Opportunities and
challenges of implementing
comprehensive off-campus
conduct jurisdiction
Dr. Michael Mardis, University of Louisville, Associate Vice
President for Student Affairs/Dean of Students
Katherine Lavinder, Radford University, Assistant Dean of Students
Jeff Orzolek, Radford University, Assistant Dean of Students
Review of Literature
• “Rioters hurling rocks and bottles turned an off-campus housing
area into a war zone. Police officers fired tear gas and wooden
pellets known as “knee knockers” to subdue the crowds. At
least 45 people were arrested” Hoover (2002)
• “There is no more difficult problem in colleges today than how
to reduce the risks of dangerous college-aged drinking” (Bickel &
Lake, 1999).
• “Alcohol abuse prevention strategies that reach only as far as the
campus limits don’t do enough, a report by the National Institute
on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) argues” (National,
2002).
• Wechsler (2002) “noted an increasing trend toward attendance
and heavy drinking at off-campus parties, where successful
enforcement efforts are more difficult.”
Review of Literature
• “Campus efforts to crack down on underage drinking may be associated with
a shift in drinking from the campus to the community, where enforcement
may not be rigorous” (Wechsler, 2002).
• “Simply addressing the root causes of alcohol abuse and providing education
and alternative activities, while essential will not be enough” (Bickel & Lake
1999).
• “Student safety has become a core issue for modern universities” (Bickel &
Lake, 1999).
• “How much oversight schools should exercise over students in the absence of
parental authority is a question that has long vexed college deans. But the
debate is intensifying now that schools have been held liable for alcohol
related accidents off-campus and have faced more demands from
communities that they clamp down on raucous behavior from late-night
parties to rioting after sports events. In 21st century litigious America,
colleges are increasingly concerned about liability issues, says Sheldon
Steinbach, general counsel at the American Council on Education.” (Llana
2005)
Review of Literature
• “Universities are losing prominent student injury cases more
than ever; the language of the courts use no longer deferential to
the university” (Bickel & Lake, 1999).
• “1,400 college students between the ages of 18 and 24 die each
year from alcohol-related injuries” (Aguirre-Molina, 2002).
• Off-campus drinking is on the rise and is a top avocation for
students in higher education (Bickel, 1999).
• “On certain campuses (e.g., large public institutions, highly
competitive private institutions, and schools with large fraternity
and sorority systems), the perceived costs (financial,
administrative, and political) of limiting access to alcohol are too
high, so these schools limit themselves to the more palatable
alcohol education and social norms approach” (Wechsler, 2004).
Review of Literature
• “Tysen Kendig, a spokesperson for Penn State, which was the site of three
large student riots between 1998 and 2000; stated that of the 83 students who
were apprehended in those incidents, 81 have either been expelled or have
left the university. The University has not had any riots since” (Hoover,
2002).
• “Use of alcohol – and thus abuse of alcohol – has gone underground,
resulting in high consumption over short periods of time, and the institution
only becomes involved when behavioral issues come to the attention of
administrators” Sandeen & Barr (2006).
• Higher education in general, and student affairs in particular, has yet to
develop an effective approach to the management of the issue, and student
affairs continue to cope with the problems associated with illegal use and
abuse of alcohol and other drugs on a regular basis” Sandeen & Barr (2006).
Kapplin & Lee The Law of Higher Education
4th Edition (2006)
• “As long as the college can articulate a reasonable relationship
between the off-campus misconduct and the well-being of the
college community, reviewing courts will not overturn a
disciplinary action unless they find the action arbitrary, an abuse
of discretion, or a violation of a student’s constitutional rights.
And if the college includes language in its code of conduct,
defending challenges to discipline for off-campus misconduct
may be more successful.”
• “To avoid problems in this area, administrators should ascertain
that an off-campus act has a direct detrimental impact on the
institutions educational functions before using the act as a basis
for disciplining students”
Why Comprehensive Off-Campus Jurisdiction
was implemented at Radford University
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Radford Demographics
Party Culture Concerns
Safety of Students
Unrecognized Fraternities
Local Citizens
Parents
VA Attorney General’s Task Force
Recommendations
Logistics of implementation
• RU Off-campus taskforce
• Forums – City, University, Students
• Commitment to allocate necessary resources
(established a new position)
• City University Joint Advisory Committee
• Importance of student support
(SGA/JPC/SAEC)
• Need a clear institutional commitment
First Year of Implementation
• Importance of communication (Students, City,
Police, Hearing Board, Faculty, Media)
• Open Student Forums
• Student petition
• Stress importance of student safety and
educational mission of the institution
• Be prepared for challenges to the university’s
authority to address concerns off-campus
• Jurisdiction brochure with answers to commonly
asked questions
• 20 % decrease in on-campus alcohol violations
Types of Jurisdiction
• No off-campus jurisdiction
• Limited off-campus jurisdiction
• Comprehensive off-campus jurisdiction
• Differentiation between having the jurisdictional
authority vs. implementing a consistent response
mechanisms.
• How is the policy enforced by the University?
Example Policy University of Louisville
When the University is notified, the Vice
President for Student Affairs, in consultation
with the Provost, may determine that acts
prohibited by the Code but not committed on
University premises could also be grounds for
disciplinary action. Such action will be taken if a
student has acted in a way that substantially
interferes with or endangers the University
community, or behavior with significant
potential to disrupt the educational
environment. Such acts include, but are not
limited to, drug trafficking offenses and acts or
threats of violence against persons.
Example Policy Radford
University
• Off-campus violations can also subject a student
to the jurisdiction of the University Conduct
System when the university determines the
violation is threatening or disruptive to the
safety of members of our university community
or to the educational process of the university.
Conduct proceedings may be carried out prior
to, simultaneously with or following legal
proceedings. http://www.radford.edu/dosweb/Standards07.pdf
Example Policy UC Berkeley
•
•
•
Student conduct that occurs off University property but within the geographic area
immediately adjacent to the campus is subject to the Code. This includes all property
bounded by Virginia Street on the north, Shattuck Avenue on the west, and Derby
Street on the south. The eastern boundary, as it runs from north to south, is comprised
of La Loma Avenue, Gayley Road, Prospect Street (between Orchard Steps and
Dwight Way) and Warring Street, and includes property situated along both the east
and west sides of said streets.
Student conduct that occurs off University property and not within the area described
in Geographic Box and Conduct on Other UC Campuses is subject to the Code where
it a) adversely affects the health, safety, or security of any member of the University
community, or the mission of the University, or b) involves academic work or any
records, or documents of the University.
In determining whether or not to exercise jurisdiction over such conduct, Student
Judicial Affairs will consider the seriousness of the alleged offense, the risk of harm
involved, whether the victim(s) are members of the campus community and/or
whether the off-campus conduct is part of a series of actions that occurred both on
and off University property. http://students.berkeley.edu/uga/conductiii-vii.asp#IVA
Example Policy Notre Dame
• The University’s behavioral policies and
procedures are under the jurisdiction of the
Office of Student Affairs. All alleged violations
are at the disposition of that office through the
Office of Residence Life and Housing. Unless
otherwise noted, these policies and procedures
apply to all students, undergraduate, graduate or
professional, whether the behavior occurs on or
off campus.
http://orlh.nd.edu/dulac/duLac%202007.pdf#pa
Model Student Conduct Code
• Jurisdiction of the [College] [University] Student
Code - The [College] [University] Student Code
shall apply to conduct that occurs on [College]
[University] premises, at [College] [University]
sponsored activities, and to off-campus conduct
that adversely affects the [College] [University]
Community and/or the pursuit of its objectives.
• Other examples posted on conference website
Why we believe we’ve been
successful
• Decrease in assaults (number and severity)
• Decrease in presence of unrecognized
fraternities
• Improvement in feel of safety surrounding
campus
• Anecdotal and survey information from
students, police, community leaders, landlords
• Alcohol?
Benefits
“I do agree with the off-campus jurisdiction and the three strikes policy
because these are some of the people giving Radford University a bad
name. One thing that really bothers me about this is when I see an
individual walking home instead of driving. The individual is NOT
falling into the road or acting “drunk” and an officer pulls them off
and gives them a drunk in public ticket. In my eyes, this person was
acting responsible by walking instead of driving and our city officers
are bothering these people and causing them to get in trouble offcampus as well as on-campus. I don’t know how this can be
prevented, but this is the only situation that I can think of where the
off-campus jurisdiction has gaps.”
- RU Student
“I think that the University and City work hand-in-hand to
ensure the safety of both students and community members.
Living in a college town is unique, as college students seem to
have a completely different perception of what is okay to do
versus what is not okay socially. The University needs to do
a better job of educating the students on its judicial policies,
and making sure that students *understand* those policies.
There will still be problems, of course, with violators, but the
argument that ignorance is not an excuse can cause problems
if the students view the University as not reaching out to
teach them.”
- RU Student
“RU and the Dean’s office has proven time and time again
since these policies have been implemented that the University
expects its students to behave in accordance with its Student
Code of Conduct, which is a higher standard than the
normal citizenry must adhere to, particularly in the penalty
phase. Just like Police Officers, RU students represent a
greater entity when they function as a community member. It
is clear: these are the rules, either abide by them or be held
accountable, and because you’re a member of the RU
community, you can be held additionally accountable.”
- Radford City Police Officer
“I noticed a big difference in criminal acts after the three
strike policy went into effect. Students are now held more
accountable for their actions. I feel the area around
campus is much safer and criminal acts have decreased
since the implementation of the 3 strikes policy.
Continue the good work! It has made a very big
difference!”
- Radford City Police Officer
“Students who are not concerned about criminal charges, are
very concerned with what action the University may take
in reference to those charges, creating an excellent
deterrent.”
- Radford City Police Officer
Police Survey
I believe that the policy of off-campus jurisdiction
is beneficial to the safety of the community
surrounding campus:
Strongly Agree: 33%
Agree: 29%
Neutral: 25%
Disagree: 4%
Strongly Disagree: 8%
Police Survey
Since Spring semester 2005, I have noticed a
reduction in “pay parties”:
Strongly Agree: 26%
Agree: 35%
Neutral: 26%
Disagree: 9%
Strongly Disagree: 4%
ASJA Listserv Survey #1
How do you handle police reports of
conduct off-campus?
72 responses
• Student is put through normal judicial process –
31%
• Report is evaluated: student may be subject to
discipline – 50%
• It is rare that we’d hold a student accountable for
off-campus conduct – 9%
• We don’t receive off-campus police reports – 8%
ASJA Listserv Survey #2
For public institutions only,
Does your code allow you to address the
off-campus behavior of students?
48 responses
• Yes, but it is rare for us to do so – 39%
• Yes, and we do so regularly – 50%
• No – 10%
How the program works
• “Off-campus violations can also subject a student to the
jurisdiction of the University Conduct System when the
university determines the violation is threatening or
disruptive to the safety of members of our university
community or to the educational process of the
University…University conduct proceedings may be
instituted against a student charged with a violation of law
which is also a violation of policy without regard to pending
litigation in court or to criminal arrest or prosecution.”
• Standards of Student Conduct, 2007-2008, page 2
How the program works
• Overview
• Typically resolve charges through campus
system prior to criminal outcome
• Gather extra information from police
department as necessary
• Police Officers can attend hearings as witnesses
Key factors in implementation
• Relationship building with police department
and community members
• Education of students
• Community support (on and off-campus)
– SGA
– Campus constituents
Issues to consider when determining policy for offcampus jurisdiction (Linda Rowe, ASJA 2002)
• Practical Issues (administrative cost,
demographics of student body, physical
geography of campus setting)
• Philosophical/Developmental Issues (college
mission, campus culture)
• Historical Issues (tradition, type of institution)
• Legal/Risk Management/Liability Issues (locus
of control, legal history, campus infrastructure)
• Community and Public Relations issues
(expectations and demands, parental concerns)
• Governmental Issues (regulations and mandates)
Legal Implications
• Double Jeopardy
• Guidance from legal council
• Balancing of risk
References
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Aguirre-Molina, M. (2002). A call to action: Changing the culture of drinking at U.S. colleges. (National
Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism).
Bickel, R. D., & Lake, P. F. (1999). The rights and responsibilities of the modern university. Durham: Carolina
Academic Press.
Hoover, E. (2002). Colleges struggle to find ways to prevent the postgame rampages. The Chronicle of Higher
Education, Retrieved July 7, 2003, from http://chronicle.com/weekly/v49/i16/16a04001.htm
Kaplin, W. A., & Lee, B. A. (1995). The law of higher education: A comprehensive guide to legal implications
of administrative decision making (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Llana, S. M. (2005). When students get rowdy, should colleges step in. The Christian Science Monitor.
Retrieved October 14, 2005, from http://csmonitor.com/cgi-bin/2005/1014/p02s02-legn.txt
National On-Campus Report. (2002). Colleges can’t stand alone against student alcohol abuse. Copy Editor,
vol. 30, issue 6.
Suggs, W. (2003). College officials discuss how to stop mayhem after big games. The Chronicle of Higher
Education, Retrieved March 7, 2003, from http://chronicle.com/weekly/v49/i26/26a04301.htm
Wechsler, H., Lee J., Meichun, K., Seibring, M., Nelson, T., & Lee, H. (2002). Underage college students’
drinking behavior, access to alcohol, and the influence of deterrence policies. Journal of American College
Health, 50, 223-36.
Wechsler, H., Seibring, M., Liu, I., & Ahl, M. (2004). Colleges respond to student binge drinking. Journal of
American College Health, 52, 159-168.
Young, J. R. (2003). New Ohio law requires colleges to expel students involved in disturbances. The Chronicle
of Higher Education, Retrieved July 7, 2003, from http://chronicle.com/daily/2003/07/2003070102n.htm