It has been recently revealed that Jesse Cheng has filed an appeal with UCI student conduct. Based on the UCI student conduct policy:
The Appeal will be Granted or Denied based on:
1. Whether there is new evidence which could not be adduced at the time of the investigative conference which is likely to change the result;
2. Whether there was a violation of due process;
3. Whether the sanction imposed was too harsh given the finding of fact.
Our Source tells us that Cheng chose the 3rd option declaring the punishment was too harsh. At this point, we cannot confirm what the exact punishment is, but in a recent article in the OC weekly, Cheng said it was only probation to the end of the school year (2.5 months).
In the UCI Student Conduct Policy. The university has a limited number of options for disciplinary action. They are as follows:
Warning/Censure
Disciplinary Probation
Loss of Privileges and Exclusion from Activities
Suspension
Dismissal
Exclusion from Areas of the Campus or from Official University Functions
Interim Suspension
Restitution
Revocation of Awarding of Degree
Other-( monetary fines, community service, or holds on requests for transcripts, diplomas, or other student records to be sent to third parties,University service- required participation as an unpaid volunteer in activities which serve the University,behavioral contract- specific requirements relating to expectations of behavior, revocation of registration of a campus organization.)
If we take Cheng's word that he is only facing probation, then his only other alternate punishment is a warning if the university agrees with him. This seems to be a waste of time because he still is found responsible for violating the university's sexual harassment policy which will still stay with him for the rest of his life.
This does not seem like an unreasonable thing to do unless he is hoping to drag the appeal process as long as possible until he graduates and then tries to declare the situation as not resolved.
The only other possible scenario is Jesse Cheng lied about the disciplinary actions the university issued in order to downplay the whole affair. Aside from Student Conduct (who cannot comment due to student confidentiality), Jesse Cheng is the only one who truly knows the real punishment. Laya was told the punishment will only be revealed to her if Jesse did not appeal the decision.
Either way, what is interesting, is if Jesse told the truth, shouldn't he be appealing on the grounds of introducing new evidence or a violation of due process? While it is very possible that he does not have new evidence to give, if he told the truth in his statement, he should be arguing that his statements were not taking seriously or weighed equally with Laya's. Afterall, the university's policy states "Violations of the Sexual Assault Policy will be determined on the preponderance of the evidence standard." Such a standard is easy to appeal if it a "he said, she said" case.
Just something to think about.
UCI Student Conduct information:
http://www.dos.uci.edu/conduct/policy.php?s=100.00#10300
http://www.dos.uci.edu/conduct/appendix_3.php
Article of Jesse Cheng claiming only probation:
http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/2011/03/jesse_cheng_student_conduct_ru.php>"
