Michigan State University
Department of Student Life
Congratulations on your appointment as a member
of one of our many student hearing boards!
Hearing boards are an integral part of the
University’s governance structure and are a
reflection of core democratic values.
Over the term of your appointment, you will play a
critical role in ensuring that student’s rights and
responsibilities are upheld, and that the University
supports an environment that is conducive to
learning.
Board members are expected to:

Actively and consistently participate in all board business

Keep student and hearing information confidential

Comply with all university regulations and policies

Avoid conflicts of interest (i.e., can you be fair and impartial)
Board members are encouraged to:

Assume good intentions of each other

Treat each other with unconditional positive regard

Seek first to understand, then to be understood

Focus on alleged behaviors

Seek consensus
A foundational paradigm

“The basic purposes of the University are
the advancement, dissemination, and
application of knowledge.” [the “AFR”]

Knowledge is defined as “the sum of what is
known: the body of truth, information, and
principles … .” [Merriam-Webster]

In other words, our purposes are to search
for the truth, and then to share it with all.

Michigan State University is comprised of
faculty, staff and students, all of whom
must be committed to our purposes.

“The most basic condition for the
achievement of these purposes is freedom
of expression … [for] without this freedom,
effective sifting and testing of ideas cease
… and learning [is] stifled”.
However, “… absolute freedom in all aspects
of life means anarchy, just as absolute
order means tyranny. Both … are
antithetical to the purposes and character
of the University.” - [the “AFR”]

Therefore, our responsibility is to support
an environment which strikes a balance
between freedom and order.
MSU has codified the principles for balancing freedom
and order in a document known as “Academic
Freedom for Students at Michigan State University
(aka, the “AFR”):



“… the student’s most essential right is the right to
learn …”.
“… [e]ach right of an individual places a reciprocal
duty [responsibility] upon others … to permit the
individual to exercise the [same] right …”.
… [t]he University has a duty to provide for the
student those privileges, opportunities, and
protections which best promote … learning…”.

What if rights and responsibilities conflict?

Is there a hierarchy to these rights and values?

What’s the difference between rights and
privileges?

How do we effectively sift through the issues?

Who does the sifting?

The answers to these questions begin with an
understanding of core democratic values.
The United States Constitution establishes the
following core values:





Individual rights - life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness
Inclusion – respect for individual rights &
differences
Truth, justice and equality
Popular sovereignty – majority politics
Constitutional government – separation of
powers with checks and balances
In many ways, the mere existence of hearing
boards reflect a commitment to these core
democratic values. Hearing boards ...

serve as a check and balance against arbitrary
and capricious uses of power.

seek the truth, justice and equal treatment in
all matters.

ensure that all students’ rights and
responsibilities are honored thru due process
and the enforcement of community standards.

As a part of its duty to provide students with
the “opportunities, and protections which best
promote learning”, the faculty, staff and
students have established community
standards for behavior, better known as
policies and regulations.

The University has provided a mechanism for
members of the community to challenge the
behavior of its community members. That
mechanism is called the student conduct
system.
The student conduct system provides a means of
addressing allegations that students have violated
University standards for personal conduct, and
protects student rights against infringement by
members of the University community.
This system is codified in a set of due process
protections outlined in Spartan Life and a variety of
University documents.
What is due process?

“An established course for judicial proceedings or
other governmental activities designed to
safeguard the legal rights of the individual”
[American Heritage].
Put another way …

Due process is the process we say is due someone
accused of wrong doing.
US Constitution – 14th Amendment

“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of
the United States; nor shall any State deprive any
person of life, liberty, or property, without due
process of law; nor deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
What does this mean?

For MSU, it means that students may not be
removed arbitrarily or without due process.
Case Law* has delineated due process rights for students
accused of violating University policy. As such, students
have the right to:

Receive a written statement of charges before a hearing;

Be heard by a person with the authority to take disciplinary
action;

inspection of any exhibits that the college intends to
submit in advance of the hearing;

An advisor during a hearing;

Present their own version of the facts, including witnesses;
* See bibliography for list or relevant case law.
… students have the right to:




Hear evidence presented against them and to
personally question adverse witnesses;
Have the adjudication based solely on the information
presented in the hearing;
Receive a written explanation of rationale or findings
of fact; and,
Make a copy of the record of the hearing at his or her
expense (there are some limitations imposed here in
order to comply with federal privacy restrictions).
Part I
A general overview
ALL STUDENT CONDUCT CASES BEGIN WITH A FORMAL
COMPLAINT.
Who can file a complaint?

Only faculty, staff and students of Michigan State University can file
a formal complaint.
How are complaints filed?

All complaints are filed on-line through a system called Advocate.
What is done with complaints?

They are reviewed by Student Life employees to ensure that the
complaint has been properly submitted, that the University has
proper jurisdiction, and that there are no obvious, objective
problems to be resolved before processing.
STEP 1 - ADMINISTRATIVE MEETING (INFORMAL)

Respondent meets with an administrator to learn about his/her rights & responsibilities
and to choose a resolution pathway.
◦ Option 1) ADMIT to an administrator
◦ Option 2) ADMIT to a hearing board
◦ Option 3) DENY and request an administrative hearing
◦ Option 4) DENY and request a board hearing
STEP 2a – SANCTIONING MEETING (INFORMAL)
◦ Option 1) Administrator explores impact, learning, and history & renders a sanction
◦ Option 2) Board explores impact, learning, and history & renders a sanction
STEP 2b – DISCIPLINARY HEARING (FORMAL)
◦ If OPTION 3) administrator facilitates a formal hearing to determine responsibility
◦ If OPTION 4) a board facilitates a formal hearing to determine responsibility
◦ IF RESPONSIBLE, a sanction is rendered by administrator or board
STEP 3 – APPEALS TO THE UNIVERSITY STUDENT APPEALS BOARD (USAB)

The respondent and complainant may appeal an adverse decision (formal or informal) to
the University Student Appeals Board (USAB) on the grounds that there was a conflict of
interest or that the board did not follow proper procedures. The respondent may also
appeal a finding of responsibility and/or that the sanction was too harsh. In response to
an appeal, the USAB may:
◦ Affirm the original decision
◦ Modify the original decision
◦ Reverse the original decision
◦ Return the case to the original decision body for review
STEP 4 – APPEAL TO Vice President of Student Affairs and Services (VPSAS)

The respondent and complainant have the exact same appeal options, and the VPSAS
has broad authority to resolve an appeal. The decision of the VPSAS is final.
SUSPENSION/DISMISSAL IMPLEMENTATION
◦ Only the VPSAS may implement a suspension or a dismissal. Therefore, the VPSAS will
review all suspension and dismissal recommendations, whether or not they are
appealed.
Part II
Formal Disciplinary Hearings
The purpose of a hearing is first to provide the
complainant and respondent with an
opportunity to have their dispute/conflict
heard by a neutral 3rd party.
Hearings come in two forms.
1)
Administrative – adjudicator is a single staff
member (or a pair of staff members).
2)
Board – adjudicator is a panel of students, or
a panel of students and faculty.
The procedures, rules, and rights of both the
respondent and the complainant are EXACTLY the
same in administrative and board hearings.
The respondent’s right to choose a board hearing
reflects a core democratic value. To be heard by
one’s peers, rather than administrator, serves as
a check and balance against arbitrary and
capricious uses of power.

Board members

Complainant (accuser) & Respondent (accused)

Witnesses*

Advisor** for Complainant and/or Respondent

Advisor (ex-officio) for the Board.
*Witness must be MSU faculty, staff or student, unless they have direct knowledge of the
incident in question.
** Must be MSU faculty, staff or student. On rare occasions, attorneys may serve as an
additional advisor, but may not play an active role in the hearing.
Hearing Board Advisors are designees of the
V.P. of Student Affairs and Services
The role of the advisor is to:
◦ ensure that members receive proper training
◦ ensure that all applicable laws, policies and
procedures are followed
◦ complete necessary administrative tasks
◦ provide guidance as needed or requested
SCRIPTED – Significant portions of ALL hearings are scripted, in order to ensure
a) compliance with due process obligations and b) manage the roles of
hearing participants. The acting chair for each hearing reads the scripted
portion, and facilitates other aspects of the hearing that are unscripted.
Below is a general outline of the major portions of each hearing.
STEPS
1.
Hearing convened
2.
Procedures reviewed
3.
Witness excused
4.
Complainant presentation (witnesses included individually)
5.
Respondent Presentation (witnesses included individually)
6.
Q&A (only board, complainant, & respondent may ask questions)
7.
Complainant closing
8.
Respondent closing
9.
Hearing adjourned
10. Board deliberates matter of responsibility and then sanction (if responsible)
The standard used in determining responsibility
in disciplinary matters is called a
preponderance of the evidence.


A preponderance standard means that which is
most likely, or that which has the greatest
weight or probability (e.g., 50%+).
In other words, whose version of events seems
to be the most credible and most likely to have
occurred.
The burden of meeting the preponderance standard is on the
complainant. Therefore, respondent is presumed to be not
responsible prior to the hearing (i.e., hear the case BEFORE you
decide it).
The complainant’s information must be MORE credible than the
respondent’s. Merely being equally convincing is insufficient.
The respondent has no obligation to present any information. In fact,
the respondent is not actually required to attend the hearing.
Board members an administrators MAY NOT apply a different or
arbitrary personal standard. Doing so may be tempting in
circumstances where the possible sanctions may be harsh.
However, applying a different standard is both unfair to all the
parties involved and is an unethical practice.
Information presented at hearings typically comes
in three forms:
Documentary – supporting documents
Testimonial – oral information based on personal
knowledge
Physical – photographs are the most common example
NOTE: Hearsay information is generally not considered.
Relevant information typically addresses
critical aspects of the situation such as:




Harm done to persons or property
Expressions or demonstration of intent
Identification of those responsible
Access to, or possession of, materials used in
committing the violations
Hearing bodies will be presented with information
from a variety of sources. In the vast majority of
cases, not all the information will point to the same
conclusion.
How, then, should you go about weighing the
information that has been presented?
Credibility is often a deciding factor in cases where little to no physical
evidence is provided. In evaluating various statements, consider
what each person has to gain or lose. What might their motivation
be for participating in the hearing? How does the testimony of an
uninvolved bystander or someone acting in performance of assigned
duties compare to that of a roommate or best friend?
Another aspect of credibility is determining veracity of statements
made. For example, if it can be demonstrated that a statement
offered was clearly false or outside the realm of general
possibilities, then other statements made by that same person may
lose credibility. This is particularly true when it appears that
someone is knowingly providing false information, or attempting to
mislead the hearing body.
Probability means the likelihood that something
occurred, and is often at the heart of deliberations.
As a general rule, it is good to rule out extreme
possibilities on either end. Instead, look for the
most reasonable explanation of events. Remember,
this is not beyond reasonable doubt where you
have to be absolutely certain.
Corroborating information is often of the highest
value in reaching a decision. However, this can be
tricky. The testimony of a single unbiased and
disinterested witness is likely worth more than any
number of biased testimonies; particularly if they
sound exactly the same. Only in very rare
circumstances where all witnesses involved are
unbiased should the number of witnesses be a
factor in determining a contested fact.
Character issues and history typically have little value in
determining whether or not someone violated a
regulation. Character witnesses rarely offer
information that establishes relevant facts about an
event, and we all know that “good” people can do
“bad” things (including ourselves). Remember, this
process is not about deciding whether someone IS
good or bad, but whether or not they violated a
University policy.
Likewise, history should be given little consideration
because it may have nothing to do with the incident
in question. Just because someone did something in
the past does not mean that they repeated that same
behavior. History however MAY become important
if/when a sanction is determined.
Part III
Appeals
The University Student Appeals Board (USAB)
plays a critical role in ensuring that all
those who participate in the student
conduct process are treated fairly and
equitably, and provides an important check
and balance.
In most cases, the USAB will not meet with
the affected parties, but instead will review
the written appeal, any responses to the
appeal, and all case related material.
Appellate guidelines:

USAB will provide a degree of deference to
the original decision body because it was in
a superior position to see and hear from
affected parties, assess credibility, review
documentation, etc.

The question for USAB is NOT whether it
would have made the same decision.

Rather, USAB is limited to answering one or more of the
following questions:
◦ Did the information presented at the hearing support the
original decision?
◦ Did the information presented at the hearing support the
original sanction(s)?
◦ Were the applicable University provisions & procedures
followed?
◦ Was there a conflict of interest with a member of the
decision making body?


USAB will issue a written decision, including the rationale for
its decision.
USAB decisions must be linked to the grounds for an appeal.
Part IV
Educational Sanctions and
Restorative Measures
“Sanctions are for the (1) guidance or
correction of behavior, and for the (2)
protection of other community members …
[and] … [s]hall be commensurate with the
seriousness of the offense. Repeated
violations typically justify increasingly
severe penalties [AFR].”
University Status
Warning
Probation
Suspension (temporary)
Dismissal (permanent)
Educational Engagement
Participate in educational programming
Change of campus housing
Reflection exercises
Assessment (e.g., alcohol, illegal substances)
Restorative Measures
Restitution
Others
Community service
Community Needs
Who was affected and how?
What is needed to make things right?
Respondent’s History
Is this a one-time incident?
Does the respondent have a history of similar behavior?
Respondent’s Needs
Is the respondent remorseful or display empathy?
What guidance or correction is needed for long term success?







Alcohol use and abuse
Illegal drug use and distribution
Physical assaults
Theft
Property damage
Guest’s Behavior
Major community disruptions
When a student is determined to be
responsible for violating a University
regulation or policy, three categories of
sanctions are to be considered:

University Status (required)

Educational Engagement (optional)

Restorative Measures (optional)