Representatives of GUSA and the university had differing perceptions of a meeting held Wednesday to discuss a recent GUSA resolution that called for the release of the results of the disciplinary hearing which investigated the circumstances surrounding David Shick’s death last February. The two sides were also still

“The meeting was less than fruitful,” GUSA President Tawan Davis (COL ’01) said. “We’re still in strong disagreement on some very key issues.”

One university official said that it was a “good meeting. It was a candid exchange of views about a lot of issues.” He added that there would need to be “more positive discussions” on the issue before it can be resolved.

Four senior members of GUSA met with University President Leo J. O’Donovan, S.J., Vice President for Student Affairs Juan C. Gonzalez, a representative from the university counsel’s office and other university officials one week after the passage of the resolution, which called upon the university to take four specific actions aimed to increase awareness of the events surrounding Shick’s death.

First, it calls for the release to the Shick family of the outcome of the August disciplinary hearing, including the names of the students investigated as well as any disciplinary actions taken by the board, which was comprised of students, faculty and administrators.

The resolution also asks the university to release a “brief synopsis” of the facts of the case to the community. It also asks for a release of the results of the hearing, without the names of the students involved, to the university community. Finally, the resolution asks the university to conduct a review of the university’s disclosure policy.

The university has agreed to the final request, and Gonzalez has asked the Disciplinary Review Committee to review Georgetown’s policy for future matters. Davis said that this step is important because realistically the university will be forced to deal with similar issues in the future.

“The next time it comes, it will address the needs of the accused and the victims,” Davis said.

Davis said that the original decision not to disclose the full results of the hearing without restrictions to David’s parents, Jeff and Deborah, was a “judgment call,” and that the law allows for disclosure to the family of victims if the institution desired to. Following the hearing, the university agreed to release the results of the hearing to Shick’s family only if they would sign a non-disclosure agreement that would have forbidden them to tell the results of the hearing to David’s younger brother and sister, an offer the Shicks declined.

The university official disagreed with that characterization, saying that the decision was consistent with the university’s previously established policy and therefore not a judgment call.

Davis, Jamal Epps (COL ’01), Jeff Burns (COL ’01) and GUSA Chief External Advisor Wendi Wright (SFS ’01), the four students involved in the meeting, said that despite the lack of success at Wednesday’s meeting, they will continue to push for disclosure of the hearing’s results, including circulating a petition to the entire student body endorsing the GUSA resolution.

“We think that for [the Student Code of Conduct] to be an educational process, we need to show that students will be held accountable, and students will change their behavior,” Burns said.

The university official said that the university will continue to honor the commitment it made to confidentiality when the Shick proceedings began.

“It’s a promise that the community makes . a big part of how our system works is the promise of confidentiality, which is a promise made because of our policy,” he said. He added that witnesses and members of the panel, as well as the students accused, had been guaranteed confidentiality, and the university could not in good faith break those promises.

He did say that the first request made by the resolution, releasing a synopsis of the events surrounding Shick’s death, is “quite possibly doable.”

Last February, Shick, 20, died following an altercation in the Lauinger Library parking lot between two groups of students returning from Champion’s, a local bar. Both groups of students had been drinking.

He was punched, fell and hit his head on the ground, resulting in his death four days later at the Georgetown University Medical Center. The district medical examiner ruled the death a homicide. In the wake of the incident, two members of the men’s soccer team retained D.C. lawyer David Schertler.

In June, U.S. Attorney Wilma A. Lewis declined to press charges against the individuals involved in the incident, citing Department of Justice policy under which indictments are pursued only if there was a likelihood of conviction. Lewis hinted that Shick’s role in the fight would have limited that likelihood.

Following the U.S. Attorney’s decision not to pursue a conviction, Georgetown resumed its disciplinary inquiry, which was completed in August. The hearing lasted for 17 hours and included testimony from individuals involved on both sides of the fight. The results of the inquiry have not been made public in accordance with the university’s Student Code of Conduct. In August, Director of Student Conduct Judy Johnson said that “only those who need to know will be told” the results.

Related Links

GUSA Approves Shick Resolution (9/15)