systems to resolve his concerns – up until the moment those systems fail to provide the necessary support. Integrity matters. Honesty matters. Values matter. We have a voice, and we have a responsibility to build and maintain our community in a way that represents those values with honesty and integrity.

    “A concerned student”