A Charlatan investigation
WARNING: This article discusses sexual harassment and sexual violence. Those in need of support can call the Sexual Assault Support Center of Ottawa Crisis Line: 613-234-2266, the Mental Health Crisis Line: 613-722-6914 (within Ottawa) and 1-866-996-0991 (outside Ottawa), the Ottawa Distress Centre Crisis Line: 613-238-3311, or the Youth Services Bureau 24/7 Crisis Line: 613-260-2360 or 1-877-377-7775 (toll-free).
On Nov. 8, 2024, the Charlatan published an investigation into recent difficulties encountered by Carleton University clubs when attempting to remove members on grounds of sexual harassment or violence.
An April 17, 2024 Carleton University Students’ Association (CUSA) decision and subsequent CUSA directives state that no clubs can revoke membership on the grounds of sexual harassment and violence. On the other hand, according to Carleton’s media relations officer, Carleton’s department of equity and inclusive communities’ (EIC) sexual violence policy does not apply to clubs. The media relations officer said only CUSA can handle matters pertaining to club membership.
CUSA and the university are pointing to each other as the correct body to govern the issue of club membership removal cases involving sexual violence and harassment. This results in situations where neither is offering clear guidance to campus clubs on how to remove members on these grounds.
The events leading up to CUSA’s April 17, 2024 decision, including a case of what CUSA characterizes in its decision as alleged sexual misconduct in a CUSA-certified club, are discussed below.
The case highlights concerns that arise where neither CUSA nor the university are prepared to make a substantive decision in these types of scenarios.
In the following months, two individuals from separate local Ottawa theatre organizations advised improv association executives that Student had been banned from attending their respective organizations’ events due to alleged “impulsive behaviour” and sexual misconduct.
The Charlatan has confirmed the identities of these individuals and that they shared this information with improv association executives. These individuals have requested to remain anonymous to protect the identities of past alleged victims.
“Within our club, [Student] had gotten really close to a lot of the first years. This was really worrying us,” said Eris Hector, the improv association’s current vice-president internal.
Improv association executives and first-year members interviewed by the Charlatan attribute the following behaviours to Student: a pattern of “pushing alcohol to underage people” while Student stayed sober; offering to supply any drugs requested by club members; making “unwanted” sexual advances towards younger students; hosting first-year students at their apartment until late into the night.; transporting groups of young improv association members to a rented cabin overnight; and not disclosing their age to first-year students.
The Charlatan put these allegations to Student. In a Nov. 1, 2024 statement, Student emphasized that these are “serious false allegations” which they strongly deny.
Student submitted a complaint about their membership revocation to the CUSA Clubs Oversight Commission.
On April 17, 2024, CUSA ruled that Student could have their membership restored if they wished. CUSA found that the improv association’s revocation of Student’s membership was procedurally unfair, despite the improv association having followed its approved constitutional procedures.
According to documents and interviews obtained during the Charlatan’s investigation, Carleton ombudsperson Melanie Chapman issued recommendations to CUSA, which CUSA adopted in the April 17, 2024 decision.
More information regarding the improv association’s appeal of CUSA’s decision, and subsequent CUSA directives regarding club membership removal, can be found in the Charlatan’s Nov. 8, 2024 investigation.
Improv association executives say CUSA’s decision not to allow the club to expel its own members in these circumstances endangers the club as a whole.
“We were protecting the people in our club,” Hector said. “CUSA has conducted a total miscarriage of justice.”
Given that no governing body at Carleton is taking ownership for cases such as improv’s, it is unclear how the substance of the allegations of sexual misconduct will be addressed, if at all.
Concerning allegations of misconduct
In her research, Elizabeth Jeglic, a psychology professor at the City University of New York, has identified a model of certain instances of sexual misconduct. This model of sexual misconduct behaviour includes: selecting vulnerable individuals; accessing and isolating the individuals; gaining trust; and desensitization to sexual content and touch.
She said the goal in identifying sexual misconduct behaviours is to “stop the individual and remove them from the situation.”
Improv association executives and first-year students who have spoken with the Charlatan describe the alleged sexual misconduct of Student below. In its April 17 decision, CUSA characterized the improv case as involving allegations of sexual harassment or violence.
Over the course of its seven-month investigation, the Charlatan initially reached out to Student four times to request information, explanation and context to the allegations raised by the improv association.
Student responded on Nov. 1, 2024 stating, “I am very disturbed by the nature of your questions and the serious false allegations that have been made against me.”
While firmly insisting that the improv association’s concerns are “unfounded and unproven,” Student did not specifically address the substance of any allegations.
Following Student’s first response to the Charlatan’s request for comment, the Charlatan followed up twice over the course of a week in attempts to more fully understand their perspective and experiences. Student did not respond.
Jay, a communications student who was a first-year improv association member in fall 2023 and has requested to be identified by their first name, said their interactions with Student immediately made them feel “respected” as a 17-year-old.
“[Student] is an extraordinarily charismatic person. I cannot emphasize that enough … They were on your level about things and respected me in a way that people hadn’t because I was 17,” Jay said. “I enjoyed that. Everyone else probably had a similar feeling. It was exhilarating.”
Vee, a communications student who was also a first-year improv association member at the time and has requested to be identified by her first name, said Student adopted a maternal role to “listen to anything we needed.”
According to Vee and Jay, Student would regularly host first-year improv association members at their Ottawa apartment late into the night. A photo obtained by the Charlatan and time-stamped at 3:40 a.m. shows Vee on the ground at the apartment as Student looks down at her.
“It was a lot of going to their apartment because we were all either living in dorms or with parents or with a bunch of roommates,” Jay said.
These apartment hang-outs would involve a variety of activities, from partying, to “watching scary, bad YouTube things,” to conversations surrounding trauma, according to Vee and Jay.
“The first time I went to [Student’s] apartment included four hours of them trauma-dumping,” Jay said. “Which at the time made me feel like I … get to have these adult conversations.”
“Given the fact that [first-years] were so excited about saving money and they were given so much leisure and being taken care of without serving consequences, it was a lot to take in,” Vee said.
One such outing was an overnight cabin retreat with alcohol, which Hector, Vee, Jay, two other anonymous sources and improv president Beth Kimmett say Student supplied.
According to improv association members, the cabin getaway included Student and nine improv association members.
A photo of a first-year cabin retreat attendee’s “shot counter” from that date states that the attendee consumed 10 shots and one cooler.
Kimmett’s friend, one of the few older club members, attended the cabin retreat.
“[My friend] noticed that he was taking care of all these people, saying ‘Maybe you should eat. Maybe you should stop drinking,’” Kimmett said. “And [Student] was not doing that, instead encouraging people to keep drinking and staying pretty sober. [Student] stayed sober but pushed alcohol to underage people.”
Kimmett’s friend, who spoke with the Charlatan and confirmed Kimmett’s account, added that Student stood off to the side at the cabin, appearing to be observing the intoxicated improv members without intervening.
A photo obtained by the Charlatan depicts Student sitting on a couch in the cabin, with red Solo cups and other drink cans on a nearby table. In the photo, 17-year-old Jay is standing beside the table and looking at Student.
A Sept. 29, 2023 screenshot obtained by the Charlatan confirms that boatprov was promoted by Student on the improv association’s Discord channel.
Jay recalled the situation as follows.
“I was like, ‘This is weird, I don’t know why I’m doing this.’ I thought it would be literally doing improv activities and practice,” Jay said. “There was a little bar area that I sat at and then [Student] came and our first interaction was them asking ‘Do you want something?’”
Text messages sent by Jay during boatprov, and obtained by the Charlatan, include Jay sending photos of the boat and texting, “Someone knows someone who owns a broken boat,” “There’s vodka on this boat,” “The boat keeps swaying and I’m like oh no I’m drunk,” “Now very drunk,” “Bonding with improv,” and the recipient of the texts typing, “jay stop drinking.”
Additionally, improv association executives wondered whether Student’s boatprov behaviour could hold the improv association liable.
“If there was an injury at boatprov, since it was advertised in the Carleton improv Discord server and we didn’t fill out a [CUSA] risk assessment form … someone could get our club into serious trouble because of something that happened on that boat,” explained Hector.
Hector added, “For an hour, [Student] had left a bunch of 17 and 18-year-olds unsupervised on their boat, came back, and didn’t seem too concerned that everyone had drunk a lot. [Student] was still dead sober.”
A 17-year-old improv member who spoke with the Charlatan recounted opening up about their past drug addiction to Student. They allege that Student laughed off this information and offered to “safely” supply the 17-year-old.
Hector, Kimmett and another anonymous source interviewed by the Charlatan alleged hearing Student make the offer.
Student also allegedly offered alcohol during Jay’s 18th birthday party, hosted at Student’s Ottawa apartment. A video obtained by the Charlatan shows Jay at Student’s apartment on Jay’s birthday, setting up for the party.
“I only remember [Student] got someone to walk up with two shots and say, ‘This is your birthday cake,’” Jay said.
“Jay doesn’t remember their birthday because there was such copious access to [alcohol]. You could point to something and [Student] would get it for you,” Vee said.
A screenshot of Jay’s camera roll obtained by the Charlatan shows a series of blurry photos taken on the night of their birthday party. A video obtained by the Charlatan from that night also shows people at Student’s apartment, with Student beside an 18-year-old holding a drink.
Jay said Student described themself as “a lot of people’s first bar-ordering experience.” In Jay’s view, the person felt like a “guiding figure.”
Student would regularly adopt this role, according to Vee, during parties at Student’s apartment. She said Student would also display favouritism towards her.
“[Student] controlled who would go where … they would be an overseer. They also had control over who could go in and out of their bedroom,” Vee said. “Their cat would hide in there, as all cats do. Everyone would always ask to pet the cat. I was one of the few people who was able to get in the bedroom.”
Alleged inappropriate sexual behaviour and discussions
Jay said Student would engage in inappropriate discussions of a sexual nature with Jay while Jay was 17 years old.
For Vee, interactions of a sexual nature began at her first improv association practice.
“[Student] was there from the very beginning and was … the very first person I had a scene with. From the get-go, the very first scene I was in immediately became sexual,” Vee said.
Vee said the scene prompt was to create a story about peacocks in California. After Vee volunteered for this prompt, Student volunteered as well. Vee said Student performed as a peacock having an orgasm.
“It was aggressively visceral,” Vee said.
As Vee explained, the goal of improv is to either go along with what another performer does or redirect a scene. Because this was her first scene, Vee said she was unsure how to proceed.
“Given my situation, and this was quite literally my first time being in a scene, I didn’t really know what to do,” Vee said. “At that point I had no choice but to go along with it.”
“Maybe because of my naivety, I considered ‘Oh, this is what normal is supposed to be.’ But lo and behold, no one else was doing that.”
Four other sources who have spoken with the Charlatan corroborate Vee’s account. A photo obtained by the Charlatan from this practice depicts Vee and Student at the front of the room, with Student holding a chair on their back to represent peacock feathers.
In the following months, Vee said Student portrayed a “very protective, joking and charismatic” persona toward her both during practices and outside of official improv association events.
She said Student increased the frequency of sexual jokes and remarks, “weaving those into conversation.”
For example, Vee said during one conversation with Student and other first-years, she emotionally discussed how she previously felt objectified by people for her appearance. She said she was surprised by Student’s response.
“In one of those conversations where I was spilling my guts, I brought up how I just don’t think about my looks. [Student] then really needed me to know that I was hot. They got everyone in the room to agree.”
She said Student did this by going around the room and asking people if they were attracted to Vee.
“I was very split. I was taken aback in a complimentary way, but also on the flip side, I wasn’t expecting that. I was like, why do you suddenly want to have sex with me? I’m talking about my trauma. Why is that hot?”
Jay and an anonymous first-year source who spoke with the Charlatan say they were present during this incident and testify to Vee’s account.
In another instance at a party hosted by Student, Vee said that while she was sitting on the bed, Student began to cuddle her and make jokes about the two of them being in a relationship. At the time, Vee was dating someone else.
While this was happening, Vee told the Charlatan that, “One of our friends crashed into the bedroom complaining about his crush, and [Student] made a joke about us being moms or co-parents. I was in a relationship at the time so that was interesting.
“It took me off guard, but … it was so normalized.”
Vee said that same night, after everyone else had left the party or was sleeping, Student attempted to persuade her to stay overnight. She told the Charlatan that Student spoke in a whining tone and said Vee would be mean for leaving the apartment.
Vee recalled feeling very intoxicated, dazed and uncomfortable with the situation. Vee said she directly asked Student what they’d prefer for her to do. Student told her they didn’t want to sleep alone.
Vee declined their request and walked home.
Improv decides to revoke Student’s membership
After some improv executives witnessed events surrounding the misconduct allegations and heard reports of alleged misconduct, club executives consulted their constitution as a means of addressing the situation.
At the time, section 5.4 of the improv association’s constitution read, “In the case of an exceptional behavioural issue, where the Executive unanimously feels the participant shows unwillingness to make amends or correct the behaviour, membership may be revoked without written or verbal warning after an executive meeting and vote have been held to do so.”
All certified campus club constitutions, including the improv association’s, must be approved by CUSA.
“This [constitution] was approved by CUSA multiple times,” Kimmett said during her interview with the Charlatan.
The improv association executives voted unanimously to revoke Student’s membership, deciding that the member’s alleged behaviour constituted sexual misconduct and resulted in a revocation of Student’s membership under section 5.4 of improv’s constitution.
The improv association executives then held two private meetings with first-year club members who were associated with the alleged sexual misconduct. In that meeting, approximately 12 first-year club members attended, and some alleged that Student offered them intoxicants; pursued first-year members sexually; and hosted first-year members at Student’s apartment and the rented overnight cabin.
“Our goal here was to provide a safe space,” Hector said, emphasizing to the first-years “it’s OK to talk about it and share it in this space.”
Hector told the Charlatan that improv association executives were concerned by the possibility of Student’s behaviour continuing if their membership was not revoked.
Vee said Student reached out to her on the night before the first meeting, worried about their removal from the improv association. Vee agreed to a call with Student, but said she needed to work on a school assignment as well. The Charlatan has confirmed the call occurred through phone records, which show that the call began at 11:51 p.m. and lasted for one hour.
“I said it was OK if [Student] needed to feel things out,” Vee said. “They sounded distressed but didn’t cry. They really wanted my attention and said they didn’t want me to leave.
“They complimented the shit out of [my assignment] … It was very intense. They would go on gushing.
“They really wanted me to know I was smart. It was a very simple assignment so I didn’t take their word for it, but they still really wanted me to know I was special in some way. Either I was special because I was still staying with them … or because I was smart.”
Vee alleged that in the same conversation, “[Student] started talking about someone they had chemistry with but couldn’t admit feelings for because the person was in a relationship … I thought they were talking about me … I was stressed out … But it felt like a compliment … this person I looked up to thought I was attractive. I had no idea what to do with it.
“I didn’t know they were 25.
“They kept saying they hadn’t done anything with the person, but they knew the sex would be good.”
Vee told the Charlatan that during the call “all of these things that you would never do were normalized.”
Alumnus, a source who has been heavily involved in equality initiatives on campus and has requested to remain anonymous to avoid professional repercussions, closely followed the improv case during the 2023-2024 academic year. Alumnus said, in their view, the improv association took correct measures when removing Student.
Commenting on the procedural aspects of the decision, Alumnus said, “Not only did [improv] do everything right in a bureaucratic sense, they did everything right from a survivor-justice lens. They did everything they could. And this constitution was approved by CUSA at the end of the day.”
Club autonomy should be valued from a social perspective, added Rebecca Jaremko Bromwich, an adjunct professor in Carleton’s department of law and legal studies.
As someone with ongoing experience in mediation, Bromwich said the unanimous nature of the improv association executives’ actions when following their approved constitution should be respected, as club membership is not something students are inherently entitled to.
“There should be a really low bar for a club that is coming together consensually, for fun, to say ‘no’ [to someone’s continuation as a member],” she said.
“Look at analogies from other clubs outside of Carleton, for example tennis clubs,” Bromwich added. “You can be kicked out of a tennis club if someone vetoes you. You can be prevented from joining. There’s often a large degree of deference to clubs in our society.”
Bromwich added there should still be certain provisions for revoking club membership, such as not discriminating on the basis of race.
Being a first-year student at the time, Jay described Student’s membership removal as “very cut and dry.”
“We should ban someone from a club if they’re making people feel unsafe.”
Carleton ombudsperson involvement
On Nov. 13, 2023, two days after Student’s membership removal, Carleton’s ombudsperson Melanie Chapman contacted improv association executives. She said Student had contacted her about their membership removal.
Ombuds is an impartial, independent office which aims to ensure fairness, inform students of rights and responsibilities and refer students to “existing channels of complaint and resolution,” according to the Carleton ombuds website.
While ombuds does not have decision-making authority, it carries soft power in the form of influence.
“Ombuds have no hard authority at the university to do anything. I can’t order anybody to do anything. The power an ombuds has is in the power of recommendation,” Chapman said in her interview with the Charlatan.
As Bromwich described, the independence of an ombuds office from the university is important when providing “avenues for students to deal with conflicts they may have or concerns they may have.”
“We tell [Chapman] basically everything we know about the situation,” Kimmett said. “We kind of thought that she’s supposed to be impartial … She told us basically that the execution of everything we did was wrong.”
In an interview with the Charlatan, Chapman said, “The executive was not providing very specific details of very specific instances even to me. Finding somebody creepy or having a gut feeling that somebody is a certain way can’t be the test of how we treat people in today’s society.”
However, in a Nov. 21, 2023 email sent by Chapman and obtained by the Charlatan, Chapman outlined specific concerns improv association executives shared with her during the meeting.
Part of Chapman’s email reads,
“These allegations included: reports of what you characterized as “shady” and “predatory” behaviour, including paying extra attention to younger or newer club members, pursuing intimate relationships with younger or “vulnerable” club members, purchasing and providing alcohol to underaged club members at off-campus social events organized by [Student], encouraging underaged club members to consume alcohol to excess, offering to provide miscellaneous drugs to club members, as well as a series of unspecified allegations relating … to others.”
Chapman said her concern with the improv association’s removal of Student was that it did not afford Student “procedural fairness.”
“My focus is on ensuring a fair process,” she said. “My interest is less in whether someone did or did not do something … It’s more advocating for the fairness aspect.”
“Procedural fairness generally requires that if you are an individual accused of something, you have the opportunity to provide a representation on your own behalf,” she continued.
For Bromwich, the influential role of ombuds is important to examine.
“It really is an interesting thing to think about, well what does the ombuds office do? And is it serving the needs of students? Who benefits? There’s always that question: Who benefits?”
Chapman said the improv association should have informed Student of its concerns and given the student an opportunity to respond.
“Given that [Student] indicates they were never made aware of the problematic behaviour by the club executive, there could be no indication of whether the individual could make amends or correct the behaviour because it hadn’t been brought to their attention.”
Chapman said that in recent years she witnessed an increase in what she deems “hasty” student decisions.
“Oftentimes, in the rush to denounce or eliminate this behaviour or keep the environment safe for the other individuals, decisions will be made that are sometimes hasty and not always considering things like procedural fairness,” she said.
“The desires of a club have to come second to ensuring that everyone in that club is treated fairly.”
Improv association executives disagree with Chapman’s interpretation of their actions and club constitution.
“Section 5.4 of the Carleton Improv Association [constitution] says due to exceptional behaviour, the executive team can vote to remove a member. We don’t have to disclose. We can just remove a member,” Hector said. “We have our private reasons for removing [Student]. There’s nothing in our constitution that says we have to disclose why we removed. We can unanimously decide to remove a member and that’s in our constitution approved by CUSA. That is allowed of us.”
Bromwich said the procedural fairness element was met when the club, as authorized, followed their CUSA-approved constitution.
“If the club followed its own process, then the duty of procedural fairness within the club has been met.”
Still, for Chapman, the “missing nugget” was that Student should have been granted a chance to defend themself.
“The only piece that really sticks here, the chase, is making sure the individual has an opportunity to respond,” Chapman said. “I do not deny for one moment that a student group or a student club may have the authority per their constitution, bylaws, policies, regulations to remove a member once that’s occurred.”
Despite saying procedural fairness was the missing piece and that she believes a student club could be authorized to remove a member, Chapman also stated the improv association should have contacted EIC.
However, EIC staff and the university media relations officer have advised that Carleton’s sexual violence policy does not allow EIC to handle campus club membership revocation cases involving sexual misconduct or violence. More information on this position can be found in the Charlatan’s Nov. 8, 2024 investigation.
Chapman’s position is that any substance-related concerns the improv association had “could be referred to municipal law enforcement” or campus safety, according to emails and interviews obtained by the Charlatan.
Another issue highlighted by Chapman during her conversation with the improv association was the meetings held with first-year students after Student’s removal.
In Chapman’s Nov. 21, 2023 email obtained by the Charlatan, she wrote hosting these meetings “contravenes” section 7.2 of Carleton’s sexual violence policy, which deals with confidentiality.
The beginning of section 7.2 of the sexual violence policy reads, “All members of the University community who receive a report or disclosure of sexual violence or who are involved in addressing or investigating it must keep the matter confidential.”
Chapman told the improv association executives they were “in trouble” for holding the private meetings with the first-year members, according to Kimmett.
“She was like, ‘You should inform those people that they aren’t allowed to talk about it amongst themselves.’ I’m like ‘Are you fucking kidding me? … Why aren’t they allowed to talk about it with each other?’ And she said, ‘That’s defamation of character.’”
When asked in an interview with the Charlatan to respond to Kimmett’s claim, Chapman said, “It is possible and likely that I would’ve said something that if you are spreading this kind of information to an entire membership … you could be exposing yourself to something like libel or slander, if these things are not established or determined to be true. You want to be careful about making allegations like this about somebody, especially in a public forum.”
When asked if any elements of her analysis would change given the meetings were private and only held with first-year students, Chapman told the Charlatan it would not.
Alumnus and improv association executives point to section 7.3 of the sexual violence policy as justification of these private meetings.
Section 7.3 outlines that in certain circumstances “complete confidentiality” would not be guaranteed. These include scenarios such as when an individual is at risk of harming others or when members of the university community may be at risk of harm.
As explained by Alumnus, “There’s this one policy that Ombuds … cited about disclosure. It was like ‘you shouldn’t disclose.’ The part of the policy right below said that’s immediately out when there’s a compromise of people’s safety. That’s the policy that you’re referring to, if you really need to play the game about it.”
Improv association executives also say Chapman told them on Nov. 17, 2023 they could be suspended for hosting these meetings with first-year members.
“She told us that the worst thing that could happen to us as students who were a part of this, us meaning the exec team, was that we could be suspended from school,” Kimmett said.
Additional testimony obtained by the Charlatan corroborates Kimmett’s account.
Chapman told the Charlatan she does not “recall mentioning that to them at all.”
‘Ghost in the machine’: Ombuds issues recommendations to CUSA
Following her conversation with improv association executives, Chapman held a meeting with CUSA executives on Nov. 27, 2023.
This meeting included Chapman, the 2023/2024 CUSA Clubs student groups administrator Hannah Whale and the 2023/2024 CUSA vice-president internal Logan Breen.
After this meeting, Chapman sent an email outlining a summary of their discussion and “the outcomes we discussed.” The Charlatan obtained a copy of this email.
According to this email, Chapman and CUSA discussed her concerns regarding procedural fairness in the improv association’s case and her belief that the club should have contacted EIC. Chapman also recommended CUSA increase club executive training surrounding contacting EIC.
One section of Chapman’s email reads, “[Student] can avail themselves of the internal CUSA Clubs complaint processes to address the Improv Club’s abrupt termination of their membership as well as the lack of procedural fairness they were afforded. This process will be facilitated through Hannah [Whale].
“I have informed [Student] they can continue to use Ombuds Services for support and guidance as necessary.”
As Bromwich said to the Charlatan, an ombudsperson is “not like a lawyer for students.”
“Because they’re impartial, they’re not going to advocate for a particular student. Essentially, the ombuds office is an advocate for process, they’re not an advocate for any particular individual,” she said.
Chapman told the Charlatan she issued recommendations, not requirements, to CUSA and that “CUSA has been very receptive to my recommendations.”
When asked by the Charlatan what she would do if Whale and Breen were unreceptive to her recommendations, Chapman responded, “I can escalate up through the organization. I could bring in the president of CUSA, the full-time staff of CUSA. I could put letters in writing. As a last mechanism, I have the ability to publish my findings in my annual report. It is not something I have had to do yet because the recommendations I’ve made have largely been accepted by the university.”
In an email statement to the Charlatan, Whale wrote that Chapman made recommendations to CUSA, and that “the ombudsperson is not included” in the list of bodies allowed to issue requirements to CUSA.
On Oct. 29, 2024, Breen declined to comment about his discussions with Chapman, citing “confidentiality requirements.”
Bromwich said an ombud’s role in influencing change allows their office to “function as a bit of a ghost in the machine.”
“[Ombuds] do have power in the sense that they have generative power. They’re in that meeting and they’re saying something. They have agency within that meeting and they’re meant to, it’s intentional. From a sort of Foucaultian sense of governmentality, they … have a bottom-up power.”
CUSA rules removal of Student ‘procedurally unfair’
After their conversation with Chapman, Hector described the following months as “quiet.”
Then, on Feb. 16, 2024, Whale emailed the improv association. A copy of this email has been obtained by the Charlatan.
In her email, Whale informed the improv association that Student had submitted a complaint on Feb. 7, 2024 against their club to the CUSA Clubs Oversight Commission.
Beyond allocating funding to clubs, the CUSA Clubs Oversight Commission also provides “guidance, support and accountability to CUSA Clubs.” At the time, commission members included Whale, Breen, Aiden Rohacek, Zayn Tucker, Burteseten Ariunbold and Louis Yoon. Yoon has previously contributed to the Charlatan.
Whale’s email said improv association executives had until Feb. 27, 2024 to read through Student’s complaint and prepare a detailed response.
According to a copy obtained by the Charlatan, Student’s complaint contained multiple grievances, including: they were removed in a procedurally unfair manner because they were not informed of the specific issues warranting their removal or given an opportunity to correct their behaviour; and the improv association spread “vicious rumours” about them to other club members.
In their written complaint, Student expressed their need for an apology.
After receiving this email, improv association executives held a meeting with Whale to discuss specifics of the complaint, procedural fairness and the Clubs Oversight Commission process.
During this meeting, Whale said there were no steps the improv association could have taken to carry out the revocation, according to Hector.
“She’s clarifyings things with us and [one of the improv execs] goes, ‘So you’re telling me there’s no way for clubs to protect the victims in these situations? … And then Hannah Whale was like, ‘Based on what you did, no,’” Hector said.
Hector stated this “was crazy for someone on the CUSA board to admit.”
When asked by the Charlatan if she wished to provide additional information, explanation or context to Hector’s statements, Whale wrote, “Due to confidentiality, I cannot disclose the specifics of conversations with club members.”
Hector also said CUSA never provided guidance on what to include or how to structure the improv association’s response to Student’s complaint.
Responding to this critique, CUSA vice-president internal Aiden Rohacek wrote to the Charlatan, “As cases vary greatly, we have not traditionally provided written resources to help shape the response.”
“We wanted to be believed. We felt that if we said we took a victim-centric approach, [CUSA] would fucking believe us,” Hector said.
To Hector and Kimmett’s knowledge, no one from CUSA approached improv association members after Feb. 27, 2024 to investigate the allegations regarding Student’s conduct.
Vee and Jay confirmed in their interviews with the Charlatan that no one from CUSA reached out to ask about their experiences with Student when they were first-years.
When asked if anyone from the CUSA Clubs Oversight Commission sought follow-up information regarding Student’s behaviour and removal from the improv association, Rohacek responded, “Due to confidentiality, I am unable to comment on aspects that were not included in the written decision … Both the complainant and respondent were given a chance to provide all relevant evidence to the Commission for consideration.”
Nearly two months later, on April 17, 2024, the CUSA Clubs Oversight Commission released its written decision.
The decision held that certified clubs do not have the authority to remove someone’s membership “on the grounds of sexual harassment or sexual violence,” and the improv association’s decision to remove Student was “procedurally unfair” and thus “null and void.”
Additionally, the April 17, 2024 decision held that Student could have their membership to the improv association restored, if they wished. CUSA also recommended the improv association apologize to Student.
Student “has not received such an apology,” as of their Nov. 1, 2024 statement to the Charlatan.
“It’s so clear CUSA didn’t take the nuances of the situation or even listen to us,” Hector said.
CUSA ruled the improv association abided by their constitutional procedures. CUSA’s published ruling differs from Chapman’s critique that the improv association did not abide by their constitution.
However, CUSA also outlined its issues with the constitution.
Part of the CUSA ruling reads, “It was found that the Carleton Improv Association followed their club constitution. However the Clubs Oversight Commission founds [sic] that Article V is problematic in the following ways: it is vague and does not adhere to the Carleton University sexual violence policy.”
Improv association executives say they are frustrated with CUSA’s retroactive reasoning.
“Don’t punish us for doing what you allowed us to do,” Hector said.
“If we’re not allowed to follow our constitution approved by CUSA, what are we supposed to do?” Kimmett added.
CUSA’s judgment also critiqued the wording of the improv association’s constitution, stating “Article V outlines that ‘extraordinary’ circumstances are grounds for its use, which could be interpreted in a multitude of ways. It is not fair to have this process and have the interpretation be so varied.”
Improv association executives say CUSA is avoiding challenging situations that arise within club dynamics.
“You don’t think risking the safety of our club members is exceptional?” Hector questioned.
When asked if he thinks Student’s behaviour, as reported by the improv association in its submission, constitutes exceptional or concerning behaviour, Rohacek responded, “I am unable to comment on this question and will refer you to the decision.”
Aftermath and concerns about Carleton clubs’ safety
Improv association executives say CUSA granting Student permission to return to the improv association does not reflect the exceptional circumstances their club allegedly experienced last year and could make the club “unsafe.”
As a former employee of CUSA, Alumnus said they believe CUSA has a responsibility to care for clubs and provide a safe space for all Carleton undergraduates. They added CUSA must be held accountable when this standard isn’t met.
“If you’re to try and assimilate every club on campus to your own procedures and laws, you do have a responsibility to uphold in terms of keeping them safe spaces. That’s just the responsibility you assume, policy or not,” they said.
The April 17, 2024 CUSA decision reads, “While the Commission can understand that CUSA Clubs want to create a safe environment for club members, there is also a need for a fair due process.”
The CUSA decision ruled the improv association should have initiated a complaint process through EIC.
However, EIC staff disagree.
On May 15, 2024, Kristina Epifano, an EIC education and services co-ordinator, said EIC does not have the jurisdiction to handle any club-related matters, according to improv association executives.
“After speaking with Kristina Epifano from EIC, we were informed that as a club there would have been no way to ensure the safety of victims and otherwise club members, given the circumstances,” Hector said.
In a May 14, 2024 email obtained by the Charlatan, Epifano wrote that EIC’s sexual violence policy would not be relevant for the improv association’s appeal.
Despite several attempts by the Charlatan to conduct an interview, Epifano declined to speak on the record on July 8, 2024, stating any questions regarding EIC could be directed toward Carleton’s communications department.
In a Nov. 2, 2024 statement to the Charlatan, Steven Reid wrote on behalf of Carleton’s communications department, “The scope of the [sexual violence] policy does not include third parties, and therefore student groups cannot participate in a complaint process under the policy.”
The Charlatan asked if there are any policies, procedures or documents that empower EIC to handle campus club membership removal. Reid responded, “As an independent organization, the Carleton University Students’ Association has policies and procedures that govern student club membership.”
In light of CUSA’s and EIC’s positions, Hector said there is a significant discrepancy in sexual harassment and violence protocols at Carleton.
“CUSA has now taken the step forward to direct all sexual assault affairs in clubs to third-party resources that are unable to assist,” Hector said. “I think they don’t know how to approach this sort of situation, so they sort of just shuffle, brush [us] off the table to EIC because it sounds like the place that would be able to deal with this.”
Believing CUSA’s decision hinders the nurturance of a safe environment for improv association members, improv association executives appealed the judgment in early May.
More information on the CUSA appeals process is available in the Charlatan’s Nov. 8, 2024 investigation.
Seven months since submitting its appeal, the improv association has yet to receive an appeal hearing date.
“If they accept our appeal, that’s a win. We no longer have to apologize … We no longer have to let [Student] back in our club,” Hector said. “If they refuse this appeal … I don’t know what else can be done. We can’t complain that CUSA’s doing a bad job because they made up all their own rules.”
Regardless of the result of this appeal process, there does not appear to be any definitive mechanism at the university that will hear the substance of allegations of this nature.
No governing body on Carleton’s campus is claiming the role of deciding, on the merits, whether or not membership revocation for sexual harassment or violence is justified.
This article has been updated to better reflect Ombuds’ recommendations to CUSA regarding the April 17, 2024 decision. The article was last updated on Dec. 1, 2024 to reflect this change.
Featured graphic by Alisha Velji/the Charlatan.
