The IOA completed its investigation and issued a report to Tammara Durham, Vice Provost of Student Affairs. The report recommended that disciplinary action should be taken against Yeasin. The IOA report concluded that “while some of the conduct in this case occurred off campus this past summer,” the preponderance of the evidence nevertheless showed that Yeasin's conduct had affected the on-campus environment for W., thus violating the University's sexual harassment policy. The IOA also found that Yeasin knowingly and purposefully violated the no-contact order by continually “harassing” W. on social media even after being informed that this indirect contact was in violation of that no-contact order. The IOA communicated its ndings and recommendations to Yeasin the same day and reiterated to him that the no-contact order remained in effect. After receiving the IOA report, the Director of Student Conduct & Community Standards, Nicholas Kehrwald, set a formal hearing and gave notice to Yeasin. Pointing to the IOA's ndings, Kehrwald repeated the allegations against Yeasin and speci ed that Yeasin's conduct violated Article 22.A.1 of the Student Code, the University's sexual harassment policy, and the no-contact order. Kehrwald complained of Yeasin's conduct off campus having an effect on campus: “[R]epeatedly posting demeaning tweets referenced at [W.], physically restraining [W.] in your car on July 1, 2013. IOA's nding was based on the fact that you held [W.], against her will, for three hours in your car, yelled at [W.], called her demeaning names, and threatened suicide when she attempted to break-up with you. The record also indicates that you have had electronic communications directed at [W.] after August 14, 2013. While some of these actions have occurred off-campus, the record demonstrates the relationship and behavior has had on-campus [effects] for [W.]” Kehrwald advised Yeasin that a formal student conduct hearing would be held on November 4, 2013, and the no-contact order remained in effect. On October 23, 2013, Yeasin tweeted, “ ‘At least I'm proportionate.’ # NDB # boobs @MorganLCox.” At the student conduct hearing, the hearing panel told Yeasin that the charges against him were for violating Article 22.A.1 of the Student Code and the University's sexual harassment policy. The hearing panel then reviewed the written documents from the case le and then heard from W., IOA Executive Director McQueeney, IOA Investigators Steinhilber and Brooks, and Yeasin. The hearing panel found that Yeasin more likely than not had violated both Article 22.A.1 and the University's sexual harassment policy. In the panel's view, Yeasin's behavior threatened the physical health, welfare, and safety of W. Speci cally, the panel focused on Yeasin's off-campus actions: “Yeasin physically restrained [W.] in his car, yelled at her for hours and demonstrated hostile, controlling and unstable behavior, making [W.] afraid for her safety. [W.] repeatedly expressed during the time she was restrained in the car, ‘I am scared. I am scared for my safety. [ ․ ] I do not feel safe.’ “ Then, citing various tweets Yeasin posted after the no-contact order and the September 7, 2013, tweet Yeasin posted after receiving the September 6, 2013, email from the IOA clarifying the no-contact order, the hearing panel also found that Yeasin had violated the no-contact order: “Yeasin repeatedly followed and attempted to make unwanted contact, including but not limited to physical or electronic contact with [W.] via text message, twitter and in person after the no-contact order had been delivered to Yeasin, and after IOA had made clari cation with Yeasin that any reference regarding W., directly or indirectly, was a violation of the no-contact order.” In concluding that Yeasin violated the University's sexual harassment policy, the hearing panel found “the behavior of Yeasin is unwelcome, based upon sex or sex stereotypes, and are so severe, pervasive and objectively offensive that they have the purpose or effect of substantially interfering with [W.'s] academic performance or participation in the University's programs and activities.” To support its ndings, the panel cited Yeasin's off-campus conduct towards W. on June 29, 2013, his threat towards W. on the Stayofup to 30, date with the latest on the law! morning June 2013, “indicating he would make the University of Kansas campus environment so hostile, W. would not attend any university in the state of Kansas,” and statements made by W. about the impact of her relationship with Yeasin and his actions. Please enter your email address Subscribe By submitting thispanel form, you agree to FindLaw.com's (https://www. ndlaw.com/company/ ndlaw-terms-of-service.html). WeUniversity campus until W. graduated. The hearing recommended thatterms Yeasin be expelled permanently and banned from the respect your privacy (https://www.thomsonreuters.com/en/privacy-statement.html). This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy (https://policies.google.com/privacy) and Terms of Service (https://policies.google.com/terms) apply. / ×