Guilty until proven innocent?

By David Slifka

The presumption of innocence is an elusive ideal. Although easy to articulate, it is fiendishly difficult to apply to everyday life. We all know Political Science Lecturer James Van de Velde is innocent until proven guilty, but that's not the way he is being treated.

The weekend before shopping period, four weeks after Suzanne Jovin's, DC '99, murder, Yale decided to cancel Van de Velde's classes. The University explained, "...his classroom presence would ...impair [students'] educational experience." Van de Velde shot back a powerful rebuttal, stating, "I believe the University severely underestimates its students' ability...to make the most of their respective educational experiences." In the past, Yale's administrators have tended to provide students with maximum freedom. It is hard to understand why they would change their approach now.

To an outside observer, it would appear that Van de Velde and former Saybrook Master Antonio Lasaga are receiving identical treatment from Yale. In fact, Lasaga resigned from his teaching duties before he was charged. However, it is highly unlikely that, had he not done so, the University would have allowed him to continue teaching. Either way, the end result is that neither Van de Velde nor Lasaga are teaching. Yale has released almost identical statements that they've been freed to conduct scholarly work. However, their respective cases could hardly be more different. Lasaga has been charged with violation of child pornography laws based on physical evidence obtained from his house. Van de Velde has not been formally charged and is not even the prime suspect in the Jovin investigation. Not a shred of direct evidence linking him to the crime has yet been made public. Both Lasaga and Van de Velde deserve to be presumed innocent. But surely there should be some discernible difference in their treatment by Yale, reflecting the different stages their respective investigations have reached.

There are other details which have become public only recently but which were likely available to the Administration as it deliberated whether to cancel Van de Velde's classes. These facts include the harassment allegations by young women who worked with Van de Velde. These claims, if proven true, are serious; but they remain allegations and nothing more. The University cannot lean on them if it truly wishes to uphold the principle of the presumption of innocence. Paying lip service to ideals, Yale includes in its statement, "In changing his assignment, the University presumes that Mr. Van de Velde is innocent of any wrongdoing in connection with the murder of Suzanne Jovin." It sounds good, but in light of Yale's actions, it rings hollow.

The media thought so as well, taking Yale's decision to cancel Van de Velde's classes as justification for treating him as a suspect. Since Mon., Jan. 11, The Boston Globe and USA Today have begun covering the Jovin investigation. The New York Times has since made Van de Velde the focus of its coverage.

All of this demonstrates the difficulty of translating the presumption of innocence into everyday life. Media coverage would not have inhibited Van de Velde's ability to teach us about international drug trafficking, and I do not believe the Administration thinks otherwise. Rather, it is making a rational and calculated decision to minimize any negative impact on Yale from further evidence gathered against Van de Velde. This is a justifiable position. But the Administration cannot credibly maintain that its actions reflect a true presumption of Van de Velde's innocence.

David Slifka is a sophomore in Jonathan Edwards.

Back to Opinion...