Division of Jurisdiction and Responsibility

  1. Authority to hold students (For the purposes of this document “students” are any person or group who is or was in attendance during an academic period in which misconduct occurred or between academic periods for continuing students.) accountable through the conduct system is vested in the president of the University by the University’s bylaws. This authority has been delegated through the dean of the college and dean of students to the   judicial   officer in the Office of the Dean of Students for all nonacademic conduct incidents involving both undergraduate and graduate students with a further delegation to conduct teams/officers. These conduct teams/officers determine whether an  alleged violation of the standards of the University community occurred by the preponderance of the evidence. If the team/officer finds that a violation  did occur it further determines the response which is most likely to benefit both the   individual student and the larger University community. As the University official responsible for discipline, the judicial officer receives the recommendation of these conduct teams/officers on behalf of the University, accepts or modifies the recommendation, and formally implements University disciplinary action.
  2. Jurisdiction over cases of academic misconduct involving undergraduate students has been delegated to the College Board on Academic Honesty which makes findings and submits recommendations to the dean of the appropriate college.
  3. There is not always a clear distinction between academic and nonacademic misconduct. The fundamental criterion for deciding whether a matter is academic or nonacademic is whether the student was acting in a   scholarly or professional capacity. When the incident involves a student acting in his or her role as a student, teaching assistant, or expert in his or her discipline, then the matter is an academic matter. When the incident involves a student acting as an individual independent of these roles, then the matter is nonacademic. The available hearing procedures are not intended to be mutually exclusive: it is possible that a student could be subject to both academic and nonacademic discipline for the same misconduct.
  4. Discretionary responsibility for handling extreme cases, where such action is essential for maintaining the orderly processes of the University, is retained by the President or a delegate.
  5. Other officers and agents of the University may promulgate rules and regulations applicable to students in particular situations independent of these procedures and guidelines. These officers and agencies shall report                serious violations of such rules and regulations to the judicial officer.

Conduct Officers/Bodies
There are four different conduct bodies available for resolving alleged violations of the standards of the University community.  They are as follows:

  • Residential Life Staff: Residential Life Area Coordinators, Assistant Directors and Associate Directors process most Responsible Options. These professional staff members resolve, whenever possible, alleged violations of policies by residents from their respective living areas. They are authorized to issue the full range of responses up to, but not including, Suspension from the University and Expulsion.
  • Administrative Conduct Officer: An Administrative Conduct Officer-typically the judicial officer, the director of Residential Life, an associate director of Residential Life, or a designee appointed by the judicial officer—may conduct disciplinary hearings without a board or council. Administrative conduct officers are authorized to issue the full range of University responses.
  • All Campus Judicial Council: The ACJC is made up of student justices including a chief and associate chief.  A faculty or staff member serves as an advisor and nonvoting member. This hearing body resolves disciplinary cases ranging from simple to very serious, and has authority to issue the full range of University responses.
  • Administrative Conduct Board: The administrative conduct board is normally chaired by a designee of the judicial officer but may be chaired by the judicial officer him/herself, and consists of three faculty or staff members of the University community. This conduct board is authorized to issue the full range of University responses. Hearing board members are selected by the judicial officer based on the needs for fairness, objectivity and balance in the resolution process. For alleged incidents of sexual assault, sexual harassment, racial harassment, and other illegal discrimination, hearing board members who have been specially trained to process such matters in a sensitive and appropriate manner are chosen.  In such cases, upon agreement of both the respondent and alleged victim, two (2) members of the ACJC, one male and one female, shall become members of the Administrative Hearing Board.

Responsible Option
A student who is alleged to have violated the standards of our community, (a respondent), may be able to avoid a formal conduct hearing by accepting responsibility for the alleged violation and authorizing the conduct officer or body to issue a response.  Based on the nature and circumstances of the case, the judicial officer, in his/her sole discretion, can either serve as the conduct officer or refer the matter to another conduct officer or body (as described below) for resolution.  If the responsible option is offered, the respondent is required to notify the designated conduct officer that he/she plans to pursue this path within two (2) business days of their initial meeting.  Failure to do so will result in a referral to the appropriate hearing forum.  In all matters, the judicial officer has full discretion to waive the Responsible Option if the nature and circumstances of the case warrant a formal conduct hearing.

Referral to Restorative Circle
In some circumstances students who have engaged in behavior that violates our campus code of conduct may be given the option of participating in a restorative circle to resolve the incident at the discretion of the assistant dean of students. *Students accused of sexual assault may not use a restorative circle to address the issue unless the circle follows a hearing on the issue.*

Restorative circles provide parties to a dispute with an opportunity to discuss the issue(s) that lead to the conflict in a safe, non-adversarial environment. Trained facilitators assist the participants in communicating about the dispute and help the participants to create an agreement regarding how to repair the harm that was caused. 

Practically, a restorative circle is a gathering of individuals who are involved (directly or indirectly) in a dispute with the purpose of talking about what happened and making a plan for what they will do now. The circle typically meets twice, once to discuss the issues that lead to the conflict and once again to review the agreement that was developed during the first circle.

For more information about the Restorative Circles Process please contact the Center for Student Conflict Management at 585-275-4085.