Lennox was subsequently cited on numerous charges that I would call dubious: distributing fliers too close to a public forum, bringing a video camera to a public place, and not identifying himself properly to a university official. Here is how the university explained the initial charge.

You have been cited for violating sections 3.2.2 (Providing false information to a university official); 3.2.15 (Not identifying yourself to a university agent when asked) and 3.2.32 (Distributing printed materials in violation of the Advocacy Policy) of the CMU Code of Student Rights, Responsibilities and Disciplinary Procedures during an incident that occurred in Anspach Hall on October 23, 2007.

Now, here is code 3.2.2 of their student code of conduct.

A student shall not furnish, or attempt to furnish, false or misleading information to University officials or on official University records. Furthermore, he/she shall not forge, alter, or misuse the University name, the name of any University employee, documents, records of identification, or attempt to do the same.

A student shall comply with the directions of University agents acting in the performance of their regular or delegated duties and must identify him self or her self to these agents upon request.

All of this relates to one incident in which Lennox was cited by a university official for passing out literature in a manner that violated their policy. Their policy forbids distribution of literature any closer than 25 feet from any doorway. When he was confronted by the official, Lennox refused to identify himself violating another policy. First, the very policy that forbids distribution of literature any closer than 25 feet from a door is in and of itself likely unconstitutional and certainly against the entire spirit of the first amendment.

Second the University both claims that Lennox misrepresented himself and that he didn't identify himself at all. Obviously he couldn't have simultaneously not identified himself at all and also misrepresented himself, so the administration has a convoluted arguement here.

Now, the way the story has been told to me is that in fact Lennox did refuse to identify himself when asked, and it would be fair to describe Lennox' behavior as confrontational, condescending and even arrogant. Lennox himself, vehemently, believes this is an unfair and inaccurate description of the way in which the events unfolded. His behavior during the incident is a side issue. Even if he likely acted like a jerk, completely out of character for a college student (?), is this really the sort of thing that university officials need to file formal procedural charges for? Wouldn't it have made more sense if the official Lennox had confronted had merely given him a stiff talking to and ended the matter there?

The citation against video cameras is even more dubious. The university doesn't have any such regulation against video cameras. Rather they have this all encompassing regulation.

Violation of other university regulations, policies or established procedures may be treated as an offense under these regulations.

The way this portion of the student code was explained to me is that the University has an all encompassing power to create rules as they see fit. We all remember the famous line in Animal House.

They are? Well, as of this moment, they're on DOUBLE SECRET PROBATION!

Well, the fictional dean was using a similar fictional code. In the movie, he also had sweeping powers to regulate the school as he saw fit. While that was of course entirely set up for comedic purposes, the manner in which CMU used their own power is not at all funny.

CMU essentially mandated that video cameras would no longer be allowed in their public areas. They sent Lennox a letter with this mandate and uder the student code, all students must follow all directives handed down from the administration. If I understand their student code correctly, the administration could literally force a student to be home by a certain hour if they pleased. That is the sort of sweeping powers they left themselves within their code of conduct. What is unclear is whether or not this directive applied to all students or merely Lennox. It is, however clear, that it was only enforced toward one student.

This directive was so absurd that even the ACLU felt the need to act.

...letter from the American Civil Liberties Union addressed to Central Michigan University President Michael Rao and dated November 27th requesting that the University lift a ban on videotaping Professor Gary Peters on campus, a ban targeted at a conservative student, Dennis Lennox. According to the ACLU the University's decision "violates Mr. Lennox's First Amendment right to engage in political advocacy."

The administration has been wishy washy as to whether or not the ban on cameras applied to all students or just Lennox. It is clear it was only enforce on Lennox. Not only is banning cameras a violation of the first amendment, but when that ban is only enforced on one student, that violates the fourteenth amendment. Again, who is being held responsible for this gross abuse of power?

As convoluted, vague, and unfair as the charges are, that is only the beginning of the story. The manner in which the administration carries out the investigation, trial and punishment is no less fair. In a trial, you receive copies of every piece of evidence the other side is holding. Not so in the case of the CMU code of conduct (here is an email to Lennox explaining)

You have the right under FERPA to inspect your file, but not to have copies of the information included within the file.

Furthermore, the hearings are closed due to what I consider dubious right to privacy reasons. Finally, the entire structure is open to corruption. After all, the deciding panel is made up nearly entirely of administration officials. In this case, and likely in most cases, it is administration officials that are levvying the charges. As such, you have the same group acting as judge, jury, prosecutor and executioner. In that climate, does it seem likely a student would get a fair shake?

Beyond this the same school officials that are ready to throw the book at Lennox for what to me amounts to nothing more than exercising his first amendment rights, never hold themselves responsible. Dean Pamela Gates is now on record as admitting that she "lost it" when she was confronted with the video camera in the incident I linked to earlier.

First, Dean Pamela Gates admitted to other university officials in the moments after the videotaping-assault incident that she "lost it". OutsideLansing.com agrees with her conclusion.

This admission by the Dean, when she contacted her bosses immediately after the incident, suggests that she understood the nature of her reaction as an overreaction. It is about the only thing of interest in the summary of the incident between"Student C" (we can not verify for sure that this was Dennis Lennox, however, it stands to reason) and Ms. Gates (that a PDF of 325KB size from Zarko Research & Consulting). The only other thing of minor interest is that Student C's voice was "loud, demanding, and directive" - there is no evidence or even discussion of an assault by Student C on anyone in the office, or of anything other than Student C saying "Thank you" in an allegedly "sarcastic and condescending" way. The best reason CMU can give for its official's behavior is it didn't like the "tone" of what Student C was saying - hardly justification for what is becoming a witch-hunt now against this student.

Lennox is being held accountable for distributing literature too close to a door however the dean of students is not being held accountable for "losing it" when confronted by a STUDENT.

Beyond that, the administration poisoned the perverbial waters when they characterized Lennox as such in a series of emails

Mr. Lennox is not only someone with noxious political and social beliefs, but someone who has mental health issues, and someone who seems to be losing control. The psychologist's advice (he has been following some of this on the news) is the following: "Don't provoke him. Don't initiate a confrontation of any sort, be it email, letter, or a face-to-face. He will respond in kind and escalate. Do not respond to correspondence, taunts, or 'stalking behavior' other than by calling the police. Appoint a mediator, if possible, from the counseling center [a neutral party], to try to convince him to either get help, back off or face scholastic or legal consequences." The psychologist went on to say that he thought that Lennox was a ticking bomb of sorts: he's angry [a little ball of hate, really], he's been rejected by other conservatives, and he has fixated on certain groups of people as the ultimate cause of his unhappiness. I know we are all furious with Lennox, and despise what he represents--let's face it, a movement that loathes academe and all it stands for. But I do think the above advice is solid and worth considering. Oh, and Horowitz has had connections with the Christian Right and the YAF because of their shared hatred for Muslims. It's a weird partnership, but one that has been flourishing for at least 10 years (Frontline did something on it a few years ago).

and this incendiary response...

So are you saying that this kid is dangerous? As in Virginia Tech dangerous? Let's not ignore the warning signs...

(First, I will point out that the characterization of Lennox by an administration that has made him their adversary is not coincidentally quite similar to the manner in which the Emory University administration characterized whistleblower Kevin Kuritzky). The folks that exchanged these emails have such letters as PH.D following their names. Is it really appropriate for them to characterize Lennox' activism as some sort of a mental healh problem? A psychologist is alluded to and this shrink apparently gives mental advice without actually treating Lennox. Furthermore, the initial email specifically says that Lennox shouldn't be provoked and yet the admin did exactly that subsequently. Not only did they provoke him but they are threatening him with expulsion. If they really believe their characterization, is this really the proper course? Furthermore, the initial email tries to trade on their prior experience...

I used to work in mental health, and quite frankly the pattern of behavior we've been witnessing is disturbing and indicates that Mr. Lennox is not only someone with noxious political and social beliefs, but someone who has mental health issues

Nowhere in the rest of the email does the author explain how they came to such a conclusion. They merely sling mud against groups and individuals that Lennox belongs to and trade off on the opinion of an unidentified psychologist who never even treated Lennox. (Frankly, I assume that no one is treating Lennox because he likely has no mental health issues that are in any way different from that of any other college student).

Finally, there is this. Let's look at the section in the school code of conduct relating to drinking.

A student shall not possess, use, manufacture, produce, or distribute, or aid in the use, manufacture, production, or distribution of, any controlled substance except as expressly permitted by law and university policy. Violation of the Residence Life Alcohol and Controlled Substances Policy is a violation of this section. Controlled substances are defined in the Controlled Substances Act of 1971, as amended.

3.2.13 Violation of Alcohol Policy. A student shall not possess, consume or furnish, or aid in the consumption or furnishing of, alcoholic beverages except as permitted by law and University policy. Violation of the Residence Life Alcohol & Controlled Substances Policy is a violation of this section.

Now, if Central Michigan University is like any other campus in the nation, how many of its student body violated this provision while CMU strenuously enforced a provision that prohibited distributing literature within 25 feet of a door? How many students drank while technically underage with no punishment from the university while it pursued Lennox to the maximum of the rules for distributing literature?

Finally, I pointed out that emails show that the political science department has beome poisoned and overly ideological. In fact, the words of the very person in charge, Del Lingquist, damn the department he runs. Yet, he hasn't been reprimanded or held accountable either.

Earlier, I pointed out that this behavior has all the hallmarks of a sociopath. I want to be careful here or I will do exactly what I accuse the admin of doing and poison the waters against them unfairly while accusing them of the same. I didn't come to this decision lightly, however as my favorite Latin phrase goes, Res Ipsa Loquitor (the facts speak for themselves)

The only one being held accountable now is Lennox himself. Despite a pattern of behavior in which administration officials show arrogance, heavy handedness, and other abuses of power, that behavior is not examined or punished. The only behavior that is currently being scrutinized is the handing out of literature too close to a door, a video camera on public property, and a student arrogantly refusing to identify themself. There is nothing consistent or fair about the process or anything in it. The only conclusion I can draw from this set of facts is that the administration has a goal, hiring and keeping Gary Peters, and Lennox stands in the way of that goal and thus they are doing everything to eliminate him. That is the hallmarks of sociopathic behavior.