Winston Durham v. Washington State University

FILED
NOVEMBER 25, 2025
In the Office of the Clerk of Court
WA State Court of Appeals, Division III
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION THREE
WINSTON DURHAM, 	)
)
Appellant, 	)
)
V. 	)
)
WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY, 	)
)
Respondent. 	)
No. 40211-8-111
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
MURPHY, J. -Winston Durham (Durham) appeals the trial court's denial of his
petition for review of a final administrative order. Our review is of the administrative
order. Schrom v. Bd. for Volunteer Fire Fighters, 153 Wn.2d 19, 24, 100 P.3d 814
(2004).
The final administrative order came from the Washington State University (WSU)
Appeals Board (Board). The Board's amended order sanctioned Durham and ordered
him to complete 80 hours of community service.
The sanction and penalty were based upon the following findings: (1) Durham was
a WSU student on June 11, 2022; (2) On that day, a Pride in the Park event celebrating
the LGBTQ+ community occurred in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho; (3) Acting on a tip, the
Coeur d'Alene police depanment stopped a U-Haul headed toward the event because a
group inside the vehicle intended to incite a physical confrontation; (4) 30 individuals,
including Durham, were found in the U-Haul with accoutrements consistent with

No. 40211-8-III
Durham v. Wash. State U,niv.
disrupting the event, including at least one smoke grenade; and ( 5) The police
investigation concluded that the group intended to use smoke grenades to disrupt
the event. Based on these findings, the Board concluded that Durham violated
former WAC 504-26-216 (2014) (attempted disorderly conduct) and WAC 504-26-210
(violation of law).
Durham does not_ contest the findings or conclusions. Rather, he argues the Board
lacked subject matter jurisdiction over his off-campus conduct.
WAC 504-26-015 provides in relevant part:
(2) Off-campus conduct. . . . [T]he standards of conduct may apply
to conduct that occurs off university premises and not in connection with
university-sponsored activities, if the conduct adversely affects the.health
and/or safety of the university community or the pursuit of the university's
vision, mission, or values. 	,
The university has sole discretion to make this determination. 	In
making this determination, the conduct officer considers whether the
alleged conduct:
(e) Was recognized by onlookers, complainants, or witnesses as
being carried out by a student or registered student organization.
(Emphasis added.)
Early on, Durham objected to WSU disciplining him for off-campus conduct.
WSU responded by letter and either by attachments to the letter or separately provided
Durham with the factual basis for its assertion of jurisdiction. Its ba~is for asserting
jurisdiction was an anonymous student report, which included links to news articles and a
2

, No. 40211-8-III
Durham v. Wash. State Univ.
recording. The anonymous student report and links identified Durham as one of the
individuals in the U-Haul who had intended to disrupt the June 11, 2022, Pride in the
Park event.
Durham argues that WSU' s authority to discipline off-campus conduct under
WAC 504-26-015(2) goes beyond its statutory jurisdiction. In support of his argument,
he cites Barlow v. State, 2 Wn.3d 583, 540 P.3d 783 (2024) and Brown v. Arizona, 82
F.4th 863 (9th Cir. 2023). Those cases discuss a university's duty to protect students who
are off campus. Neither case suggests that a university's authority to discipline a student,
is limited by its duty to protect students. To the contrary, Barlow states, "The code of
I
- conduct is irrelevant to establishment of a duty." 2 Wn.3d at 597.
Durham next argues that an anonymous student tip is insufficient on which WSU
could base its jurisdiction. We disagree. The anonymous student tip and attachments are
part of the agency record. Under WAC 504-26-015(2), the conduct officer has sole
discretion whether to exercise discipline authority for off-campus conduct. Durham does
not c4al_lenge this aspect of the rule. Rather, he makes a "substantial evidence" argument
and asks us to weigh the anonymous tip against evidence that his conduct did not tie him
to WSU. But because the (unchallenged) rule gives the conduct officer sole discretion to
make this determination, we defer to the officer's determination.
3

No. 40211-8-III
Durham v. Wash. State Univ.
Affirmed. 1
A majority of the panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in the
Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to
RCW 2.06.040.
Murphy, J.
WE CONCUR:
Lawrence-Berrey, C.J.
1 Durham's motions to amend his opening brief are mooted by our review of his
"substantial evidence" argument. 	WSU's motion to add evidence (further identifying
Durham as one of the persons arrested) is denied because it is not necessary for us in
reaching our decision~ RAP 9.1 l(a).
4