8/9/2019 Robinette v DCR, Dissenting

1/2

8/9/2019 Robinette v DCR, Dissenting

2/2

proceedings.

Specifically, the environment created and the way in which it was propagated by the DCR meantthat Robinette entered the meeting that resulted in his impeachment without knowledge of the

DCRs intention to impeach him. I find convincing evidence that an exclusive group of DCR

acting in representation of DCR had pre-discussed these purposes and intentions, and that thepeople privy to these discussions were strategically chosen for their likelihood to agree with the

allegations. I believe that these exclusive discussions were allowed to move forward because of

the hostile environment described above, and thereby find that Robinette was discriminatedagainst on the basis of his sexual orientation. Further, these actions together exposed Robinettes

sexual orientation without his consent or participation to a degree with which he would not have

otherwise assented. I believe this, too, constitutes discrimination.

The Duke community holds in high regard the Duke Community Standard, which states the

position of our community as one that is committed to fairness and respect for others. I believe

that this implies a zero tolerance policy with respect to discrimination based on sexual

orientation by student organizations. I further assert that the Duke Student Government can andshould place a responsibility on all of its student organizations to follow necessary and

reasonable safeguards to ensure that no such discrimination ever enters into any action taken bythe group as a whole.

In this case, I do not believe that the Duke College Republicans followed necessary and

reasonable procedures for doing so. While exclusive conversations spread regarding complaintsabout Robinettes leadership, no member attempted to present formally these grievances to

Robinette prior to his impeachment. I believe that such a formal presentation would have

allowed Robinette the chance to initiate dialogue regarding these complaints, and that this wouldhave constituted a reasonable safeguard in protecting against discrimination in this instance.

I do concur with the majoritys opinions regarding the third and fourth allegations in this case.However, because of my strong disagreement on the first and second allegation, I respectfully

dissent from todays decision.