Administrator May Have Broken Law in D.U. Case

Associate Dean of the College Thomas A. Dingman '67 may have violated University procedure and federal law when he told the president of the D.U. final club's graduate board the result of two Administrative Board cases.

According to Dean of the College L. Fred Jewett '57, who chairs the board's meetings, administrators are not allowed to both identify a student who appears before the board and describe the Ad Board's finding in the student's case.

Louis I. Kane '53, the president of the D.U.'s graduate board, said last month that Dingman had told him two students had been put on disciplinary probation for their involvement in an incident in which a high school football recruit was allegedly beaten at the club.

Sean D. Hansen '95 was one of the students put on probation, varsity football Captain Justin Frantz '96 said last month. Administrators and players did not reveal the identity of the other student.

Kane said in an interview with The Crimson last month that he knew the identities of the two students involved. Since that interview, Kane has not returned numerous telephone calls to his home and office.

When asked to explain University policy on disclosing Ad Board information, Jewett said he would be "extremely surprised to hear that [Dingman] had identified the students involved and told [Kane] the result of thecase."

"We can only tell [our] faculty and staff if itis necessary for them to know," Jewett said,explaining that Kane, as an individual notassociated with the University, should not havebeen told by Dingman the names and outcomes of thecases.

Jewett said that it would be perfectlypermissible for Dingman to give the outcomes ofthe cases if individuals' identification was notspecified.

"I could not tell you the outcome of the casesbecause you had mentioned the names of someindividuals," Jewett said in a telephoneinterview, explaining the rule which is mandatedby both University policy and the federal BuckleyAmendment.

When asked whether he had given the names ofthe individuals to Kane, Dingman said that he didnot remember.

"But it is not really important," Dingman said."It was clear who we were talking about. I don'tknow if I said `Here is what happened to Dingmanand Brown' or whether he already knew the names."

Dingman said that as an individual "terriblyconcerned about the incident," Kane had the rightto know what the Board had found.

"He is responsible for their building, theirspace and more than that, the club," Dingman said."It happened in a facility he oversees and he isresponsible for."

"I don't know whether I gave the names or hesupplied them," Dingman said. "But he spends lotof time at the club talking to the students there,and knew who we were talking about."

When told that his potential disclosure mayhave been in violation of the law, Dingmanreiterated Kane's "right to know" about the case.

When told yesterday that Dingman may haverevealed the students' names Jewett said it wouldbe "highly unusual" for an administrator to do so.

He said he did not know whether such an actionwould leave the University open to a lawsuit.

Jewett said, however, that it is permissiblefor administrators to talk about the outcome of acase even if they suspect the other party knowsthe names of the students involved: onlyspecifying the names is illegal.

Dingman and Jewett said the fact that Kane isco-chair of the $965 million Faculty of Arts andSciences Capital Campaign had no bearing on thisdisclosure.

"You're the first to tell me that," Dingmansaid. "I don't even know what that means."

Jewett said that he knew that Kane was theCampaign's co-chair but said "it had no bearing onhow I spoke to him.

"We can only tell [our] faculty and staff if itis necessary for them to know," Jewett said,explaining that Kane, as an individual notassociated with the University, should not havebeen told by Dingman the names and outcomes of thecases.

Jewett said that it would be perfectlypermissible for Dingman to give the outcomes ofthe cases if individuals' identification was notspecified.

"I could not tell you the outcome of the casesbecause you had mentioned the names of someindividuals," Jewett said in a telephoneinterview, explaining the rule which is mandatedby both University policy and the federal BuckleyAmendment.

When asked whether he had given the names ofthe individuals to Kane, Dingman said that he didnot remember.

"But it is not really important," Dingman said."It was clear who we were talking about. I don'tknow if I said `Here is what happened to Dingmanand Brown' or whether he already knew the names."

Dingman said that as an individual "terriblyconcerned about the incident," Kane had the rightto know what the Board had found.

"He is responsible for their building, theirspace and more than that, the club," Dingman said."It happened in a facility he oversees and he isresponsible for."

"I don't know whether I gave the names or hesupplied them," Dingman said. "But he spends lotof time at the club talking to the students there,and knew who we were talking about."

When told that his potential disclosure mayhave been in violation of the law, Dingmanreiterated Kane's "right to know" about the case.

When told yesterday that Dingman may haverevealed the students' names Jewett said it wouldbe "highly unusual" for an administrator to do so.

He said he did not know whether such an actionwould leave the University open to a lawsuit.

Jewett said, however, that it is permissiblefor administrators to talk about the outcome of acase even if they suspect the other party knowsthe names of the students involved: onlyspecifying the names is illegal.

Dingman and Jewett said the fact that Kane isco-chair of the $965 million Faculty of Arts andSciences Capital Campaign had no bearing on thisdisclosure.

"You're the first to tell me that," Dingmansaid. "I don't even know what that means."

Jewett said that he knew that Kane was theCampaign's co-chair but said "it had no bearing onhow I spoke to him.