Clearing the air

Since his permanent expulsion from all Little 500 events, former Major Taylor president Courtney Bishop has complained that there was "absolutely no due process." \nSuch a statement might be a stretch, since due process applies to functions of government rather than the IU Student Foundation, which runs Little 500. \nYet, it is impossible for us to fully evaluate the decision of the organization without the information generated by the investigation. We don't know exactly what process, due or undue, occurred to spur the decision to ban Bishop for life.\nWhether or not the decision was unwarranted, the secretive manner in which it was performed casts a doubtful light on any punishment given. Without a formal hearing for Bishop or any independent attempt to get his side of the story, IUSF produced a harsh decision that Bishop claims "ruined (his) life." And no doubt, the punishment goes far beyond the potential penalties outlined in IUSF's Rider's Manual, which "can range from a race-day time penalty to disqualification from that year's race." \nRegardless of its independence from normal University bureaucracy, IUSF should allow for a more transparent disciplinary process, especially with such drastic results for a man who has long served IU well. Yes, there are unique circumstances in this particular case, during which IU first conducted an investigation and handed the report to IUSF. In any case, a total lack of any follow-up or formal hearing by IUSF demonstrates a lethargic unwillingness to seek real justice. \nWith the University's review still held away from the public's eyes, we have only the hearsay of those involved to understand the situation. Bishop says the decision is "based on lies," while IUSF contends that Bishop's actions demanded his total removal from Little 500. \nBecause of this inconsistency, we would like to see more transparency in the workings of the organization that runs some of IU's proudest traditions. Even though IUSF has no official duty to the general public in revealing its processes, we feel it has a moral obligation to divulge the reasons behind its decision-making. Certainly IUSF can ban whomever it wants, whenever it wants, for however long it wants, but that doesn't mean it should use the power arbitrarily.\nWe don't know whether Bishop is guilty of recruiting violations, and if he is, the tainting of Little 500 would be despicable. But without adequate exposure of facts regarding his case, all we see is a man's life "ruined" and a draconian organization that passed judgment without a thorough hearing. Even Vice President for Institutional Development and Student Affairs Charlie Nelms, who ordered the initial investigation, said Bishop "deserves a fair hearing."\nThe events that have befallen Bishop are now past, and with no way for him to appeal, the decision is the final word. Even with significant changes in Little 500 rules, there's no way to retroactively apply them to Bishop's case. We believe that in the future, however, IUSF should be more open about its disciplinary decisions, because the public deserves to see justice, not just punishment.