2.1 The Office of Student Conduct and Community StandardsThe Director (“Director”) of the
Office of Student Conduct and Community Standards (“OSCCS”) manages the student conduct system and cases arising out of the Student Code of Conduct (“Code”).
[1] The Director receives and ensures proper investigation and adjudication of alleged violations of the Code, or of any other regulation as the University President or Board of Trustees may direct. The fundamental role of the Director is to ensure that complaints are handled with fairness, integrity, and objectivity for all parties concerned, consistent with the educational and rehabilitative goals of the University’s student conduct system. The Director does not prosecute cases against students. The Director shall hire and train competent individuals to undertake careful, fair, and objective investigations of complaints and to serve as chairs of hearing panels. The Director is also responsible for the training and administration of the University Hearing and Review Board, with the intention of ensuring fair and consistent adjudication, findings of responsibility and as appropriate, imposition of sanctions based on the circumstances of individual cases. Anyone can direct questions about the student conduct system to the OSCCS. The Director shall be appointed by and reports to the Vice President for Student and Campus Life or designee. The Vice President shall consult with the Student Assembly (“SA”) and Graduate and Professional Student Assembly (“GPSA”) prior to the Director’s appointment and shall request representatives from the SA and GPSA to serve on the search committee when a new Director is hired. The Director shall provide an annual report to the Vice President, the SA and the GPSA on the operations of the office and of the student conduct system. The Director shall undergo an annual review overseen by the Vice President or designee. The Vice President or designee shall request and thoughtfully consider feedback from the SA and GPSA as part of that annual review.
2.2. Student Codes CounselorsThere shall be an Office of the Respondents’ Code Counselor and an Office of the Complainants’ Code Counselor. Student Codes Counselors are not attorneys and do not provide professional legal advice. Within the rules in these Procedures governing the participation of non-parties, Complainants and Respondents may utilize Counselors exclusively, in addition to their own legal counsel, or may rely entirely on legal counsel of their choosing. Counselors explain how the student conduct system works and assist and support Complainants and Respondents at every stage of proceedings. Counselors are required to adhere to strict confidentiality responsibilities and may not discuss a case within the community of other Counselors except as appropriate within the context of applicable procedures. The Lead Counselor for each office assigns individual Counselors to serve on individual matters. However, Complainants and Respondents may request specific Counselors, which request shall be honored to the extent practically possible. Complainants and Respondents may also request assignment of a new Counselor for good reason, which request shall be honored if practical and feasible in the discretion of the lead Counselor.
2.2.1. Office of the Respondents’ Codes CounselorThe Office of the Respondents’ Codes Counselor provides free assistance and representation within the student conduct system to respondents involved in the Student Code of Conduct process and to students charged with violations of the Code of Academic Integrity. Beginning in 2022, each spring, the SA, GPSA, and Office of the Student Advocate (“OSA”), in consultation with the Director, shall select the Lead Respondents’ Codes Counselor for the following academic year from a group of no more than three individuals nominated by the members of the existing Office of the Respondents’ Code Counselors.
The Lead Respondents’ Codes Counselor shall be responsible for managing the Office but with administrative support from the University. The Lead Respondents’ Codes Counselor shall be subject to removal by the SA, GPSA, and Office of the Student Advocate (“OSA”), in consultation with the Director for good cause, such as dereliction of duty or gross misconduct.
2.2.2 Office of the Complainants’ Codes CounselorThe Office of the Complainants’ Codes Counselor provides free assistance and representation within the student conduct system to complainants involved in the Student Code of Conduct process and to students charged with violations of the Code of Academic Integrity. Each spring, the SA, GPSA, and OSA, in consultation with the Director, shall select the Lead Complainants’ Codes Counselor for the following academic year from a group of no more than three individuals nominated by the members of the existing Office of the Complainants’ Code Counselors. The Lead Complainants’ Codes Counselor shall be responsible for managing the Office but with administrative support from the University. The Complainants’ Codes Counselor shall be subject to removal by the SA, GPSA, and Office of the Student Advocate (“OSA”), in consultation with the Director for good cause, such as dereliction of duty or gross misconduct.
2.2.3 Selection and Oversight of the Student Code CounselorsThe Respondents’ Code Counselor and the Complainants’ Code Counselor, in consultation with the Director, shall set relevant qualifications for the Counselors, along with a selection and training process to be implemented by the Director. Counselors must either be law students, or other graduate or professional students with prior experience in an administrative, adjudicative, or advocative role in a student conduct system, and will be appointed by the respective Code Counselor for each office. Counselors will recognize that the goals of the Code are focused on education, rehabilitation and accountability, and shall treat parties, witnesses and each other with respect and consideration. Counselors may be reappointed by the respective Code Counselor for continued one-year terms so long as their service is deemed exemplary, and they remain students at the University.
2.3. The Hearing and Review BoardThe Hearing and Review Board is appointed from nominations submitted by the SA, the GPSA, the Faculty Senate and the Employee Assembly.
[COUNSEL ALTERNATIVE: The UA could provide such nominations in consultation with the four assemblies.] The Board shall include at least 25 students, 15 faculty members, and 15 nonfaculty employees. The Assemblies and Senate shall solicit applications from interested faculty, students, and staff on an annual basis and submit them to the Director no later than April 1 of each year. If an Assembly or the Senate fails to provide the Director with the necessary number of applications by April 1 of a given year, the Director may independently solicit applications or otherwise identify interested faculty, students, or staff. All applications shall be confidentially shared with the Executive Committees of the SA and GPSA for review and evaluation. In consultation with those committees, the Director shall make appointments. The Director may appoint indivduals to the full term of any unfilled position as of June 1 at their discretion, and may also make emergency appointments at any time on a temporary basis. No person shall serve on the Hearing and Review Board who is at the same time a member of the SA or GPSA, or is an employee of the Office of the Assemblies. Members of the Hearing and Review Board are typically appointed for two-year staggered terms beginning in June 1 of the year appointed. Any appointment to fill a vacancy or to address an emergency shall become effective immediately. The Director shall have the authority, in consultation with the SA and GPSA Executive Committees, to remove a member of the Board if the member is reasonably deemed to not be honoring their commitment to communicate promptly regarding hearings, to serve on panels, to participate ethically in hearings, and otherwise to participate responsibly in this process.
2.4. The Hearing Panel ChairThe Director shall engage a professional Panel Chair to guide Hearing Panel proceedings with appropriate training and expertise to manage technical questions and rulings. The Panel Chair does not vote on individual cases. Instead, the Panel Chair addresses the many procedural and evidentiary matters that arise under these Procedures in a fair and consistent manner, across many individual cases and proceedings. The intent of appointing a trained Panel Chair is to afford consistency, fairness and professionalism in all cases proceeding to hearings under the Code. The Panel Chair shall participate in relevant training as required by the Director.
2.5. The Review Panel ChairEach June, the faculty members of the Hearing and Review Board shall select one of themselves to serve as Review Panel Chair for a one-year term. If the faculty members of the Hearing and Review Board fail to elect a Review Panel Chair by June 30 of a given year, the Director may appoint a Review Panel Chair from among them for either the full term or on a temporary basis. The Review Panel Chair does not vote on individual cases. The Review Panel Chair shall participate in relevant training as required by the Director.
2.6. University Hearing PanelsA five-person panel of the Hearing and Review Board shall adjudicate cases under the Code. Panels are chosen through a random process but shall be appointed to include three students, one faculty, and one nonfaculty employee member.
2.7. University Review PanelsA three-person panel of the Hearing and Review Board shall hear appeals under the Code. Panels are chosen through a random process but shall be appointed to include one student, one faculty, and one nonfaculty employee member.
2.8. TrainingEvery person serving in an official capacity or role under these Procedures shall receive training from the Director or other appropriate university experts appropriate to their position. In addition, training focused on diversity, equity and inclusion that is approved by the Presidential Advisors on Diversity and Equity (“PADE”) shall be required on an annual basis.
[1] Throughout these procedures, various University officials, such as the Director, are assigned responsibility for performing specific functions. Named officials are authorized to delegate responsibility to other appropriate University officials and non-University consultants except where such delegation contravenes University policy. Additionally, named officials and their designees may always consult with appropriate University administrators, the Office of University Counsel, and subject-matter experts.
**Please submit comments on the main Fall 2020 Proposed Amendments to the Campus Code of Conduct page.**
