Everything you need to know about the Chestnut Hill College discrimination case
It’s been almost five years since drama began to surround Chestnut Hill College after a former student filed an institutional discrimination case. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied hearing an appeal by the college on Oct. 24, marking another chapter in the saga.
“A Raisin in the Sun”
The drama unfolded after a theatrical performance of “A Raisin in the Sun,” orchestrated by a senior classman in 2012. Student Allan-Michael Meads, scheduled to graduate in May of 2012, collaborated with the African American Awareness Society to produce the event. Meads financed the project through his personal funds, a club policy at the college would ensure Meads is reimbursed at a later date. During preparation for the play, he connected with the Lupus Foundation to organize donating 20% of the play’s proceeds. The cast performed the play three times. An estimated 300 community members attended throughout the duration of the performances. Businesses who helped with the production received complimentary tickets. Middle school students, teachers, and staff members in attendance also received a number of complimentary tickets.
After the final performance, Meads sent the Lupus Foundation a $500 check. Meads then spent an estimated $800 for a cast and crew party. The college and Meads exchanged receipts through the following days. Chestnut Hill calculated proceeds from the events to approximately $2,248. Due to complimentary tickets, neither party could accurately state the amount of proceeds correctly.
Expulsion
On March 23, 2012, Chestnut Hill College expelled Meads for violating the following Student Code and College Policies:
“Major Violation 19. Failure to comply with directions of College officials acting in performance of their duties.
General regulations (1) Respect for persons and property. (2) Respect for the
educational function of the College.
Major Violations (1) Dishonesty, such as cheating, plagiarism, or knowingly
furnishing false information to the College. (2) Forgery, alteration or use of
College documents, records or instruments of identification with intent to defraud. (16) Theft from College premises or to the property of a member of the College community. (21) Violation of law on College premises in a way that adversely affects the College community’s pursuit of its proper educational purposes. (22) Lewd, indecent, immoral or obscene conduct including but not limited to violations of any law, regulation or ordinance.”
The college stated Meads did not disclose that only twenty percent of funds would transfer to the Lupus Foundation. Through a letter, Chestnut Hill College instructed Meads to pay $2,248 to the college that would later go to the foundation. The letter also stated payments needed to be made by April 13 or Meads would not be able to access official transcripts and other documents held by the college.
Meads’ Appeal
After receiving the letter, he appealed the expulsion later that day. In his appeal, Meads accepted responsibility for expenses on the cast and crew party, and said he would pay the school back. In the appeal, he cited his academic standing, his impending graduation just weeks away, his lack of prior student conduct violations, in addition to the numerous service projects and contributions he has made to the college community. He also stated he provided complimentary tickets to the Lupus Foundation and middle school students in attendance.
On April 4, Chestnut Hill College President Carol Jean Vale denied Meads’ appeal and said, “The Board unanimously supported the recommendation of
hearing officer Steven P. Guerriero…that you be expelled and directed to pay
restitution to the College…initially, you refused to cooperate with the dean.”
The Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission
On July 20, 2015, the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission filed findings of probable cause existed that the college discriminated against Meads.
“WHEREFORE, probable cause exist to credit the Complainant, Allan-Michael
Meads allegations that Respondent discriminated against him because of his race, African-American, by expelling him from Respondent College in violation of the Pennsylvania Fair Educational Opportunities Act P.S. 5001–5010.”
In a letter to Alumni dated on Oct. 20, 2016, Chestnut Hill College commented on the findings.
“The Finding of Probable Cause indicates that the PHRC believes the allegations made by the complainant warrant further investigation. The Finding of Probable Cause is NOT a statement of facts. It is NOT a judgment against the College by the PHRC. The Finding of Probable Cause is simply a notice that the PHRC will look into the matter further to determine whether the allegations are true. It is a confidential document issued by the PHRC to both parties.”
In 2016, the college hired an attorney in response to the findings. During preparation, the attorney found a case from 1988 that featured similar circumstances to Mead’s case. The commonwealth court found that the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, a legislative act that created the PHRC, did not give the PHRC the jurisdiction to hear cases of discrimination involving Catholic high schools. Chestnut Hill College filed a motion claiming they fell under the same ruling as a private Catholic institution. The PHRC hearing officer denied the motion, but filed it for appeal if the College wanted to pursue that option.
The college appealed the decision to the Commonwealth Court. Chestnut Hill stated,
“Simply put, the College asks the question whether the PHRC has the right to review student discipline decisions of Catholic colleges and universities.”
On Oct. 6, 2016, a Philadelphia City Council released a resolution condemning the college’s decision to appeal. In their resolution, the council stated,
“Chestnut Hill College’s decision to appeal the findings of the PHRC to Pennsylvania’s Commonwealth Court could set a dangerous precedent of removing students at private religious colleges in Pennsylvania from the protections and jurisdiction of the Human Relations Act (HRA), as well as disciplinary action of the PHRC in cases of civil rights violations.”
The resolution passed by a vote of 14–3 and Philadelphia Mayor Jim Kenney expressed his support of the vote through a tweet.
The Appeal
On the morning of April 7, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania ruled against Chestnut Hill College’s appeal. The court found the college’s argument did not support reason for them to not follow anti-discrimination law. This decision left room for appeal by the school to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. The college initially responded,
“Chestnut Hill College is disappointed…the college sought clarification of existing law and while the college doesn’t agree with the court’s reasoning, we respect the opinion.”
Chestnut Hill insists their reason for appeal was not to be exempt from anti-discrimination laws, but rather to question whether the PHRC has the jurisdiction to hear Meads’ allegations.
On May 8, the college filed an appeal of the court’s decision to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. After filing, President Vale sent letters to community members mentioning support from multiple sources including the Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities. Michael Galligan-Stierle, president of ACCU, released a statement in support of the school.
“Catholic higher education firmly rejects discrimination — which is against the teachings of the Church — in all of its forms…this case is about holding students accountable under the values that the college stands for — honesty, integrity, and personal responsibility — which are part of Chestnut Hill’s Catholic identity. The decision of the Commonwealth Court points to a core misunderstanding of that identity and of Catholic educational institutions’ relationship to the Catholic Church. ACCU is proud to affirm its support for the college as it rebuts the court’s decision.”
Despite the support, on Oct. 24, 2017, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied hearing the appeal.
A spokesperson for the college released a response.
“We are disappointed with the decision of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court not to hear our petition in this case. Our objective was only to seek clarification on important questions of law concerning the jurisdiction of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission. That said, we respect the Court’s decision.”
This marks the latest update on the status of the appeal. The Philly Melting Pot has an article available for more information on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision.
The Future
The legal battle continues on, leaving Chestnut Hill College in a position to either appeal to the United States Supreme Court or hear the case with the PHRC.
Chestnut Hill College urges the public to visit their website for additional information on the case.
Check out Billy Penn for up to date articles concerning Chestnut Hill College.
