Several months after Academic Vice President Orin Grossman authorized an investigation, the Fairfield Police Department finally revealed findings of its investigation regarding the StagWeb grade-changing incident.
In addition to defining the matter as a closed case, the report failed to identify the student, only referring to him as ‘Student #1’ and a ‘[former] resident advisor.’
Detective Bernard Kelly said the decision to withhold the student’s identity complies with Grossman’s decision to keep the incident an internal matter.
‘This simply was not a criminal matter,’ said Sgt. James Perez, Fairfield Police, who is the public affairs official at the department. ‘The professors initially felt it may have been a criminal act, but the school’s findings and [Kelly’s] investigation found that it was not.’
Perez added that the Freedom of Information Act, which mandates that federal governmental and public agencies must release information and legal findings, only pertains to criminal acts.
The report states that the pursuit of a police report by the professors involved began on July 25, the date that Grossman sent a memo to the six faculty members involved in the incident.
In that note, Grossman revealed the administration’s decision to permit the student to continue academic studies as a member of the University College.’ ‘ ‘
‘It was never our intention to ruin a person’s life,’ Grossman said. ‘At a certain point, cura personalis enters one’s mind.’
The implicated professors, however, were stunned with this decision.
‘It is sort of a false dichotomy,’ DeWitt said of his initial reaction.’
Alternatives are not either to ruin the person’s life or to completely let them off. There was a whole range of options in between.’
In addition, it was not until this memo that the six professors directly involved were notified of the extent of the student’s actions, and that identification and StagWeb login codes were compromised.
This finding, coupled with Grossman’s decision to keep the matter an internal affair, provoked professors to consider alternatives.
‘When we found out [Grossman’s decision] and that the punishment was so light, I Googled it to research [the situation],’ DeWitt said. ‘Surprisingly, the results came back and pointed to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Web site, although it was never my intention to contact the FBI’
At that point, DeWitt and the professor decided to contact an FBI subsidiary in Bridgeport, if only to seek counsel about potential legal recourse.
‘From there, we were told to contact Fairfield police, just to see what our options were,’ DeWitt said.
According to’ Kelly’s account, DeWitt felt that the student’s access into e-mail accounts potentially constituted a criminal activity and voiced his concerned over potential identity theft.
‘I explained to DeWitt that the grades and the computer system and the computer system are the property of Fairfield and not of the respective professors,’ Kelly stated in the report.
‘At that point, Grossman and the administration can potentially act as they see fit,’ Kelly added.
Kelly’s conclusion was that, unless the University decided to pursue further legal action or discovered more extensive evidence of identification theft, there was no standing to request a criminal prosecution.
Upon request, the administration told Kelly that it did not request a criminal investigation. Despite the lack of a definitive student name, the investigation is currently labeled as a closed case.
Leave a Reply