Student Conduct Processes

1. Overview of the Student Conduct Process

The Division of Student Development is responsible for the implementation of the Student Code of Conduct. The University uses a graduated approach in responding to allegations of student misconduct with allegations being resolved through one of three conduct processes: 1) a Student Conduct Review; 2) a Student Conduct Conference; or 3) by the University Conduct Board. When less serious violations are alleged the matter may be resolved through a Student Conduct Review. In the case of more serious violations, or when a student has been held responsible for past misconduct, or when multiple violations are alleged, the matter may be resolved through a Conduct Conference. The most serious allegations of misconduct shall be referred to the University Conduct Board (UCB)

The determination as to which process will be utilized for the hearing and resolution of allegations of misconduct shall be made by the Director of the Office of Community Standards.

A range of conduct outcomes may be imposed if a student is found responsible for a violation of University policy. A determination of responsibility is based on a finding that the respondent more likely than not committed the act alleged.

During any Student Code of Conduct process, students will be provided with the following:

a. Notice of the allegation(s) being made

b. Notice of the date of hearing or other process

c. The opportunity to be heard

d. The opportunity to have an advisor of their choice present during any stage of the conduct proceedings

e. Notice of the outcome as permitted by FERPA and any other applicable privacy laws

f. The opportunity to have the outcome reviewed through the appropriate appeals process

During any conduct process, the involved party, or parties, are advised of the nature of the charge(s) and provided an opportunity to discuss the incident in an honest and respectful process. Each party has the opportunity to provide any relevant information in support of their position. Conduct officer(s) will use all of the information available, including information provided during the conduct process, to arrive at a finding of responsible or not responsible for alleged violations of the Student Code of Conduct. The University uses a preponderance of evidence standard, also known as “more likely than not,” for determining a finding of responsibility. If the information presented indicates alleged misconduct other than that charged has occurred, the conduct officer(s) may determine a finding of responsibility for that alleged misconduct.

A range of conduct outcomes may be assigned if a student is found responsible for a violation of University policy and a notice of findings and conduct outcomes shall be provided in writing to students found responsible for policy violations. The results of conduct processes are documented and this record may be used to establish a student’s conduct history at the University. 

In the event that a student does participate in a conduct proceeding, the conduct officer(s), in the exercise of their discretion, may adjudicate the matter in the absence of such student.

If the conduct officer(s) administering a conduct process receives information that suggests another conduct process would be a more appropriate setting, or receives information that suggests an alleged incident involving a violation of the University’s Harassment and Discrimination Policy, the conduct officer(s) will stop the meeting. The DOCS will:

a. Schedule the appropriate conduct process, or

b. Consult with the University's Title IX Coordinator to initiate the review and resolution procedures listed in the University's Harassment and Discrimination Policy. 

The University reserves the right to make any exceptions to written disciplinary procedures if deemed necessary. 

2. Initial Review

Upon receipt of a complaint against a student, or a report of alleged misconduct, the DOCS may:

a. Refer the complaint for further investigation, and/or

b. Determine that no further action is warranted, or

c. Bring a formal charge under this Student Code of Conduct.

A formal charge is warranted when the DOCS, determines that the circumstances alleged in the complaint are sufficient to create a reasonable belief that a violation has occurred and that conduct action is appropriate.

If the DOCS determines that a formal charge is warranted, the DOCS will notify the student who will be provided the opportunity to respond pursuant to one of the Student Conduct Resolution Processes detailed below. The DOCS will determine in their sole discretion by what process the charge(s) will be resolved.

NOTE: In matters covered under the University’s Harassment and Discrimination Policy, the DOCS will consult with the Title IX Coordinator and the Review and Investigation procedures contained in that policy will supersede this section.

3. Student Conduct Process Descriptions

a. Conduct Review process

b. Conduct Conference process

c. University Conduct Board process

4. Alternative Resolution Process

Following receipt of a complaint or report, the Office of Community Standards may propose resolving allegations against a respondent through an Alternative Resolution Process. Examples of Alternative Resolution Processes include mediation, facilitated dialogue, conflict coaching, and restorative justice. Participation in an Alternative Resolution Processes must be mutually agreed upon and voluntary for all parties and may or may not result in agreement or resolution.

If resolution is reached through an Alternative Resolution Process, the situation is considered resolved. Agreements are binding and not subject to appeal. Failure to abide by the agreement may result in disciplinary action.

If resolution is not achieved, allegations against the respondent will be resolved through one of the conduct processes listed in the Student Code of Conduct. 

The nature of some conflicts, including those involving violence or sexual misconduct, are not appropriate or permitted through Alternative Resolution Processes. The use of Alternative Resolution Processes as an appropriate method of resolution is at the discretion of the Office of Community Standards, based on the facts and circumstances of the case.

Last updated 8/24/17