On April 3, the University Office of Student Conflict Resolution hauled Ryan Hughes, an LSA junior and an openly bisexual political activist, into a kangaroo court proceeding. Hughes" case is being adjudicated under the Student Code of Conduct. Hughes is charged with vandalism and assault by the Department of Public Safety. These charges are completely unfounded, politically motivated, and a gross violation of Hughes" First Amendment rights. These charges must be dropped now.

Hughes is accused of vandalism and assault for allegedly spray-painting the picket sign and the face of a far right-wing anti-gay bigot who openly advocates the assault and murder of lesbians and gay men. The picket sign, which was allegedly spray-painted and is the only physical evidence of the alleged vandalism, was destroyed by DPS even though they knew that Code charges were pending against Hughes. The anti-gay bigot told the police that he was not spray-painted in the face. Despite the urgings of the police, he did not press charges against Hughes. DPS has no case against Hughes. This sham procedure must end now.

This case is a clear violation of the First Amendment. The First Amendment is intended to protect citizens from discrimination by the state. Its main aim is to prevent the state from favoring the free speech and assembly rights of some citizens over others. What is at stake in this case is the right of lesbians and gay men at the University of Michigan to openly declare that they are gay and to assemble in public.

On Feb. 16, 2001, Hughes was involved in a peaceful protest action, a lesbian/gay Kiss-in on the diag. He and the other students at the Kiss-in were confronted by a group of anti-gay violence mongers. The anti-gay bigots had traveled from Kansas to Ann Arbor to harass and threaten lesbians and gay men at the University in order to intimidate all lesbians and gay men from being openly out. The kiss-in participants who assembled on the diag tried to get the anti-gay crusaders to stop harassing them primarily by chanting at them. Someone tried unsuccessfully to graffiti with spray paint one of the anti-gay crusader"s signs. The anti-gay bigots were completely unfazed. They continued to taunt and threaten the lesbian and gay participants in the kiss-in. The free speech rights of the anti-gay bigots were never limited or threatened.

Hughes and the other lesbian/gay protesters and their supporters had every right to protect their demonstration and their persons from assault. DPS did not lift a finger to protect the lesbian/gay demonstration. Instead, they arrested Hughes and then charged him under the Code of Student Conduct. Apparently, DPS and the University administration believe that right wing advocates of genocide against lesbians and gay men are welcome on campus and must have their "free speech" rights protected at all costs.

At the same time, DPS and the University administration is prepared to witch hunt Hughes in order to silence those who would defend the rights of lesbians and gay men. It is exactly this kind of selective abrogation of free speech and assembly rights that the First Amendment seeks to protect against. DPS and the University administration must not be allowed to suppress the free speech or free assembly rights of Hughes or any other student.

The University administration must not be the protector of violent, right-wing organizations. The only real impact of the administration"s unconscionable prosecution of Hughes is to put a welcome sign out at the University for all violence-mongering groups. This policy says to those who would maim, bash, and murder: You are welcome here, the University administration will bend over backwards to be on your side.

The Code is devoid of all fundamental due process rights, from the right to legal counsel to the right to exclude hearsay evidence to the right to obtain a jury trial, and despite the veneer of student and faculty participation, the Code accords a maximum imbalance of power in the administration"s favor. Throughout Hughes" case, the administration or its agents have played the role of complainant, prosecutor, victim, judge, jury and executioner in tandem. The administration claims independence from the charges, yet its DPS is the complainant. The administration claims not to be prosecuting Hughes, yet it has brought the charges against him. The administration claims not to have judged Hughes, yet it is his accuser. The administration offers itself as adjudicator in its case against Hughes and reserves the right to determine the sanction.

The Code is meant to confuse, scare and strong-arm the students who face charges under it. At Hughes" initial hearing, we learned that in more than 98 percent of cases, students are intimidated into accepting punishment outright.