������ýapp�ٷ�

Dear President Hanson:

As you know, FIREfirst wrote to you on May 29, 2007, regarding Hamline University’s suspension of Troy Scheffler. We explained that Mr. Scheffler’s e-mails of April 17 and April 19 did not meet the legal definition of a “threat” and asked that you lift his “interim suspension.” Your response of June 11, 2007, claimed that Scheffler’s interim suspension was motivated by three factors: his e-mails of April 17 and 19; his failure to meet with you after you invited him to do so; and “critical input” from unnamed “members of the Hamline community.”

In reply, we wrote you again on September 29, 2007, reiterating our grave concerns about Scheffler’s treatment and detailing the numerous problems with your response of June 11, 2007. As we explained in our last letter, the three factors you cited to justify Scheffler’s suspension are markedly insufficient and offer precious little support for such an extreme punishment. Because of Hamline’s failure to provide suitable justification for Scheffler’s expulsion—indeed, the university’s failure to follow its own student judiciary policies—we asked Hamline to immediately reinstate Scheffler and drop its requirement of a mandatory psychological evaluation. At the very least, we asked that Hamline notify Scheffler of the charges against him, allow him an opportunity to face his accusers, and afford him a chance to present his version of the story to an impartial panel. To our substantial dismay, we have yet to receive a response to our request.

We remain particularly troubled by Hamline’s continuing refusal to be fully forthcoming regarding the reasons for Scheffler’s suspension. The third determining factor you cite in your June 11, 2007, letter—i.e., the input of individuals who “came forward on their own prior to the April emails, expressing their concerns about Mr. Scheffler”—remains frustratingly cryptic, as you refuse to inform Scheffler of the nature of these concerns or the identity of his accusers. In addition to violating Hamline’s Dean of ������ýapp�ٷ�’ “Student Judicial System” policy, such a refusal mocks our society’s conceptions of judicial fairness. This stonewalling in the face of eminently reasonable requests for due process in accordance with your school’s own policies is a completely inappropriate institutional stance for a modern liberal arts university.

To be clear: Scheffler’s education has been interrupted due to speech entirely protected by both the Constitution and Hamline’s own policies. If he has been punished for other reasons, Hamline has an established duty to afford Scheffler the due process promised him by Hamline’s own policies.

As we did in our letter of September 29, we ask yet again that Hamline University drop its demand of a mandatory psychological evaluation and end Troy Scheffler’s interim suspension. At the very least, Hamline must immediately notify Scheffler of the mysterious charges leveled against him by unknown accusers, allowing him a chance to face them and present his own side of this distressing ordeal. To do anything less is both unfair and unlawful.

FIRE remains committed to seeing this matter through to a just and moral conclusion. We appreciate your attention to this matter and request a response by November 27, 2007.

Sincerely,