1
INTERFRATERNITY COUNCIL (IFC) JUDICIAL PROCESS
Philosophy and Goals of the IFC Judicial Process
The IFC disciplinary process should be educational in nature, and result in changed behavior
patterns by chapters that violate University or IFC policy. In any discipline process, students
should learn from their mistakes. The IFC judicial process should not consist solely of punitive
actions, and should be focused on changing the behavior and attitude of the chapter. Along with
the educational concept, the IFC judicial process response is intended to accomplish six goals:
1. Ensure that the accused chapter understands the implications of their actions.
2. Ensure that the accused chapter will not participate in the action in the future.
3. Ensure that the accused chapter rectifies the situation.
4. Clarify the IFC's position on the action.
5. Help others learn from the action.
6. Empower students to hold themselves accountable to the standards of Vanderbilt
University, IFC, and to the founding principles of their own chapter.
This policy seeks to enforce University and IFC policy, while also taking into account the rights
of the accused fraternity.
Jurisdiction
The IFC Judicial Process has jurisdiction over IFC fraternity chapters who violate Vanderbilt
University policies and/or the Vanderbilt Interfraternity Council Constitution, By-laws, and
policies. The IFC Judicial bodies do not have jurisdiction over individual Greek members.
The nature and source of this jurisdiction is delineated in the Vanderbilt University Student
Handbook, “For matters specific to their areas, and for matters delegated to them by the Conduct
Council Chair, disciplinary authority may also be exercised by the Interfraternity . . . judicial
board . . . The nature of specific areas of disciplinary authority is described in the constitutions or
bylaws of each of these bodies. . .” (www.vanderbilt.edu/student_handbook)
Investigation Procedures
The investigator(s) handling the case, typically members of the Offices of Greek Life or Student
Conduct, will collect information about the alleged violation from an incident report or
complaint, any witnesses, or the students involved. They will also collect such information from
the accused chapter. The investigation will proceed with all deliberate speed. Chapters are
expected to perform their own internal investigation and comply with fully with IFC judicial the
investigation. Anonymity will be honored in all disciplinary proceedings. Therefore, the
fraternity will not know the identity of the person(s) involved in or reporting this incident.
Rights and Responsibilities of the Accused
1. All fraternities have the following rights during the Judicial Process. A failure by the
respective hearing body/officer by to abide by the accused’s rights will result in the case
being reheard. The rights of accused fraternities are as follows:
a. The right to a timely hearing
b. The right to reasonable and complete notice of charges in writing
Revised April 2010
1
2
c.
d.
e.
f.
The right to an explanation of charges
The right to present a defense before the appropriate Board/hearing officer
The right to a timely notification of the results of the hearing
The right to a decision based solely on the facts presented in the reports and from
the hearing
g. The right to an appeal. (See below)
2. Emphasis should be placed not only on the accused fraternity’s rights, but also on its
responsibilities. The investigator (s) must inform the accused fraternity of its
responsibilities. The responsibilities of the accused are as follows:
a. Cooperate with all investigating officers
b. Respond to all inquiries and questions with complete honesty
c. Meet timelines set by judicial officials
d. Become familiar with the judicial process
e. Act in accordance with all procedures
f. Should fraternities choose not to cooperate, the Dean of Students (or designee)
shall adjudicate the hearing.
Adjudication
When the University or IFC is notified that a fraternity has allegedly violated IFC or University
policies, rules, or regulations, IFC may adjudicate the matter through any of the four methods
detailed below. The decision as to which form of adjudication to use will depend on factors to
include, but not limited to:
1. the nature and severity of the alleged violation(s),
2. the disciplinary history of the chapter, and
3. the attitude or response of the chapter and officers throughout the disciplinary
proceedings.
Miscellaneous Information for the IFC Judicial Process
1. Three principle factors will determine sanctions for chapters held responsible of a
violation:
a. The severity of the offense
i. Flagrancy, premeditation, scope in relation to the chapter, and extent of the
harm done to the chapter or community
b. The chapter’s prior record
c. The attitude of the accused chapter
ii. Internal response of the chapter
iii. Truthfulness and demeanor during the investigation
2. Responsibility for a violation must be proven by a “preponderance of the evidence”; in
other words, the hearing body must conclude it is more likely than not that the violation
occurred.
3. If the case before the Informal or Formal Conduct Board involves a chapter whose
affiliation is represented by the President, Vice President, Attorney General, and at-large
IFC Executive Board Member, they are to recuse themselves from the case and be
replaced by another IFC Executive Officer (voted on by Fraternity Presidents).
Revised April 2010
2
3
Methods of Adjudication
1. Informal Warning Process
a. Cases where the alleged violation(s) is(are) deemed relatively minor in light of the
above-listed factors (1-3), the IFC Attorney General, IFC President and IFC Vice
President Judicial may proceed with the informal warning process
b. Warnings will include a ranking based on severity from 1-3 points
c. Warning points will be taken into consideration in deciding other disciplinary
matters and may be removed from the fraternity’s record (for purposes of
heightening the severity of subsequent violations) after a period of one year.
2. Informal Conduct Board (ICB)
a. Cases where the alleged violation(s) is(are) deemed relatively moderate in light of
the above-listed factors, IFC Judicial may proceed with an Informal Conduct
Board. The Informal Conduct Board consists of the Vice President, Attorney
General, President, and a representative from the Office of Student Conduct and
the Office of Greek Life.
b. Procedures
i. The accused chapter’s president (or designee) is required to attend and
may bring up to two other members from his chapter.
ii. The accused chapter will have the opportunity to present the findings of its
internal investigation, answer questions, plead its case and, if responsible
for the charges, discuss any measures that have been or will be taken to
avoid similar violations in the future.
iii. Deliberations - The accused chapter representatives will be temporarily
dismissed and the ICB and will determine responsibility and, if necessary,
the appropriate sanction or course of action.
iv. The accused chapter representatives will be invited back into the room and
informed of the ICB decision.
v. Appeals may be submitted to the Dean of Students in accordance with the
guideline described below.
3. Formal Conduct Board (FCB)
a. Cases where the infraction is deemed relatively major in light of the above-listed
factors, IFC Disciplinary may proceed with a Formal Conduct Board.
b. The Formal Conduct Board consists of the IFC President, Vice President,
Attorney General, one other IFC Executive Board member (voted on by Fraternity
Presidents), and three faculty/staff members.
c. Procedures
i. Call to order by the chair of the panel
ii. Introductions
iii. Swear in all who will testify
iv. Charges stated by IFC Attorney General
v. Accuser testifies and responds to questions from Formal Conduct Board
members.
1. In cases where an individual is bringing a charge, their identity
Revised April 2010
3
4
vi.
vii.
viii.
ix.
x.
xi.
xii.
must be kept anonymous. In such cases, their statement or the
investigation report will be read by IFC Attorney General.
Accused chapter members testify and respond to questions from Formal
Conduct Board members
Closing statement by accuser (if applicable)
Closing statement by accused
Deliberations – FCB and Greek Advisor remain in room, all others
excused. Greek Advisor does not actively participate in deliberations, but
may provide historical context or insight pertaining to the fraternity and
the feasibility of sanctions.
Decision rendered by anonymous, majority vote; Greek Advisor does not
vote)
If chapter is found responsible, the appropriate sanction will be
determined (by majority vote).
Accuser and Accused return and decision is read
4. Dean of Students Administrative Process
a. The Dean of Students (or designee) may assume original jurisdiction of any IFC
judicial matter to resolve the matter through an administrative hearing process.
This action will be utilized at the professional discretion of the Dean of Students
(or designee). Procedures will mirror those for an administrative hearing as
described in Chapter 3 of the Student Handbook.
Appeals
Appeals will be heard by the Dean of Students (or designee). Appeals must be submitted no later
than ten (10) calendar days following the hearing. Requests for extensions must be submitted to
the Dean of Students (or designee) prior to the expiration of the ten-day period
The grounds for appeal are as follows:
1.
Procedural irregularities sufficient to affect the determination of the original hearing
authority.
2.
Insufficient evidence to support the decision of the original hearing authority.
3.
Harshness of the penalty imposed by the original hearing authority sufficient to show an
abuse of discretion by that authority.
4.
New evidence that was not reasonably available for presentation to the original hearing
authority, the introduction of which may reasonably be expected to affect the decision of
the original hearing authority.
Upon receipt of the petition, the Dean of Students (or designee) proceeds with all deliberate
speed to review the petition using the “standards of review” detailed in the Student Handbook
(see subheading “Standards of Review” under Heading “Appeals”).
Revised April 2010
4