1. To be informed of the charge and alleged misconduct upon which the charge is based;
2. To request that the Director of Student Development resolve the case in an informal disciplinary conference;
3. To be allowed reasonable time to prepare a defense.
4. To be informed of the evidence upon which a charge is based and accorded an opportunity to offer a relevant response;
5. To call and confront relevant witnesses;
6. To be assured of confidentiality, in accordance with the terms of the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act.²
7. To request that any person conducting a disciplinary conference or serving as a hearing board member or hearing officer be disqualified on the ground of personal bias.³
8. To be considered innocent of the charges until proven responsible by clear and convincing evidence.⁴
9. To be advised by a person of their choice.

1. the term ''aggravated violation'' means a violation which resulted or foreseeably could have resulted in significant damage to persons or property or which otherwise posed a substantial threat to the stability and continuance of normal university or university sponsored activities;⁶
2. the term ''group'' means a number of persons who are associated with each other, but who have not complied with university requirements for registration as an organization;
3. the terms ''institution'' and ''university'' mean the University and all of its undergraduate, graduate and professional schools, divisions, and programs;
4. the term ''organization'' means a number of persons who have complied with university requirements for registration;
5. the term ''reckless'' means conduct which one should reasonably be expected to know would create a substantial risk of harm to persons or property or which would otherwise be likely to result in interference with normal university or university sponsored activities;
6. the term ''student'' means any person who is taking or auditing classes at the University, or is matriculated in any University program;
7. the term ''University premises'' means buildings or grounds owned, leased, operated, controlled or supervised by the university;
8. the term ''weapon'' is defined in accordance with state law, and includes any object or substance designed to in- flict a wound or cause injury;
9. the term ''university sponsored activity'' means any activity on or off University premises that is directly initiated or supervised by the University;
10. the terms ''will'' or ''shall'' are used in the imperative sense.

1. the reliability of the information concerning the student's conduct, including the matter of his or her identity;
2. whether the conduct and surrounding circumstances reasonably indicate that the continued presence of the student on university premises poses a substantial and immediate threat to himself or herself or to others or the stability and continuance of normal University functions.

1. Intentionally or recklessly endangering, threatening, or causing physical harm to any person, or intentionally or recklessly causing reasonable apprehension of such harm.
2. Sexual assault or sexual harassment, as defined in University policies on sexual assault and sexual harassment. ¹⁴
3. Possession of a weapon.
4. Violations of the Code of Academic Integrity.¹⁵
5. Intentionally or recklessly interfering with normal Uni- versity or University sponsored activities, including but not limited to, studying, teaching, research, university administration, or fire, police or emergency services.
6. Intentionally initiating or causing to be initiated any false report, warning or threat of fire, explosion or other emergency.
7. Knowingly violating the terms of any disciplinary sanction imposed in accordance with this Code.
8. Intentionally furnishing false information to the University.
9. Violation of University policies on possession or use of illegal drugs.
10. Forgery, unauthorized alteration, or unauthorized use of any university document or instrument of identification.
11. Intentionally and substantially interfering with the freedom of expression of others.¹⁶
12. Theft of property or of services; knowing possession of stolen property.
13. Intentionally or recklessly destroying or damaging university property, or the property of others.
14. Willfully failing to comply with the reasonable directions of university officials, including campus security officers, acting in performance of their duties.
15. Intentional violations of other published university regulations or policies, filed in the office of the Director of Student Development. Such regulations or policies may include the University computer use policy,¹⁷ residence hall lease agreement and accompanying regulations, as well as those regulations relating to hazing,¹⁸ entry and use of University facilities, use of amplifying equipment, campus demonstrations, parking rules and regulations, and regulations governing student organizations.

1. Warning: notice, orally or in writing, that continuation or repetition of prohibited conduct may be cause for additional disciplinary action.
2. Censure: a written reprimand for violation of specified regulations, including a warning that continuation or repetition of prohibited conduct may be cause for additional disciplinary action. Notice of this action may appear on the student's academic transcript for up to one year.¹⁹
3. Disciplinary Probation: exclusion from participation in privileged or extra-curricular institutional activities for a specified period of time. Additional restrictions or conditions may also be imposed. Violations of the terms of disciplinary probation, or any other violation of this Code during the period of probation, will normally result in suspension or expulsion from the University. Notice of this action may appear on the student's academic transcript for up to two years.
4. Restitution: repayment to the University or to an affected party for damages resulting from a violation of this Code.
5. Suspension: exclusion from University premises, and other privileges or activities, as set forth in the suspension notice. Notice of this action may appear on the student's academic transcript for up to four years.
6. Expulsion: permanent termination of student status, and exclusion from University premises, privileges and activities. This action will be recorded on the student's academic transcript, but may be removed by the Director of Student Development after five years, for good cause.
7. Other Sanctions: other sanctions may be imposed instead of or in addition to those specified in sections (a) through (f) of this part. Service or research projects may also be assigned.

1. written notice of the specific charges at least three business days prior to the scheduled conference.
2. reasonable access to the case file prior to and during the conference. The case file consists of materials which would be considered ``educational records,'' pursuant to the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974; personal notes of University staff members or complainants are not included.
3. an opportunity to respond to the evidence and to call relevant and necessary witnesses.
4. a right to be accompanied by an advisor, as provided in part 32 of this Code.

1. The Director of Student Development will appoint a hearing officer. The hearing officer, who may be chosen from outside the University, shall conduct the hearing. He or she may participate in Board deliberations and discussions, but shall not vote.
   
2. The Director of Student Development or a designee shall give accused students notice of the hearing date and the specific charges against them at least five business days in advance. Notice shall be by personal delivery, or by certified mail to the last address provided by the student to the University. Accused students shall be accorded reasonable access to the case file, which will be retained in the Office of the Director of Student Development.
   
3. The hearing officer may subpoena relevant witnesses, after consultation with the Director of Student Development. Subpoenas must be personally delivered or sent by certified mail. University students and employees are expected to comply with subpoenas issued pursuant to this procedure, unless compliance would result in significant and unavoidable personal hardship, or substantial interference with normal University activities, as determined by the President of the University.
4. Accused students who fail to appear after proper notice will be deemed to have pled ``innocent'' to the charges pending against them. A hearing may be conducted in their absence, if necessary.²⁵
5. Hearings will be closed to the public, except for the immediate members of the respondent's family.²⁶ An open hearing may be held, in the discretion of the hearing officer, if requested by the respondent.
6. The hearing officer shall exercise control over the proceedings to avoid needless consumption of time and to achieve orderly completion of the hearing. Any person, including the accused student, who disrupts a hearing may be excluded by the hearing officer.
7. Hearings shall be tape recorded or transcribed. ²⁷
8. Any party may challenge a hearing board member or the hearing officer on the ground of personal bias. Board members may be disqualified by the hearing officer, or upon majority vote of the voting members, conducted by secret ballot. The hearing officer may be disqualified by the Director of Student Development.
9. Witnesses shall be asked to affirm that their testimony is truthful, and may be subject to charges of violating this Code by intentionally providing false information to the University.
10. Prospective witnesses, other than the complainant and the respondent, may be excluded from the hearing during the testimony of other witnesses. All parties, the witnesses, and the public shall be excluded during Board deliberations, which shall not be recorded or transcribed.
11. The charges against the respondent must be established by clear and convincing evidence.
12. Formal rules of evidence shall not be applicable in dis- ciplinary proceedings conducted pursuant to this Code. The hearing officer shall give effect to the rules of confidentiality and privilege, but shall otherwise admit all matters into evidence which reasonable persons would accept as having probative value in the conduct of their affairs. Unduly repetitious or irrelevant evidence may be excluded.
13. Complainants and accused students (not their advisors), will be accorded an opportunity to ask relevant questions of those witnesses who testify at the hearing.
14. Board members may ask questions of the parties and all witnesses. They may also take judicial notice of matters which would be within the general experience of University students and faculty members.
15. A determination of responsibility shall be followed by a supplemental proceeding in which either party may submit relevant evidence or make relevant statements concerning the appropriate sanction to be imposed. The past disciplinary record of the accused student will only be supplied to the board during the supplementary proceeding.
16. Any determination of responsibility will be supported by brief written findings that will be placed in the case file and made available to the accused student before a final decision is rendered by the Vice President for Student Development.

• Making brief opening and closing statements, as determined by the presiding officer.
• Suggesting relevant questions which the presiding officer may direct to a witness.
• Providing confidential advice to the complainant or accused student.

1. the present demeanor of the student.;
2. the conduct of the student subsequent to the violation;
3. the nature of the violation and the severity of any damage, injury, or harm resulting from it.

[1]  The governing charters of many colleges and universities contain language defining core institutional values. Incorporating those values in a campus disciplinary code helps foster a sense of continuity and community. It also lays the groundwork for regular discussion of broader ethical issues, including whether institutions are adhering to their stated ideals.

[2]  Some campus codes give a blanket pledge of confidentiality in disciplinary proceedings. That pledge can't be honored when a lawful subpoena is issued. The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act allows a number of narrow exceptions to a general confidentiality requirement, including a procedure for responding to subpoenas.

[3]  Personal bias should not be readily assumed. The term is narrowly defined, and refers to personal malice or favoritism, not general social or political perspectives.

[4]   Many colleges apply the civil law ''preponderance of the evidence'' standard. Nonetheless, in recognition of the importance accorded to disciplinary records in the college setting, the ''clear and convincing'' standard is recommended in the model Code. This result has been influenced by the reasoning of a respected university attorney, in the Summer 1985 Journal of College and University Law (Nicholas Trott Long, ''The Standard of Proof in Student Disciplinary Cases,'' 71, 80-81):

[T]he preponderance standard on campus inaccurately treats the accused student and the institution as equals ... [T]he ''clear and convincing'' standard weighs the balance in the student's favor while not placing an undue burden of proof on the institution ... From a practical point of view, the ''clear and convincing'' standard provides a safe harbor from one of the last remaining campus due process storms. No court will require school discipline to rest on ''proof beyond a reasonable doubt'' but [a court] may well rule ''by a preponderance'' inadequate.

[5]  This language is designed to resolve any ambiguity arising from the significant participation of students in resolving disciplinary cases. It is influenced by the experience of some traditional honor code schools, which have become a magnet for litigation. A contributing factor to litigiousness seems to be unchecked autonomy given to all-student honor committees tending to produce long delays, convoluted procedures, confused opinions, and inconsistent results. The premise in the model code is that affirming and protecting standards of conduct is a shared community responsibility, not a burden to be borne by students alone.

[6]  This annotation appears as an excerpt on page 826 of Synthesis: Law & Policy in Higher Education, Spring 2000 issue.

[7]  Colleges have broad authority to impose discipline for off-campus misconduct by students. See comprehensive analysis and summary of cases in a 1989 Opinion of the Maryland Attorney General (89-002 ''Authority to Discipline Off-Campus Misconduct''). Excerpts appear in Synfax Weekly Report 99.50, p. 925. It may not be good policy, however, to undertake such a task, given the difficulties in acquiring evidence, and securing the availability of witnesses. There is also a danger that local communicates will abrogate law enforcement responsibilities (and related expenses) if colleges readily assume a law enforcement function. A desirable option may be the University of Delaware system, which provides for campus disciplinary action (within a limited geographical jurisdiction) if students are convicted of certain offenses in a local court. See Synfax Weekly Report 99.51, p. 927). In any event, colleges should always reserve the right to invoke an interim suspension pending the outcome of a trial if a student is charged with a serious criminal offense, indicating a possible danger to the campus community.

[8]  This annotation appears as an excerpt on page 819 of Synthesis: Law & Policy in Higher Education, Spring 2000 issue.

[9]  The interim suspension might be modified to permit the student to enter upon the campus for a limited purpose, like attending scheduled classes.

[10]  The interim suspension for ''medical evaluation'' should be rarely used (e.g. when a suicidal student needed immediate medical intervention). It is not designed to foster an easy diversion from the campus disciplinary process. See Pavela, The Dismissal of Students with Mental Disorders (College Administration Publications, 1985).

[11]  The term ''prohibited ... acts'' would include behavior prohibited by the teacher (e.g. smoking in the classroom, persistently speaking without being called upon, refusing to be seated, disrupting the class by leaving and entering the room without authorization, etc.). This provision is not designed to be used as a means to punish classroom dissent. The lawful expression of a disagreement with the teacher is not in itself ''disruptive'' behavior.

[12]  This annotation appears as an excerpt on page 820 of Synthesis: Law & Policy in Higher Education, Spring 2000 issue.

[13]  This annotation appears as an excerpt on page 821 of Synthesis: Law & Policy in Higher Education, Spring 2000 issue..

[14]  This is one area where colleges will stay close to definitions in their state penal codes, including evidentiary protections in rape shield laws. Special care should be taken in defining ''consent.'' See Pavela, ''Defining Sexual Assault'' in ''Acquaintance Rape on Campus,'' Synthesis: Law and Policy in Higher Education, Summer 1992, p. 293. A suggested clause in campus sexual assault policies might read: ''affirmative consent [to sexual relations] is required, either verbally or by acts unmistakable in their meaning''.

[15]  For a suggested code of academic integrity, see Pavela, ''Applying the Power of Association on Campus: A Model Code of Academic Integrity, Summer 1997 Journal of College and University Law (V.24, No.1) (also available at www.umd.edu/ethics (library).

[16]  Colleges and universities should be a forum for free expression on a broad range of controversial issues. On some occasions, however, unpopular speakers have been the targets of disruptive acts, designed to prevent them from being heard. Such actions (which are to be distinguished from minor and occasional heckling) should be treated as serious disciplinary violations. See the ''Report from the Committee on Freedom of Expression at Yale university'' (1975). The following language from the Yale report may be used to elaborate upon the intent and scope of Part 12 (k) of this Code.

   "There is no right to protest within a university building in such a way that any university activity is disrupted. The administration, however, may wish to permit some symbolic dissent within a building but outside the meeting room, for example, a single picket or a distributor of handbills ...
   "[A] member of the audience may protest in silent, symbolic fashion, for example, by wearing a black arm band. More active forms of protest may be tolerated such as briefly booing, clapping hands or heckling. But any disruptive activity must stop [and not be repeated] when the chair or an appropriate university official requests silence ...    "Nor are racial insults or any other ''fighting words'' a valid ground for disruption or physical attack ... The banning or obstruction of lawful speech can never be justified on such grounds as that the speech or the speaker is deemed irresponsible, offensive, unscholarly, or untrue.

[17]  A student advisory committee on computer use might be asked to help develop (or review) a campus-wide computer use policy. Models can be found at http://www.cornell.edu/CPL/Policies . The Cornell University policy is recommended. See: See: http://www.cit.cornell.edu/Computer/responsible-use/ A student advisory committee might also suggest voluntary standards of civilityto be widely distributed on campus. See Hodges and Pavela ''Ten Principles of Civility in Cyberspace'' on this site at http://www.collegepubs.com/ref/StudentEthicalDevelopmentProgramming.shtml

[18]  A definition of hazing written for the University of Maryland states:

Hazing is strictly prohibited     Hazing is a fundamental violation of human dignity. It is strictly prohibited. The university defines hazing -- which is also a violation of state law -- as ''intentionally or recklessly subjecting any person to the risk of bodily harm, or severe emotional distress, or causing or encouraging any person to commit an act that would be a violation of law or college regulations, for the purpose of initiating, promoting, fostering, or confirming any form of affiliation with a student group or organization, as defined by the Code of Student Conduct. The express or implied consent of the victim will not be a defense.
Examples of hazing     Examples of hazing include, but are not limited to: forced consumption of alcohol or other substances; sleep deprivation; use of alcohol in drinking games or contests; paddling; forced tattooing or branding; creation of excessive fatigue; severe psychological shocks or humiliation (as defined by a reasonable person under all the circumstances); compulsory servitude; theft or misuse of property belonging to others.
Penalties for hazing     ''Aggravated'' violations of this policy, as defined in Code of Student Conduct, normally result in suspension or expulsion from the College, or revocation or denial of recognition or registration for a student group or organization, even for a first offense. Individuals who participate in acts of hazing are personally accountable under this policy, and the Code of Student Conduct, regardless of the outcome of any related case brought against a student group or organization.
The responsibility to challenge and report hazing     All members of the College community share the responsibility to challenge and make known to the university acts of apparent hazing. Apathy in the presence of hazing, or acquiescence to hazing, are not neutral acts. Individuals who participate in acts of hazing are personally accountable under this policy, and the Code of Student Conduct.

[19]  A transcript notation is a serious sanction. Done in accordance with fair and established procedures it is not a violation of due process, or any other constitutional protection (see, Schulman v. Franklin and Marshall College, 538 A.2d 49, Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1988: ''[S]hould the [college] prevail, a notation will appear on the transcript; this is a permissible sanction and appellant cannot claim relief from sanctions brought about by his own behavior''). The removal of transcript notations can be keyed to educational interventions, like the University of Maryland Academic Integrity Seminar at http://www.umd.edu/ethics (integrity seminar). Experienced teachers and administrators recognize that the habits and values of students can change for the better, especially if effective educational interventions are devised. Lifelong stigmatizing penalties must be a last resort.

[20]  Disciplinary proceedings in the University environment must not evolve into a quest for procedural error. The courts have recognized, even in the context of a criminal case, that procedural perfection is impossible. See United States v. Hasting 461 U.S. 499 (1983): ''... taking into account the reality of the human fallibility of the participants, there can be no such thing as an error-free perfect trial, and the Constitution does not guarantee such a trial.''

[21]  Standards that structure the exercise of this discretion are set forth in Parts 14 through 16. The Dean of Student Development might also de- velop additional internal guidelines based on past precedents, e.g. ''normally, in cases of theft involving items valued at $50 or more, accused students will be subject to charges identified as an 'aggravated' violation.''

[22]  The designee could be an experienced member of the student judiciary, who would conduct conferences and make recommendations to the Director.

[23]  This provision is designed to permit informal resolution of minor cases. It requires minimal procedural complexity because it constitutes a warning concerning the possible future use of disciplinary authority.

[24]  ''Disciplinary conference'' procedure is designed to reduce unnecessary proceduralism and contentiousness in disciplinary proceedings. A disciplinary conference will normally consist of an informal, non-adversarial meeting between the respondent and the Director or a designee. Complainants would not be required to participate, unless cross-examination was necessary to resolve a dispositive factual issue. Documentary evidence and written statements could be relied upon, so long as the respondent was given access to them in advance, and allowed to respond to them at the conference. Respondents would also be allowed to call relevant witnesses.

See, generally, Goss v. Lopez 419 U.S. 565 (1975) (a student subject to penalties such as a written reprimand, probationary status, or a community service assignment is entitled to: ''oral or written notice of the charges against him and, if he denies them, an explanation of the evidence the authorities have and an opportunity to present his side of the story'' in a ''discussion'' with a ''disciplinarian''). See also, David L. Kirp ''Proceduralism and Bureaucracy: Due Process in the School Setting'' 38 Stanford Law Review 841 (1976) (structured ''con- versations'' may be better than formal hearings at providing a means for students to be heard, at least in ''factually uncomplicated disputes'').

[25]  A right to some kind of hearing is a fundamental due process protection. If there is any uncertainty or ambiguity about adequacy of notice or honest confusion about a hearing datethe hearing should be rescheduled so the accused student can be present.

[26]  In Hart v. Ferris State 557 F. Supp. 1379, 1389 (W.D. Mich., 1983) the court observed that:

Plaintiff contends that she has the right to have her disciplinary hearing be open to the public. No authority is cited for the proposition that a closed hearing would constitute a violation of due process. Plaintiff simply argues that there is quite a number of similarly-situated students who would be interested in observing the hearing. It is difficult to understand how the presence of such other students would decrease the risk of an erroneous expulsion, but it is easy to see how their presence could be disruptive to the proceedings. To the extent that plaintiff wishes them to be informed she can supply them with copies of a transcript of the hearing and the written decision.

[27]  Complaints about inaudible or defective hearing tapes are common. Administrators should purchase quality recording equipment and employ a trained operator to use it.

[28]  See Charlotte Jacobsen Weddle ''The Case for Structured Negotiation'' in the 1992 issue of Synthesis: Law and Policy in Higher Education, p. 291.

[29]  This annotation appears as an excerpt on page 822 of Synthesis: Law & Policy in Higher Education, Spring 2000 issue. [30]  The University of Maryland has found that a cadre of carefully selected and trained students can provide this service.

[31]  Administrators should display reasonable flexibility, and try to coordinate hearing dates with counsel in advance.

[32]  This annotation appears as an excerpt on page 823 of Synthesis: Law & Policy in Higher Education, Spring 2000 issue.

[33]  The petition process is another opportunity for educators to encourage thoughtful reflection and analysis concerning the ethical issues involved.

[34]  See Pavela, ''For the Same Reasons That Students Can Be Expelled, Degrees Ought to be Revocable,'' Chronicle of Higher Education, October 22, 1999, p. B6.

COLLEGE ADMINISTRATION PUBLICATIONS, INC.
P.O. Box 600430, Saint John's, Florida 32260

To contact us, please:
E-mail us at: info@collegepubs.com

Web: http://www.collegepubs.com

[Who We Are]    [Critical Issues]    [Reference Desk]

[CAP Monographs]    [CAP Periodicals]    [CAP Seminars]

[Help]    [Links]    [Search]    [Secure Shopping]