Eastern’s student supreme court has released its official opinions regarding the March 24 ruling in favor of freshman Toni Porter, who filed a petition against DeMarlon Brown, president of the Black Student Union.

Porter appealed to the court, which ultimately voted in her favor by a vote of 5-1, on grounds that she was unfairly terminated from her position as the freshman representative to the BSU based on unpopular views she said she expressed during an executive board meeting.

Justice Eric Baker removed himself from the hearing to avoid a conflict of interest, as he serves as the director of internal affairs for the BSU.

Brown, on the other hand, who has the power to appoint positions as he deems fit, told justices that the real reason Porter was removed from her position was because she failed to meet the 2.5 GPA requirement he designated for her job.

Porter countered that she was not presented with specific guidelines for her position at the start of her term in August and said the GPA requirement was unfair because the BSU constitution states that all members of the executive board must hold a 2.3 minimum GPA.

Porter, who held a 2.43 GPA at the time she was dismissed from the BSU, said she felt Brown and members of the executive board intended to pressure her out of her position by raising the requirement months after she accepted the job.

A court majority found this act of changing a condition of Porter’s membership after she was appointed to be an ex post facto law, which is prohibited under the U.S. Constitution, and ruled that Porter may resume her position for the remainder of the spring semester.

Justice Donald Stone II wrote in the concurring opinion that Porter’s removal violated the student bill of rights section of the student body constitution and said by allowing Porter to attend and vote at executive board meetings, she was essentially treated as a de facto member and should have been held to the same standards as the others, including the 2.3 GPA requirement.

Chief Justice Jared Hausmann dissented from the majority, and was ultimately joined by justice Molly Button, who originally voted in favor of Porter but wrote that she had time to reconsider her decision.

Both Hausmann and Button asserted in the dissenting opinion “the majority seems to be guided more by the unfortunate circumstances than by the rule of law.”

Hausmann wrote that he disagreed with the majority vote on the grounds that he rejects their ruling of Porter as a de facto member of the BSU, as he said he believes such a member cannot exist.

He cited the BSU constitution, which

specifically lists the positions that comprise the executive board, and said that as a member of a special committee, Porter was technically never a member of the executive board, despite appointment by Brown and approval in December.

“Even if every member of the BSU treated (Porter) like a member of the executive board, the rule of law must always trump the perception of man,” Hausmann said.

Stone, however, wrote that the BSU agendas presented at the hearing listed Porter as a “cabinet director,” which both parties, as well as witnesses, confirmed to be members of the executive board, and so defended the majority’s decision that Porter was a de facto member.

Hausmann described the majority’s acceptance of Porter as a de facto member of the board as a gross violation of the BSU constitution and said he is troubled by the court’s reference to the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution in this case.

“It would neither be practical nor ethical for this court to make rulings based on any document other than the student body constitution or the constitutions of (registered student organizations),” Hausmann said. “The members of this court have necessarily never attended law school nor passed the bar. The student supreme court is simply not qualified to interpret the U.S. Constitution.”

Stone defended the majority’s application of the U.S. Constitution in that the court is required to consider both federal and state constitutions in forming decisions, as dictated in Eastern’s student bill of rights.

As such, the court addressed Porter’s six specific requests, granting two, agreeing with one, and rejecting the remaining three.

Porter was reappointed to her position as the freshman representative to the BSU for the remainder of the spring semester and is immune from impeachment for missing meetings from the time she was dismissed on Jan. 11 to the date of the hearing.

She is also immune from impeachment for any actions or requirements on the checklist she was given and did not complete during that time period.

Her second request of having the process resolved quickly was also honored, in the opinion of the court.

Her third request to be placed on the executive board for the 2010-2011 school year was not honored, as the court has no jurisdiction to impose punitive damages, though she may choose to run for a position.

The court also agreed with her request to encourage the timely dispersal of necessary documents, including RSO constitutions and bylaws, but said they do not possess the power to enforce such a rule.

Her final requests to reprimand Brown and Dana Barnard, the BSU adviser, were denied.

Hausmann and Button maintain the opinion that Porter was not removed from her position because she expressed unpopular views, but rather that she failed to meet the GPA requirement, which was passed immediately before she was approved to the position.

Erica Whelan can be reached at 581-7942 or elwhelan@eiu.edu