To:
The Senate
From:
The Student Affairs Committee
RE:
Changes to the Student Conduct Policy
Date:
October 3, 2008
The Student Affairs Committee presents the revision of the Student Conduct Policy and
Procedures to the Senate for approval.
These revisions were developed in the fall of 2007 and shared with each center in the
spring and summer of 2008. Each center has had an opportunity to review and
comment on the policies. Many centers had a discussion at the center meeting about
the policy.
The feedback from the centers was minimal and generally positive, particularly regarding
the moving of the administrator in judicial cases to the office of academic affairs and
having pre-trained hearing committee members.
The concerns from the centers are listed here as well as the response of the Student
Affairs Committee and Office of Academic Affairs.
1) Frivolous Complaints
There was much disagreement by the centers that this language was too vague and
inappropriate. It was removed.
2) Tone of the Policy
There was a concern raised at three centers regarding the tone and officious nature
of the policy. The College uses this policy in very serious cases. In the last year,
these cases have included felonies, impersonation, fraud and sexual harassment.
Even the formals written warnings are not used until many efforts have been
made by faculty, professional and the dean to solve situations informally. In the
last year with our student population at 18,000 we used this policy less than 20
times. The percentage of students affected is .001.
3) Judicial officer having awareness of student issues
There was concern regarding whether the judicial officer had knowledge of the
full range of student behavior across the college. The statement specifically refers
to the role the judicial officer plays in receiving reports not only from centers, but
also from administrative units such as financial aid, student accounts and the
registrar’s office. These offices as well as the center regularly send reports to the
judicial officer when student conduct must be addressed. Therefore the judicial
officer does have a broader base of knowledge of the student’s behavior across
the college.
4) Concerns about sanctions specifically including the withholding of on-line
resources
There was a concern that we were not specific enough to include on-line
resources when sanctioning a student. Language was changed to specifically state
“any college resources.”
5) Concerns that we were not identifying specific on-line breaches of behavior
A consensus was reached that these specific behaviors are covered in the broader
policy as it stands. For example we would do not specifically note “inappropriate
on-line comments that disrupt a class” just as we would not note “inappropriate
comments that would disrupt a study group.” Instead we refer to the broader
conduct policy that states “disorderly conduct that interferes with the rights of
others” as a violation.
6) Concern about the use of previous behavior
There was a concern that only previous behavior that was a violation of the
student conduct code should be considered.
Language changed to “The complaint may include information about previous
behavior that demonstrates a recurrent pattern of behavior that is relevant to the
current conduct violation.”
7) Language around deadlines
There were concerns about the deadlines for hearings and the workload of staff.
The current policy contains the word “should” in the language around dates.
Changing the policy would seriously impact the due process rights of students.
Again, we are primarily targeting serious breaches of the code of conduct that
may result in a removal student’s right to an education at the college.
8) Empire state Policy on Firearms
A recommendation to include a reference to the college’s policy on firearms for
consistency was accepted.
9) “Wordsmithing”
Centers shared edits to make the policy more consistent and clear. These were
accepted and did not change the meaning of the policy.
Student Conduct Policy and Procedures
Guide to Proposed Changes
Although only a very small number of students are accused of violations of the student
conduct policy, we have gained some significant experience in understanding the needs
of the college since the initiation of the student conduct policy and procedures in 2002.
We generally deal with two or six serious cases across the college each year.
Additionally, most centers and programs each work informally with several students
annually – some more than others. We have made two significant changes to the policy.
As we have dealt with a number of complex cases, we found that it is difficult to have
faculty, staff and students sufficiently versed in the policy and in conducting a hearing.
In serious cases where the student’s behavior significantly affects the center, the dean is
party to the complaint. Finally, with all of the dean’s other responsibilities, timeliness
has been an issue. Thus, one significant change in the policy is to shift responsibility for
formal student conduct complaints from the center or program dean’s office to the office
of academic affairs. The policy calls for the designation of a staff member in OAA as the
college’s judicial officer. It is our intention to assign that responsibility to the Assistant
to the Provost. Patricia Myers currently holds that position.
In the current policy, the president (or designee) issues an interim suspension. As it turns
out, the deans have consistently been in the position to make those decisions and have
served as designee. Therefore, the new version posits the responsibility with the dean,
who is responsible for safety and order at the center or program.
1. Failure/refusal to comply (pg 2 #9) We took out the reference to maintaining
safety and made this regulation broader.
2. Consideration of Information (pg 2 bottom of page). The earlier version of the
policy had some vague language included under the sanctions sections. What we
consider when investigating student behavior is now more clearly stated.
3. Interim suspension (pg 3). In addition to assigning the dean the responsibility
for interim suspension, the current policy provides no due process following an
interim suspension. We must provide minimal due process and a speedy
opportunity for the student to be heard.
4. Informal Resolution (pg 3). Still lies with the center and or program, but the
policy clearly expects documentation of informal actions/decisions.
5. Formal complaints (pg 4). OAA is responsible for administering formal student
conduct procedures and appoints a judicial officer.
6. Standard for finding a student responsible (pg4-5). The current policy states
that the standard in clear and convincing and the proposed is a preponderance of
evidence.
7. Including past behavior (pg 4 under formal complaint procedures). The
current policy appears to limit the complaint to describing one incident, when it is
a persistent pattern of behavior that we most often need to address. It is also
noted that we are only looking at recurrent pattern of behavior that is relevant to
the alleged current conduct violation.
8. Judicial officer may initiate (pg 4 under format complaint procedures).
Given the distributed nature of the college and the role of OAA in student
problem resolution, the judicial officer may know more about a student’s behavior
and its impact on the college as a whole than any of the several individuals that
may be dealing with a student. The proposed policy allows the judicial officer to
initiate formal proceedings if needed.
9. Student Conduct Committee redefined (pg 6). While we have been fortunate
in getting a student to agree to serve on each of the committees that have been
convened, it has at times been very difficult. The proposed policy includes a
student service professional and a student if possible. If we cannot get a student
we will appoint two faculty members. Additionally, a committee is drawn from a
pool of trained faculty and staff, and students while it does not eliminate the need
for OAA travel, it does eliminate the need for just in time training for members of
a newly formed SCC.
10. Judicial officer serves as staff to the SCC (#4 pg 7). This formalizes the role
that OAA has played and provides additional consistency.
11. Implementing sanctions. Instead of the dean, the judicial officer is responsible
for implementing any sanction for misconduct.
12. Consideration of appeals. This has been reworded for clarification. The policy
has not changed.