The Daily Bulletin newspaper (based in Ontario, CA) reported yesterday that six students at Claremont McKenna College are facing disciplinary proceedings for their role in disrupting Heather Mac Donald’s appearance back in April—perhaps resulting in expulsion and, in the case of three students who just graduated, having their degrees revoked. It appears that even CMC’s spineless president Hiram Chodosh has come to perceive that he needs to do something to get control of his campus.
I’ll believe it when I see it though, since all six are “students of color,” and does any college have the spine to stand up to the inevitable charge of racism and a visit from Al Sharpton?
The interesting detail of the story is at the end of this passage:
Then about a month ago, as finals week was getting underway, six Claremont McKenna College students said they received notices from the administration, telling them they were facing expulsion or suspension for participating in the protest, attorney Nana Gyamfi said.
On Monday, two of those students were on campus for disciplinary hearings. Gyamfi, a Los Angeles-based attorney with Justice Warriors 4 Black Lives, said she is advising the students, who wish to remain anonymous because they have received death threats. . .
“The students are making an appeal inside and outside of the disciplinary hearings,” she said by phone Monday. “Let’s get into a dialogue. Why put degrees on the line to take punitive disciplinary process?”
Let’s get into a dialogue. Funny how Heather Mac Donald is not allowed to have any “dialogue” whatsoever, but the offending students who prevented Heather from speaking are demanding a “dialogue.”
Meanwhile, I wonder if the students are going to be happy with their representation from Ms. Gyamfi. From the California State Bar:
March 4, 2011
NANA SERWAAH GYAMFI [#171480], 43, of Los Angeles was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on two years of probation and was ordered to take the MPRE within a year. The order took effect March 4, 2011.
Gyamfi stipulated that she employed a suspended California lawyer without notifying the State Bar. The other lawyer worked on a criminal appeal Gyamfi was handling.She was disciplined in 2006 after stipulating to misconduct in four matters. She practiced law while suspended for nonpayment of bar dues and failed to refund advance fees or update her membership records with the bar after changing her office address.In mitigation, she presented evidence of her good character.
August 30, 2006
NANA SERWAAH GYAMFI [#171480], 38, of Los Angeles was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on two years of probation and was ordered to make restitution, prove her rehabilitation and take the MPRE. The order took effect Aug. 30, 2006.
Gyamfi stipulated to misconduct in four matters.In two matters, she practiced law while suspended for nonpayment of bar dues, representing a client in a criminal matter and other clients in a civil case.
Gyamfi also failed twice to update her membership records with the bar after changing her office address.Hired in 1997 to prepare a petition for writ of habeas corpus for a convicted murderer, Gyamfi failed to perform legal services competently. There was no written fee agreement, but the client’s family paid a portion of the $5,000 fee, believing Gyamfi would begin working on the matter immediately. Gyamfi believes the entire fee was to be paid before she began the work.
As a result, no work was done for two and a half years. At that time, Gyamfi began working on the matter after entering a written payment agreement and receiving more money.
Although she prepared a petition and the client signed it, she never filed the petition because she was convinced she would not receive the remainder of her fee. Gyamfi says she notified the client and modified the petition so he could file it himself.The client says he never received her letter.
The payment agreement stated that final payment was not due until the writ was completed. Gyamfi never refunded any unearned fees.In another case in which she was hired to prepare a writ of habeas corpus, she never met with the client or informed him that she determined there were no issues to support filing a petition. She did not refund any of the advance $5,000 fee.