Forums of Resolution and Procedures

The University is committed to the timely and fair resolution of disciplinary matters involving students and recognized student organizations. Students accused of violating the Code of Conduct have the right to a meaningful hearing process and to have their case adjudicated by impartial factfinders, including the right to challenge decision-makers for impartiality.

Generally, the more serious the possible deprivation, the greater due process protections owed. Although the Code of Conduct affords significant procedural protections within the principles of due process that do not undermine the integrity of the conduct process, this does not include the right to confront accusers in a manner inconsistent with this Code or to be represented by counsel.

Guiding Principles

Minimally, students accused of engaging in prohibited conduct have the right to a fair resolution process before an impartial decision-making body, including the right to receive timely notice and a meaningful opportunity to respond to the allegations made against them.

Students have the right to:

• Be informed of the policies that affect them and procedures for resolving allegations of prohibited conduct.
• Receive notice summarizing of the allegations brought against them, charges under consideration, and date, time and location of the proceeding with sufficient time to prepare an adequate response.
• Be afforded a meaningful and an impartial resolution process.
• The presumption of non-responsibility until a factual finding is reached by the preponderance evidence standard.
• Privacy to the extent possible, consistent with law and university policy.
• Be supported and accompanied by an advisor of their choice in University Hearings.
• Receive reasonable and appropriate accommodations through Student Accessibility Services.
• Hear and understand all information used in support of the charges levied against them and the opportunity to identify witnesses and present evidence in their defense.
• Receive written notification of results and determination.
• Appeal the finding of a Code of Conduct or policy violation when the sanctions include imposition of University Disciplinary Probation, University Housing Removal, University Suspension, or University Expulsion.

Alternative Resolution Pathways

Alternative Resolution Pathways provide students with opportunities to address concerns and conflicts through remedies-based and structured processes that operate outside of, or in place of, the traditional conduct adjudication process. These pathways are designed to offer more flexible and effective solutions for addressing interpersonal issues and community concerns, while fostering student learning and accountability.

Some Alternative Resolution processes, such as mediation, require the voluntary consent of all involved parties to participate or “opt-in”. These processes emphasize collaborative problem-solving and personal growth rather than formal disciplinary outcomes.

Alternative Resolutions are not considered formal conduct findings and do not result in a reportable conduct record. However, the University retains limited records for internal tracking and educational purposes.

The intent of Alternative Resolutions is to motivate students to reflect on and realign their perspectives with community expectations, thereby reducing future involvement in prohibited conduct and contributing to a respectful and inclusive campus environment.

Where possible, the university-wide conduct system prioritizes education and the growth of students as responsible community members. For this reason, the Director may make reasonable alterations to any of these procedures to handle many reports in a flexible way in the spirit of a prompt conclusion depending on the context of the situation.

At any time, the Director may also recommend the involved parties explore alternative dispute or conflict resolution opportunities or to undertake voluntary or mandated assessments, in lieu of adjudication. The student need not accept responsibility for the prohibited conduct in order for such referrals to be made.

Investigation and Threshold Determination

If the factual allegations of the report or complaint, if taken as true, do constitute prohibited conduct, the Director may undertake an investigation if necessary.

The investigation is designed to be timely, thorough, and impartial and to provide for a fair and reliable gathering of the facts. The Director may facilitate an investigation or appoint an independent or external investigator for the matter at hand.

• If an investigation of prohibited non-academic conduct reveals other prohibited conduct under this Code, the Director will forward the issue to the office or university official responsible for investigating that possible misconduct.
• The procedures to investigate allegations of organizational misconduct will be moderately altered to meet the principles of fundamental fairness and determine if the investigation is best conducted jointly with or independently from any national or local organization granting affiliation status. Members of the organizations are called to participate in the investigation as witnesses, unless information surfaces that clearly establishes individual conduct.

Upon completion of the investigation, the investigator will make a threshold determination as to whether there is sufficient evidence to advance the matter to formal adjudication or recommend another method of resolution.

Preliminary Interview and Investigation Timeline

Reasonable attempts will be made to interview relevant witnesses and additional information, documentation, and witnesses from other sources may be explored. The Director will consider information that is relevant, material, and temporally proximate to the conduct at issue.

An investigation will be completed promptly with a projected timeline for completion of sixty (60) days. As appropriate, the Director will provide both the parties with periodic status updates during the investigation; however, the actual duration of each investigation may vary commensurate with its complexity, the severity, and extent of the allegations, the number of witnesses, the need for language assistance or accommodation of disabilities, and the possibility of interruption by curtailed operations or break periods. If the duration of an investigation exceeds these estimates, the Director will notify the parties, in writing, of any such delay.

Options for Adjudication

Conduct Conference – A forum of resolution between a student and an authorized Conduct Officer to adjudicate allegations of non-academic prohibited conduct and where sanctions are not likely to rise above University Disciplinary Probation.

University Hearing – A formal adjudicative proceeding through which allegations of academic or non-academic prohibited conduct are examined, fully vented and resolved. University Hearings are forums of resolution facilitated by an authorized University Hearing Officer or Panel when the outcomes for students could reasonably result in University Housing Removal, University Suspension, or University Expulsion and when Loss of Recognition, for a defined period of time or indefinitely, is at stake for a Recognized Student Organizations.

Students engaged in the conduct process can opt for an expedited method of resolution by signing a Mutual Agreement in lieu of adjudication. A Mutual Agreement summarily resolves alleged violations by way of the Respondent accepting responsibility for all charges under consideration, admitting to the misconduct, agreeing to specific sanctions, waiving any opportunity to respond to the allegations and forfeiting the right to appeal. Mutual Agreements are final upon physical or digital signatures of the Respondent and the Director or authorized official.

University Hearing and Expanded Protections

The following procedures apply to resolve alleged prohibited conduct that could reasonably result in University Housing Suspension, University Housing Removal, University Suspension, or University Expulsion:

Preliminary Meeting

The Preliminary Meeting is likely be the first time the Respondent will hear all relevant information that will be presented in support the charges brought forth against them. While not mandatory, the Preliminary Meeting is held to provide the Respondent with a complete rundown of all the essential elements to be aware of ahead of the hearing and ensure mutual understanding of applicable policies and procedures to be materially followed, explain appropriate preparation, confirm date, time and physical location of the hearing, an opportunity to answer questions and to field requests.

If known, identity of the decision-maker(s) will be disclosed to allow for a challenge on the basis of bias or a conflict of interest. The meeting can also cover the role of the Advisor and outline expectations and boundaries around Advisors’ participation. Requests to reschedule are typically only granted when there is an unavoidable academic conflict and can be raised during this to prevent unnecessary delays.

Pre-Hearing Submissions

The Director reserves the right to verify the accuracy and authenticity of germane information prior to and during the hearing process, including witnesses, authors of letters or documentation submitted, and inspect documents in an effort to corroborate the account provided by the student. The Director, will establish a reasonable deadline for these submissions, typically no longer than five (5) business days.

Formal rules of evidence do not apply, and the Chair shall make all determinations regarding the admissibility, probative value, prejudicial effect, repetitiveness, redundancy, relevancy, etc., of evidence presented. Evidence that was excluded or redacted from the record as impermissible will not be admissible at the hearing. Hearsay is admissible if the Chair finds that it is generally reliable, but any party may present reasons that admitted hearsay evidence is or is not sufficiently reliable to be the basis for a finding of responsibility.

The parties may request extensions that may be granted, if reasonable, at the discretion of the Director. Extensions granted to one party will be granted to the other party. Delays simply to prolong the process will not be permitted, and failure to meet deadlines will generally result in forfeiture of a party’s ability to participate in that aspect of the process. Subject to a demonstration of compelling circumstances, a party who declines or fails to participate in a meeting or interview, provides evidence, or suggests witnesses, waives their right to do so upon the issuance of the final report and/or record.

Identifying Witnesses

Witnesses presented on behalf of the parties must have factual first-hand knowledge of the incident in question. In cases requiring special expertise, the University may appoint individuals with similar expertise to serve as consultants to the decision-maker. The consultant may be present and provide information as called upon during the hearing.

Expert Witness testimony is admissible only when the Director determines that such testimony is potentially relevant to the investigation and where the investigator determines that the expert witness is qualified to provide such testimony. In order for expert witness testimony to be considered for purposes of adjudication, they must be available to attend the live hearing and must testify at the live hearing if called by the decision-maker. The expert witness must also submit to cross-examination. If an expert witness is not available to testify at the live hearing and/or does not testify when called at the live hearing, any prior statement, testimony, or written report submitted may not be considered to determine responsibility.

Notice of Hearing and Timelines

Hearings are scheduled as timely as possible. All efforts will be made to provide notice of hearing no less than three (3) days or no more than ten (10) days after a notice of allegations has been issued. The Respondent may waive the three-day notice. Time limits for scheduling meetings and hearings may be extended at the discretion of the Director. If the notice does not include the names of the decision-maker(s) slated for adjudication, the parties will be notified, in writing, at a later time, prior to the hearing. Typically, hearings are held in person but may also be facilitated virtually remotely in certain circumstances.

Consolidation of Reports and Hearings

Generally, at the discretion of the Director, multiple reports, whether factually related or dissimilar, will be joined in one investigation. If no prior investigation commenced, multiple reports may be resolved in one hearing if doing so is likely to result in reliable and more efficient outcomes without causing prejudice to the Respondent or confusion for the decision-maker.

In matters where there is more than one Respondent arising from the same incident or over several incidents, the Director may order a consolidated or severed hearing, although a Respondent may be provided with an opportunity to explain their preference. In the case of a consolidated hearing, timelines and procedures may be reasonably adjusted to ensure fairness and expediency. In all hearings involving multiple respondents, the decision-maker will consider independently the sanctions appropriate for each respondent. The final decision regarding consolidation rests with the Director.

Request to Delay

The Respondent may request a postponement of no more than three (3) business days for reasonable cause. The Director will determine the validity of the request. Absent extenuating circumstances, a request for a postponement must be made in writing, include supporting rationale, and be received by the person sending the hearing notification at least two (2) business days before the scheduled hearing.

The University reserves the right to reschedule a hearing for the first appropriate available date. Given the number of individuals involved in a hearing, and the attendant difficulty of scheduling and rescheduling them in a timely manner, it may not be possible to accommodate all scheduling requests. The Director may postpone and reschedule a hearing, without a request by the parties, when the cause to do so arises.

If the timing of a pending disciplinary proceeding is likely to occur during reading days, final exams, toward the end of an academic semester, including during the summer and winter breaks, the Director may assign a single Administrative Hearing Officer if there was a prior request for the decision-making body to be a Panel.

Challenge for Impartiality

The Respondent has the right to a hearing by an unbiased decision-maker, and the right to challenge the body that is serving in such capacity on the grounds of bias or conflict of interest. The Director will determine the validity of the objection but shall not impair the independence of designated decision-maker, though they may provide procedural advice at all times and exercise best judgment to avoid acting in dual roles in the same conduct case.

The provisions about bias and conflict of interests shall not be construed so widely as to eliminate broad categories of decision-makers, and no decision-maker will be excused solely on the basis of a protected characteristic in accordance with the University’s Statement of Non-Discrimination. Mere knowledge of the events at issue shall not disqualify a decision-maker. Where actual bias or conflict of interest is established, the Respondent may request that a decision-maker be excused because of a proven conflict of interest as provided in the foregoing provisions assuming they have not already recused themselves, to ensure that the process is managed by individuals that eliminates the identified bias or conflict.

Actual bias is an articulated prejudice in favor of or against one party or position; it is not a generalized concern about the personal or professional backgrounds, positions, beliefs, or interests of the decision-makers in the process. Decision-makers have an obligation to remain alert to potential personal, economic, or legal conflicts of interest between themselves and the persons bringing matters forward or the student against whom a matter has been brought.

Decision-makers having past or present ties of kinship, marriage, or other very close personal relationship to any of the parties involved in the matter should notify the Director that a conflict of interest exists and be automatically excused from participation; the nature of the relationship need not be disclosed to the Director. Decision-makers having some form of close professional relationship with one or more of the parties involved in the matter (e.g., collaboration or cooperation in research, writing, or teaching with a colleague or service as an ongoing academic adviser, athletic coach, employed in the same department or unit or instructor to the student in class that is smaller in size) should notify the Director that a potential conflict of interest exists.

A decision-maker should inform the Director that the nature of the matter creates an occasion for a conflict of interest and may request to be excused from participation. Similarly, all issues relating to conflict of interest should be raised by the student and settled before the decision-maker begins consideration of the matter. Questions relating to conflict of interest may not be raised after the decision-maker has reached decisions, nor may they be grounds for appeal of the hearing results.

The foregoing provisions are intended not to be inclusive of all possible situations of conflict of interest, but rather to provide guidance. It is the intention of these provisions to enable the decision-maker to avoid both the appearance and the reality of conflict of interest so that the community will have confidence in the fairness of the proceedings. In case of doubt, the Director and decision-maker should assume that a potential conflict of interest exists.

Advisor Assistance

As an alternative to utilizing a university-trained advisor, the Respondent has the right to be assisted by an advisor of their choosing during the conduct process and at the hearing. The role of the advisor is to provide support and assistance in understanding and navigating this process. To protect the privacy of those involved, all advisors not trained by Community Standards are required to sign a confidentiality agreement prior to attending an interview or otherwise participating in the University’s process.

The University’s duty is to the student, not the advisor. All communication is made directly with the student. The process will not be unreasonably delayed to accommodate the schedule of the advisor. An advisor must familiarize themselves with university policy and may be provided with written expectations in advance of participation in university proceedings. The advisor may not testify in or obstruct an interview, author-written submissions, create a recording or transcription of the meeting, bring electronic devices into the meeting, or disrupt the process. The Director has the right to determine what constitutes appropriate behavior of an advisor and take reasonable steps to ensure compliance with rules of decorum.

Reasonable Accommodation

A qualifying individual has the right to reasonable accommodations to ensure the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct process. Student Accessibility Services (SAS) and Community Standards are committed to and responsible for assuring students with disabilities receive equitable, effective, and meaningful access to all campus programs, resources, and services.

The student who wishes to request accommodation should adhere to the procedures and documentation guidelines established by Student Accessibility Services (SAS). Students should advise Community Standards, in writing, of their intention to request accommodation no later than two (2) days prior to the scheduled hearing in order to permit sufficient time to make any necessary arrangements.

Burden of Proof and Standard of Evidence

The University’s prescribed standard of proof used to determine responsibility for policy violations is the preponderance of the evidence standard, when the information suggests that it is more likely than not that a violation occurred.

When participating in any of the University’s conduct processes, the Respondent does not bear responsibility to prove or disprove allegations. It is the University’s role to gather information and apply an unbiased and transparent process so that the appropriate decision-maker can determine the outcome.

Presumption of Non-Responsibility

The decision-maker shall make no assumptions or presumptions (including about the credibility or culpability of the parties to the proceeding or witnesses) and reach decisions as to whether the Respondent has violated university policy solely on the basis of the evidence and testimony presented to them.

The Respondent will be presumed not responsible until the appropriate disciplinary authority, using the preponderance of evidence standard, determines that a policy violation has occurred.

Notice of Decision

Following the conclusion of the hearing, the Respondent will be notified in writing of the hearing results outlining the findings of fact, determination whether the student is responsible for violating the Code of Conduct, the sanctions (if any) and rationale for the decision. If sanctions are imposed, they will be issued in consideration of the specific circumstances of the case, institutional precedent, disciplinary history, aggravating and mitigating circumstances, and community impact. If the hearing results involve outcomes of Disciplinary Probation, University Housing Removal, University Suspension, or University Expulsion, a summary of the appeal procedures will be included.

Disciplinary Proceedings Held in Absentia

Students have a duty to cooperate with the university's conduct system and an obligation to provide truthful information. Because the most accurate and fair review and understanding of the facts of the incident at issue can best be accomplished when all parties are present, refusal to respond or participate will be considered a forfeiture of the party’s right to address the allegations and denies the decision-making body from learning important information that could influence the outcome of the proceeding.

Although no inference or adverse action may be drawn against a student for failing to participate in a proceeding, the University reserves the right to continue with the conduct process to its conclusion in the student’s absence except when there are exigent circumstances. Any findings of responsibility or non-responsibility will be based on the information available, sanctions issued, and related deadlines will be documented in an outcome letter and sent to the applicable parties.

Recording of Proceedings

All University Hearings are recorded and are property of the institution. Recordings are retained as part of the record until the appeal process has concluded and will then be discarded. Participants are prohibited from making their own recording. Upon written request, a respondent may request access to review the audio recording and make appropriate arrangements for it to be transcribed on university premises. Arrangements for a transcriber and all associated costs involved in the transcription will be the sole responsibility of the student.