EDITORIAL: Fair Treatment?

After an arbitrator's rulingAfter an arbitrator's rulingcleared University Police OfficerAfter an arbitrator's rulingcleared University Police OfficerJohn Washington of wrong doingAfter an arbitrator's rulingcleared University Police OfficerJohn Washington of wrong doingin the DP theft incident, it is clearAfter an arbitrator's rulingcleared University Police OfficerJohn Washington of wrong doingin the DP theft incident, it is clearthat University officials did notAfter an arbitrator's rulingcleared University Police OfficerJohn Washington of wrong doingin the DP theft incident, it is clearthat University officials did nothandle the situation justly.After an arbitrator's rulingcleared University Police OfficerJohn Washington of wrong doingin the DP theft incident, it is clearthat University officials did nothandle the situation justly._______________________________________ Washington said he had struck the student on the upper thigh with a mini-baton after trying to arrest him for 10 minutes and after the student had made an attempt to punch him. University Police Commissioner John Kuprevich suspended Washington for three days without pay and permanently marked the incident on the officer's record following a ruling by a special inquiry panel. Kuprevich said at the time that the officer acted in poor judgment. But last month Arbitrator Thomas DiLauro found that University Police Officer John Washington did not use unnecessary force while arresting the student. In fact, DiLauro said that "the conclusion is inescapable that [Washington], except for his use of profanity, acted in an extremely professional manner in a situation which could have easily been avoided if [the student] had identified himself and explained what he was doing." DiLauro's decision proves that Washington was not treated fairly or justly by Kuprevich or the special panel that reviewed the case. Instead of supporting an officer who protects the thousands of students who attend the University, Kuprevich and University Police Chief George Clisby testified against Washington during arbitration, trying to paint him as a "discipline problem, a disgruntled employee and as a racist," according to the officer. In addition, former University Associate General Counsel Neil Hamburg submitted a legal brief stating Washington may have used the mini-baton "because he had a racial animus against [the student]." Kuprevich did not rush to the defense of one of his officers; instead, he succumbed to community pressure and tried to make Washington the scapegoat for a campus wrought with racial tension. Kuprevich said "we took appropriate actions." Clearly, that is not the case.