After the decision by the Committee on Discipline to suspend Farson was upheld by President Tom Gerety, Farson took his case to the Hampshire County District Court in Northampton. Farson wanted the judge to grant a preliminary injunction to overturn the College's decision. However, a judge ruled against him, saying that the College must have the right to discipline its students.
Farson is continuing to appeal to the administration on the grounds that new evidence has surfaced in the case and that he was treated unfairly during the disciplinary proceedings.
Kloepfer would not comment on the issue. Guetti stated that Farson has no grounds for filing a complaint. "However, as I am not aware of the nature of this complaint, I cannot comment further except to say that it seems to me an act of desperation," said Guetti
Associate Dean of Students Frances Tuleja, who is in charge of disciplinary proceedings, could not comment on Farson's case but said that if a student feels that a disciplinary action has been unfair, he should exercise his right to appeal. "We understand that different people have different ideas of fairness, so the appeals process acts as a safeguard," said Tuleja.
Farson alleges that during his hearing at the College, Kloepfer claimed that he had never been involved in a fight or hit anybody during in time at the College. However, a student who wished to remain anonymous confirmed that in December, he filed an assault and battery complaint against Kloepfer with the Dean of Students' office. The student alleged that Kloepfer had physically attacked him in the fall.
Farson believes that Kloepfer, who claimed that Farson started the fight, had a defense resting partially on his claim that he had never attacked anybody. Farson alleges that the assault and battery case filed against Kloepfer casts serious doubt on this claim.
The student who filed the complaint against Kloepfer confirmed Farson's allegation, stating that he absolutely believed that Kloepfer lied during the disciplinary hearing about never having assaulted anyone.
Farson believes that in light of the assault and battery compliant against Kloepfer, there is new evidence in his trial and he is entitled to a hearing in accordance with the policy stated in the student handbook.
"If [a plaintiff] lies [when seeking punishment] ... can the school justify upholding the punishment? It seems that in this case they have," said Farson.
In a letter to Gerety dated Feb. 4, Farson wrote, "There could not be a clearer instance of 'new evidence' than [the aforementioned anonymous student's] complaint against John Kloepfer for assault and battery."
Tuleja confirmed that an appeal can be made if new evidence surfaces. "According to the handbook, an appeal can be brought up if there has been bias, procedural error, inappropriateness of disciplinary action or substantive new evidence," said Tuleja.
Farson also notes that his request to have this anonymous student as a witness at his hearing to testify that Kloepfer had in fact battered him was denied on the grounds that it would create a trial within a trial.
The administration cannot comment on specific disciplinary proceedings, but according to Farson, Dean of Students Ben Lieber told him that unless the complaint against Kloepfer was officially substantiated by the Committee on Discipline, there was no new evidence in the case.
Farson suggested that changes in the disciplinary code would make disciplinary proceedings more fair towards students. "Deans should investigate the situation more thoroughly," said Farson.
Farson also believes that the College president should not have absolute power to rule on appeals in cases and that there should be a procedure for reviewing statements from plaintiffs.