During their March 26th, 2019 meeting with Danieli Arbex, Jordan along with his legal representation, explained the true version of events that occurred on February 14th. Jordan heavily emphasized to her that it was Joseph Yakow (the student who had accused Jordan) who instigated the physical altercation, that Jordan was assaulted while severely injured and that he was disappointed that Yakow had not been disciplined even though his own account in the police reports stated that he assaulted Jordan.
Jordan's legal representative pointed out the fact that even in Joseph Yakow's account of the incident as provided in the Campus Community Police report filed, it is admitted that Joseph instigated the physicality of the altercation (albeit in Joseph's account the admission is significantly embellished). Jordan's legal counsel is quoted as follows:
"Yakow admits that he pushed Jordan first. He does say that Jordan was yelling at him but if someone is yelling at you, it seems like the more rational response is to walk away. Even if the person who is yelling at you says "don't fuck with me" it seems that the rational thing to do is to walk away as opposed to shoving the person. The first physical interaction comes from Mr. Yakow -- the first intention physical interaction comes from Mr. Yakow, so it does lend credence to the theory that it was really Mr. Yakow who was the aggressor in this situation. It went from a verbal-- an allegedly verbal altercation-- again Jordan says that he was being yelled at and that he responded by saying 'don't fuck with me'. Even if Mr. Yakow is to be believed that it was Jordan who is yelling, it begins with verbal and the progresses to the physical as a result of Yakow's actions"
Jordan then added to this point by asking Danieli Arbex if there was any justification for the student's physical escalation in response to a verbal altercation that could be found in the University's polices. Jordan is quoted specifically as follows:
"As far as your knowledge of the academic misconduct policy or student code of conduct-- as far as your knowledge of student expectations, is there anywhere that justifies initiating physical altercation with anyone for anything they've said verbally? Is there anywhere that-- is there any case where that could be justified."
"Not that I'm aware of."
"Okay. My question is then-- if that was the report given by the student. Even if I had said the worse thing-- if I'm painting it as much in his favour as possible according to his account of events, it seems to me that there would still be a violation of the student code of conduct based on his physical escalation. I'm wondering why that in and of itself -- or if it's being handled as a violation of the student code of conduct or if the student's facing any consequences.......what is being done to hold the student accountable for what you've clearly indicated to me is a clear violation of the student code of conduct-- that he escalated based on a verbal altercation"
Danieli responded as follows:
"I don't know if it's so-- the way you're telling me seems that to be very clear [sic]. I don't think that's very clear to me yet. Just because just now I hear your side of the story. I met with the other person and what he described was very different. You understand that right? And I will provide additional disclosure based on my meeting with him. I think that this is part of the investigation. So I met with one the other [sic]. I met will be meeting with witnesses. So once I have everything, I will be able to say more. I will be able to take action against one or the other if it's needed."
At this point, Jordan made note of the fact that Danieli referred to disclosure that she had not provided him. This is a gross procedural violation of Jordan's rights as it clearly states in the section 5.1.1 of the Uwindsor Procedures for Addressing Non-Academic Misconduct that all students charged are entitled to know the full nature of the complaint laid against them before being questioned by an investigator. Specifically, the policy states:
"The Student shall, in advance of being questioned on any aspects of the complaint, be provided with a copy of the complaint."
This is a crucial student right as the failure to provide the full evidence of the complaint gives the student no opportunity to contest the truth prior to adjudication. Jordan knew this and as soon as he heard that Danieli failed to provide the additional disclosure from her meeting with the student, he stated:
"I approached the student police with every intention of filing my own complain that day, and it got derailed by the fact that I found out that there was a complaint against me. But it didn't change my resolve and I do fully intend to hold the student accountable with whatever measures I can.......I don't understand-- even if you hadn't gotten all the facts, there were sanctions immediately laid against me, and that's what I just don't think is fair, and especially since by his own account [the student shoved me] in that report that you sent me--the incident report that you sent me. If you're saying that there is more, I read the code of conduct and I was supposed to be given the disclosure-- whatever disclosure was available."
It would seem that Danieli-- realizing she had erred in failing to provide Jordan the additional disclosure that the herself voluntarily referenced, attempted to backpedal and state that there was no disclosure. In response to Jordan's rightful inquiry into the whereabouts of the disclosure he was entitled to, Danieli Arbex is quote as follows:
"Yah --no no. There was nothing more. It's just-- it's just, ah, he described to me what happened. And that, the way you're putting, seems that there is a definitive moment that you said something and he pushed you-- Yes, there was that moment, but I don't know like how that transpired you know what I mean? Like that's not every-- still not very clear to me. Because like "maybe we feel like so afraid of someone else that you can do that to defend yourself. Right?"
Dismayed at her use of fear as a justification of his assailant's actions, Jordan stated that:
"Fear is not-- especially if you're referring to my demographic-- Anyone who's recently culturally aware [knows] that fear is not a justification for reacting aggressively to anyone who hasn't physically attacked you. It's an argument that does not resonate on any level with who I am. I just think that's not fair because on paper I am a very scary looking guy-- on paper. But in reality I'm an A-student, I have ambitions, and I'm trying to be a lawyer. That's just not who I am. Your prejudices do not justify your physical aggression towards another student. What I'm saying though, is that you say you don't know enough to do anything, but you knew enough to lay those sanctions against me, and I'm still not allowed to go anywhere in the Odette. And based on what you recently just said, you said it's a clear violation of the student code of conduct--"
At this point, Danieli quickly interjects to counter Jordan's words by stating:
"To attack someone but if that person is like -- to me it's still not very clear that he -- that at that moment he was actually like he had the ability to think through and actually attack you. Like It could be that he was feeling that he was defending himself. And I think that that's the way--"
By this point in their conversation, it is clear that Danieli had already made her mind up as to who was the aggressor and who was the victim. Of course this is inappropriate for an impartial investigator to have done prior to consulting witnesses that were available to her. Despite only moments earlier stating that there was no justification in the University's policies for as student attacking another student "initiating physical altercation with anyone for anything they've said verbally", Danieli struggles to perform feats of mental gymnastics in order to justify Joseph's behaviour. In reponse, Jordan states:
"Defending yourself from words right? I think that this is being handled with a very poor standard of understanding. There are clear levels of escalation. There are clear markers and then there are grey areas. You can say that maybe if he called me a really bad word or threatened me and said that 'I will kill you if you continue doing this'. That was still on the same level as whatever it was he thought he was being faced with. Stepping it up to physical altercation is a whole 'nother level. That's a whole other area in even the criminal code. That is clearly defined by his own account and the disclosure you've given me. If you're saying there's more details to the situation, that implies that I wasn't given all the disclosure that I am entitled to under the student code of conduct. If there isn't more than what was given there, then it's very clear that the student initiated the physical altercation. It does not make sense to me that I'm walking around on campus with sanctions laid against me."
Danieli responded that the reason the sanctions were laid was because she didn't have Jordan's side of the story at the time nor did she know what who she was dealing with initially. She stated that it was simply done as a safety precaution. She stated that this precaution does not mean that she believed Jordan was the one at fault but only that they had to control the risk during the investigation.
Jordan responded that in his argument (stating that the sanctions were unfairly laid), he appealed exclusively to Joseph's own account of the story (which was available to the University) in his objections to the early sanctions laid. Jordan argued that because these facts were available to Danieli Arbex, she ought to have done something to control the admitted fact that Joseph instigated a physical altercation, yet chose not to.
"In my argument, nowhere did I appeal to my side of the story. I only appealed to the facts that you said you already had. So I understand that you didn't have my side of the story. I made my argument based on the facts that were from his side of the story and you agreed with me that in his side of the story, that still constitutes a violation of the student code of conduct. That's what I'm saying. So I'm not gonna blame you for not acting on information that you didn't have. I'm not blaming anyone. But I will ask, if you had this information, and you're telling me what you just told me about a few minutes ago that it is a clear violation to escalate physically no matter what was said to you -- that is a clear violation -- no matter anything that was said to you-- let alone what was said to him."
At this point, Danieli Arbex began growing impatient with Jordan and as her voice escalated in tone she accused Jordan of twisting her words by saying
"You are somehow distorting what I said because what I said is that no one could attack someone else no matter what you say to them. But, if you're feeling attacked and if you're feeling that you have the need to defend yourself, that's another ball game. So that is what is not very clear to me. You're telling me that's very clear in the report that he attacked you. No, that's not very clear to me. That was clear that he pushed you [sic]. Why? Like the way that I saw this was like trying to defend himself. The same way that you're telling me that you punched him 6 or 7 times to defend yourself. So I can also say that 'no you were attacking him'. You know what I mean? Like there are two versions of this. So i don't think we're gaining anything to have this kind of discussion."
Of course Jordan had not at all distorted her words. Just moments earlier he had unequivocally asked her if there was "anywhere that justifies initiating physical altercation with anyone for anything they've said verbally? Is there anywhere that-- is there any case where that could be justified." Danieli responded that there was not. When pressed on the implications of her answer in comparison to the lack of disciplinary action taken against the student who did exactly what Jordan had asked if there was any justification for, Danieli accused Jordan of "distorting" her words arguing that what she had said in reality was that "no one could attack someone else no matter what you say to them". Indeed, it was not Jordan who was distorting her words, but Danieli Arbex herself. Despite her attempts to end the line of questioning, Jordan-- in his rights, continued to press her on the same line of questioning. Jordan very calmly replied:
"I am gaining something and I think I am entitled to ask so Im going to keep asking. You said-- you're implying then -- and I'm gonna ask you straight, because my first question was 'was there any circumstances where any level of verbal dialogue can justify a physical escalation on the part of any student.' You're initial answer, I thought was no, but you're saying now I'm distorting your answer. You're saying now that there are some situations where it is appropriate to lay your hands on another student based on what they've said to you. Based on anyway they've acted to you non-physically. Are you saying that there is some situation where that is justifiable. That's what I'm asking you very clearly"
Pausing momentarily before her answer, Danieli then stated:
"Okay. Yes because there are other factors involved. You can be physically approaching someone and yelling at someone in the way that the person feels the need to defend themselves. Of course".
Jordan had not been doing any of the above. In fact, Jordan was specifically telling Joseph not to start anything with him. Regardless, it is sickening to note Danieli Arbex's elastic imaginations in her efforts to rationalize and justify why Joseph Yakow was justified for having shoved a smaller student and initiated a physical altercation in response to a verbal dispute in contrast to her narrow view of Jordan's perspective being trapped in a small airlock with a larger student that had initiated a physical altercation with him. From here the conversation moved into discussion of the campus restrictions that had been laid against Jordan. Jordan expressed the difficulties that the sanctions were causing him in his studies. her further expressed his desire to challenge the sanctions and asked Daneili how he could do so. Danieli then responded that:
"No like right now. After this conversation, my intent was to just analyse everything and make sure to sent you a note to let you know that they would be lifted. Because this meeting is part of the reason why that sanction exists so far. Because this meeting didn't happen before that's why I had to give you some directions- some guidelines because we didn't have that side of the story."
Jordan's legal counsel made sure to ask when this email stating that the sanctions were lifted would be sent. Danieli specifically states "today". With that, the conversation toned down and the meeting soon concluded-- of course this later turned out to have been a lie and not only did Danieli not lift the sanctions that night, the next day, she actually suspended Jordan and fully banned him from stepping foot on Campus Grounds (more about this ban below).
The contents of this meeting are extremely disturbing, especially considering that (as far as our knowledge is concerned) Danieli Arbex has not at all been disciplined for any of her actions throughout this process.
DANIELI EXHIBITS DOUBLE STANDARDS
It is troubling that she could relate and empathize with a non-black student’s use of physical violence to defend himself from Jordan's non-escalating words; however, she did not see how it could be justified for a Jordan to use physical force to defend himself from a non-black student’s physical attacks. Joseph was justified in physically attacking in efforts to defend himself against words that Jordan spoke to him (which contained no threats, and rather, indicated that Jordan was not willing to engage in an altercation), was Jordan not exponentially more justified in physically defending himself after he had actually been physically assaulted? Why is it that a non-black student is justified for using violence for self-defence against harmless words, yet a black student is disciplined for physically defending against a real physical attack? Danieli's far-fetched justifications for Joseph's verbal-to-physical escalation while simultaneously denying Jordan's right to respond physically in defense of a physical attack is unworthy of the University of Windsor and must immediately be disposed of.
DANIELI DID NOT LISTEN TO JORDAN'S SIDE OF THE STORY IMPARTIALLY
It is apparent that Danieli had applied a thick filter of fear to the words that Jordan spoke during their meeting. It is also clear that Danieli Arbex simply wished to make short work of the matter and have Jordan quickly/silently expelled. In this matter Danieli Arbex saw no more than a student of her own complexion allegedly brutalized by what she considered to be a monster. She did not display much interest in any of the other details or evidence of the case that suggested anything to effect of Jordan not having been the aggressor-- this despite the fact that Jordan voiced his grievances numerous times against Joseph during their meeting. She repeatedly asked for more information as to how Jordan defended himself and focused almost exclusively on the details that related to his own physical response to Yakow. Danieli went as far as arguing with Jordan and prejudicially stating her opinion that Joseph had been acting in self-defence (this was prior to contacting any witnesses and apparently prior to thoroughly reading the CCP report).
DANIELI FAILS TO THOROUGHLY READ COMPLAINT
Danieli’s apathy towards Jordan's plight became increasingly eclipsed against a background of empathy/sympathy for the attacker who shared her skin colour. The level of absurdity of her apathy reached the point where it became fully apparent she had not even read the police reports she had emailed Jordan. At one point during the interview Jordan asked her if she had contacted the witness listed on the police report. She responded coolly, “Oh how didn’t I see that?…..oh wow, I didn’t see that” as though this was an innocent and negligible mistake to be making in a process towards a decision that could fatally influence the entire academic/career future of a student. This was Jordan's life that Danieli was weighing in the balance. This was his academic future; his key to making a living; his key to supporting a family, and Danieli had not even taken time to carefully read the police reports in a case she was assigned to investigate. Given her oversight of the witness information, it is highly likely Danieli had taken only her first encounter with Yakow into account and did not compare the statements he had made in the campus police report to the story he had told her. Had she done so, she would have likely immediately noticed the inconsistencies between Yakow's statement in the reports that he had pushed Jordan first and his verbal statements to her that he had done nothing to instigate physically.
DANIELI FAILS TO PROVIDE JORDAN DISCLOSURE
In addition to the fact that Danieli did not seem to acknowledge the inconsistencies in Joseph's statements-- which were ultimately acknowledged in the subsequent investigator's report-- there was no way for Jordan and his legal representative to scrutinize such inconsistencies, because Danieli had withheld the full disclosure from them. This also heavily suggests that Danieli did not even read over the evidence Jordan had provided and proceeded in the matter with her own idea of the rest of the details. Further evidence of this is that Yakow’s date of birth, student number, personal contact information and various other details had not even been redacted on the police reports Jordan received. This was not a fact-finding mission. This was a mission to gather all the evidence that pointed to the guilt of a black student without bothering to consider anything else.
DANIELI JUSTIFIES PROFESSOR WHO IGNORED JORDAN
In addition to all this, Danieli-- while laughing-- even went as far as to defend the Afif Nassif (the professor who had laughed, scoffed, and ultimately ignored Jordan's call for help after being assaulted). “I don’t want to justify the professor but it’s so outside [laughing] what they’re usually dealing with that I can understand that he wouldn’t be prepared to respond” . It would seem Danieli could understand everything, including:
- An HR professor gas-lighting a victim of assault and acting as if Jordan was the irrational one for being upset about having just been assaulted
- The same prof laughing and scorning them for asking for help and refusing to aid them
- The same prof speaking disapprovingly of the student for defending himself from a larger student's assault
- The same prof failing to preserve a safe environment for a student who had just been assaulted
- A supposedly impartial misconduct investigator failing to closely read police incident records as an investigator.
- An academic integrity officer lying repeatedly to Jordan about his procedural rights
- Joseph physically attacking Jordan for allegedly being afraid of Jordan speaking up for himself
but she could not understand why in a rational world a black student would ever have the desire and moreover, the gull to defend himself. It was this thought that was beyond her threshold tolerance of insanity. Danieli's bias in this meeting is abundantly obvious. Her displayed behaviours are not the appropriate form for an Academic Integrity Officer nor are they for a Misconduct Investigator. Danieli must be immediately removed from her position. Every day Danieli continues her role puts innocent and vulnerable students at significant risk. She must be terminated.