Student Suspended from Student Government for Facebook Post

Posted by Joseph D. Lento | Aug 01, 2016 | 0 Comments

In an all too common occurrence on college campuses in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and nationwide, a student finds herself facing consequences regarding a social media post.  Rohini Sethi, a student at the University of Houston and a student government leader, was suspended by her Student Government Association with related sanctions after posting on Facebook regarding the Black Lives Matter movement.  Sethi's post was made the evening of July 7th shooting in Dallas, Texas, that killed police officers.  Sethi posted on Facebook, “Forget #BlackLivesMatter; more like AllLivesMatter.” Sethi would later delete the Facebook post, but only after numerous University of Houston students criticized the post as offensive and hateful.

It did not help that at the time Sethi was the vice president of University of Houston's student government association (SGA).  Other students called for Sethi's to be dismissed from her position on the SGA.  Sethi posted an apology, but this did not prevent the SGA from sanctioning her for the post.  Sethi's apology follows below:

“Thursday night as our nation recoiled in shock, I took to Facebook and shared in a way that was inappropriate given the context and my position...In that moment, I did not act as your Vice President, I acted, in my own flawed way, as many do when presented with a tragedy from afar. My response has caused enormous pain for many members of our community, and I think it is high time that I clarify my statement...Visually we are black, white, tan, and a hundred shades between but we are all human, thus I believe that all lives matter. Let's all come together through conversations to reach unity. This is how we begin to set the standards for ourselves and our future, especially in times of adversity.”

A Deviation from Stated Policy

Despite the calls for Sethi's removal from the Student Government Association, doing so would require certain conditions to be met.  Specifically, the SGA constitution would require the student body president, president of the student senate, and three-fourths of present student senators to approve impeachment proceedings against Sethi.  If impeachment proceedings were approved, Sethi would then be tried by the student supreme court.  Instead of following the Student Government Association's stated policies, the SGA student senate grated SGA president Shane Smith one-time powers to sanction Sethi as he deemed appropriate.

As a result, Smith imposed the following sanctions on Sethi, and released a statement to that effect this past Friday.  The sanctions include:

  • A 50-day suspension from the Student Government Association starting August 1st. (Sethi currently receives a stipend of approximately $700 per month for her work with the SGA, and her suspension will be unpaid.)
  • A requirement to attend a three-day diversity workshop in mid-August.
  • A requirement to attend three University of Houston "cultural events” each month from September through March, excluding December.
  • An order to write a “letter of reflection” about how her harmful actions have impacted the Student Government Association and the University of Houston student body
  • An order to conduct a public presentation on September 28th detailing “the knowledge she has gained about cultural issues facing our society.”

If Sethi does not complete all of the imposed sanctions, she will be expelled from the Student Government Association.

The University of Houston itself has not taken action thus far against Sethi, but many students have rallied behind her, and it will be interesting to see if the SGA response concludes the matter.  SGA president Smith notes that his punishment was harsh because Sethi, despite her apology, did not recognize how offensive her "AllLivesMatter" Facebook post was to others.  Smith also noted that Sethi's post negatively reflected upon the University and the Student Government Association, and that despite the University of Houston being a public university, the issue of free speech was not factored into the response or punishment; Smith contended, “The first amendment prevents a person from being jailed by the government for what they say. But [it] does not prevent people from receiving other consequences for what they say.”

Who Decides What When Campus Disciplinary Issues Arise?

There are obviously different opinions as to the Black Lives Matter movement not just on college campuses, but throughout the nation.  The distinguishing factor in Rohini Sethi's case is that she was in a leadership position in the Student Government Association.  Although some contend that she should be held to a higher standard, should the SGA have circumvented stated disciplinary policies because some students (whether the majority or minority) were offended by a SGA leader's opinion? 

In times of discord, deviation from stated disciplinary policies for the sake of bringing closure to a matter is highly questionable; arguably, regardless of the perceived need for expediency, students should have a full and fair opportunity to defend against those who speak against them.  Ultimately, what happened to Sethi raises another issue that is an all-too-common occurrence on campuses nationwide:

If a student is offended by what is arguably another student's opinion, should the "offense" taken by the offended student be considered in whether disciplinary charges are brought against the student who expressed the opinion? 

If a college or university, on the basis that the offended student's concerns deserve being addressed, deems it necessary to file disciplinary charges against the student who expressed the opinion, should the offended student's interpretation of what was expressed by the accused student be considered in a student disciplinary proceeding? 

If so, is "offense" solely "in the (figurative) eyes of the beholder"?

If not, who should determine the reasonableness, and when applicable, the unreasonableness, of the offended student's interpretation?  

Students and parents must understand that when a college student expresses an (arguably) controversial opinion, whether verbally or in writing, be it in traditional form, electronically as with a text message or email, or via social media such as through Facebook or Snapchat for example, and often whether on or off campus, it can create not only campus disciplinary issues for the student, but also many questions as to what is appropriate and what is reasonable in campus student discipline.

About the Author

Joseph D. Lento

"I pride myself on having heart and driving hard to get results!" Attorney Joseph D. Lento passionately fights for the futures of his clients nationwide. Mr. Lento represents students and others in disciplinary cases and other proceedings at colleges and universities across the United States. Mr. Lento has helped countless students, professors, and others in academia at more than a thousand colleges and universities across the United States, and when necessary, he has sought justice on behalf of clients in courts across the nation. He does not settle for the easiest outcome, and instead prioritizes his clients' needs and well-being. Joseph D. Lento is licensed in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York, is admitted pro hac vice as needed nationwide, and he can help you or your student address school-related issues and concerns anywhere in the United States.


There are no comments for this post. Be the first and Add your Comment below.

Leave a Comment

Contact Us Today!


If you, or your student, are facing any kind of disciplinary action, or other negative academic sanction, and are having feelings of uncertainty and anxiety for what the future may hold, contact our offices today, and let us help secure your academic career.

This website was created only for general information purposes. It is not intended to be construed as legal advice for any situation. Only a direct consultation with a licensed Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York attorney can provide you with formal legal counsel based on the unique details surrounding your situation. The pages on this website may contain links and contact information for third party organizations - the Lento Law Firm does not necessarily endorse these organizations nor the materials contained on their website. In Pennsylvania, Attorney Joseph D. Lento represents clients throughout Pennsylvania's 67 counties, including, but not limited to Philadelphia, Allegheny, Berks, Bucks, Carbon, Chester, Dauphin, Delaware, Lancaster, Lehigh, Monroe, Montgomery, Northampton, Schuylkill, and York County. In New Jersey, attorney Joseph D. Lento represents clients throughout New Jersey's 21 counties: Atlantic, Bergen, Burlington, Camden, Cape May, Cumberland, Essex, Gloucester, Hudson, Hunterdon, Mercer, Middlesex, Monmouth, Morris, Ocean, Passaic, Salem, Somerset, Sussex, Union, and Warren County, In New York, Attorney Joseph D. Lento represents clients throughout New York's 62 counties. Outside of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York, unless attorney Joseph D. Lento is admitted pro hac vice if needed, his assistance may not constitute legal advice or the practice of law. The decision to hire an attorney in Philadelphia, the Pennsylvania counties, New Jersey, New York, or nationwide should not be made solely on the strength of an advertisement. We invite you to contact the Lento Law Firm directly to inquire about our specific qualifications and experience. Communicating with the Lento Law Firm by email, phone, or fax does not create an attorney-client relationship. The Lento Law Firm will serve as your official legal counsel upon a formal agreement from both parties. Any information sent to the Lento Law Firm before an attorney-client relationship is made is done on a non-confidential basis.