Citing lack of due process in the J-Board hearing that resulted in their one-year suspension, Michael Cadoux ’04 and Grey Norton ’04 have filed an appeal, alleging "improper judicial procedure and extraordinary circumstances" surrounding the process, according to Philosophy Professor Fred Sontag, who began advising the students after their hearing.

They also wish to introduce "new evidence" that was not available at the time of the first trial, Sontag said.

Norton and Cadoux were charged with disorderly conduct, underage drinking and verbal abuse in an altercation several weeks ago with Professor of English Valorie Thomas, the Harwood Faculty Residen.

But controversy has arisen on campus about the procedure that was followed in charging and sentencing the students. Advocates of Norton and Cadoux have said they did not have adequate time to prepare for the hearing and have hired legal counsel to advise them in the appeal process.

"They had a lawyer prepare [the appeal document]," said Alex Mondau’04, a close friend of Cadoux’s, on Tuesday.

"He has some marvelous points; that’s why you hire attorneys," Sontag said. "He sees a lot of nuances in [the Student Code]" that were not considered. But the students won’t "ask for the attorneys to be present" if there is an appeal hearing, he said.

Judiciary Council Chair Wells Miller ’02 will review the request for an appeal, as called for by the Code, said Dean of Students Ann Quinley. He will have ten days to prepare a response. He will then call three students from the Judiciary Council to consider both opinions.

"I think the outlook is slightly more positive than after the verdict," said Alex Mondau ’04, Cadoux’s former roommate. But he was less optimistic about the students’ prospects for a return to campus, saying their absence from campus "will severely hinder their chances of making this semester possible for credit."

"I’ve convinced them not to try to rush it," said Sontag, although he said College President Peter Stanley had been in touch with the students and promised a timely hearing process. "They won’t even think about trying to get back to college this term," Sontag said.

Sontag reiterated concerns about the impartiality of the hearings, which he said factored into the appeal. Although not part of the formal charges, reports of a racial overtone to the incident may have unfairly influenced J-Board members, he said.

"You’ve got the [racial remark] thing in there, which got public attention, and they seem to agree that this never got carried out of line," Sontag said of the alleged verbal abuse. "There’s so much in [the charges] that is inflammatory, that it’s very hard when these things get into the press and so on, to get a calm and impartial hearing. Everyone in the room has heard all kinds of things."

Dean Quinley felt the case had been considered as fairly as possible. "To the best of my understanding, the provisions of the Student Code were followed," she said.

"One thing I realized through all of this is that the campus community doesn’t know very much about the Judiciary Council. We need to try to be more open and more transparent about what happens in a Judiciary Council hearing," Quinley said.