Administrative Hearing Boards

The University of Rochester has established an Administrative Hearing Process that provides a fair review of the circumstances surrounding an alleged violation of the University’s Policy related to Sexual Harassment, Sexual Assault, Acts of Intolerance, and Discrimination. Provision is made to allow the complainant and the respondent to provide pertinent information in a non-intimidating environment. An adversarial, combative approach will not be permitted and no lawyers will be involved in the process. All participants are expected to act in a responsible and truthful manner.

Composition of the Administrative Hearing Board

Administrative Hearing Boards should reflect the racial, ethnic, gender, and sexual orientation of the participants as much as possible. Both parties are asked to indicate whether the Hearing Board should consist of faculty and staff members only or should include students from the All Campus Judicial Council (ACJC). In order for members of the ACJC to participate on the Hearing Board, both parties must agree to their inclusion.

Hearing Process

The Judicial Officer designates one member of the Hearing Board to be chair of the Hearing. The chair will maintain an orderly process and serve as the spokesperson for the Board. The University Judicial Officer may offer guidance to the chair on procedural issues. Hearings will be tape recorded for potential subpoena in future municipal court proceedings. Information offered during a Hearing is confidential. At the end of the hearing, Board members will be instructed to give all handwritten notes to the Judicial Officer to preserve confidentiality.

Respect for Participants

The University’s Hearing Process allows both participants to provide information in a non-threatening atmosphere that demonstrates respect for all participants. The process is flexible and allows participants to be in separate rooms when testimony is given. Hearing Board members are instructed to ask pertinent questions in a sensitive, non-accusatory way. Questions from either student participant will be directed to the Hearing Board chair, who will address the question to the other student.

Role of the Supporter

Each student participant is encouraged to identify a supporter who will accompany the student throughout the Hearing Process. Supporters may not act as advocates or surrogate lawyers for either participant. Supporters may not address the members of the Hearing Board with questions. Supporters may offer assistance to the student participants in the form of refreshments, hand written notes, suggestions, and moral support.

Standard of Conduct

Students may elect to press formal charges both within and outside of the University’s Judicial System. Regardless of any action pending within the outside municipal court system, the University reserves the right to go forward with its own process and to apply its own higher standard of conduct as it is described in the Sexual Harassment, Sexual Assault, and Discrimination Policy.

Standard of Evidence

The University uses a “preponderance of evidence” standard to determine whether a student(s) is responsible for a violation of University Policy. This standard is less stringent than “beyond a reasonable doubt”, the standard used in most municipal courts.

Non-Accusatory Questioning

During the Hearing, student participants often express a wide array of emotions from vulnerability to embarrassment, disbelief, anger, and fear. The issue of the student complainant’s ability to freely give consent will be considered when determining responsibility for an assault. Hearing Board members will ask questions to determine whether an individual consented to some behaviors and not to others and whether consent was withdrawn. Hearing Board members should:

Avoid pre-judging any situation
Set aside any personal prejudices
Maintain an open mind to all information presented, regardless of the content
Evaluate each element of the incident on its own merit
Be patient with the participants
Be good listeners and take notes
Avoid expressions of shock or disbelief

Determining Responsibility

Hearing Board members should obtain general information about the incident before exploring specific details. Participants should be allowed to describe the entire incident before Board members ask other questions. When making a decision about responsibility, Board members should address the following questions:

Did an incident occur?
How did it occur?
Was the accused involved?
Was consent freely given?
Did a violation of University policy take place?
Possible Hearing outcomes include Not Responsible, Responsible, or Insufficient Evidence to determine responsibility.

Recommending Sanctions

If the student respondent is found responsible for violating a University Policy, Hearing Board members are asked to recommend appropriate sanctions. At that time, Hearing Board members will review the student respondent’s folder to determine whether prior violations of University Policy have occurred. A range of sanctions may be considered by the Hearing Board including:

Community restitution
Counseling intervention
Financial restitution
Revocation or restriction of privileges
Disciplinary warning
Disciplinary probation
Suspension from University housing
Suspension from the University
Expulsion from the University
Recommended sanctions will be reviewed by the Judicial Officer to determine applicability to the violation and whether they reflect established University precedent.