As recognized in the Report of the Committee on Freedom of Expression, the University is fundamentally dedicated to the “preservation and celebration of freedom of expression as an essential element of the University’s culture.” As forms of free expression, “dissent and protest are integral to the life of the University,” and thus “should be affirmatively welcomed, not merely tolerated, by the University” (Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Protest and Dissent). The principle of freedom of expression, however, is not unlimited. The Committee on Freedom of Expression itself recognized that certain forms of expressive conduct are not protected, including violations of the law, defamation of individuals, invasion of privacy or confidentiality, and disruption of ordinary University activities. Similarly, the Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Protest and Dissent observed that while “[v]ocal protest, and demonstrations in particular, are by their very nature disruptive to some degree,”1 protesters “have reciprocal obligations of respect and constructive engagement.” These obligations confer “a responsibility to not jeopardize the University’s ability to meet its commitments and obligations.” The Report further stated that the University is “entitled to impose strict limits on protest activities that threaten especially sensitive facilities and enforce those limits if they are breached.”
Described below is a disciplinary system for “disruptive conduct” as currently defined in University Statute 21, as well as any substitutes, successors, or other replacements for University Statute 21. The goal of the system is to establish a uniform set of processes and standards that ensure the fair and impartial investigation of allegations that a student or a Recognized Student Organization (“RSO”) has engaged in disruptive conduct, that is, conduct that falls outside of the principles of free expression and meets the definition supplied by Statute 21. The expectation is that most matters arising under this system will be resolved informally and will include educational content designed to articulate the boundary between free expression and disruptive conduct.s
Non-Students and Non-RSO
Staff employees, academic appointees, visiting academics, postdoctoral researchers, employees of affiliates, and volunteers who violate Statute 21 are not covered by this system and will be subject to discipline using the disciplinary processes applicable to each category. Employees of affiliates, volunteers, visitors, or guests who violate Statute 21 will be subject to the University’s Ban (No-Trespass) Policy, which governs the process by which the University denies access to some or all University property after reaching a reasoned determination that a person has engaged in, among other things, threatening, disruptive, or violent conduct. Persons who are not guests and have no affiliation with the University are also subject to the Ban (No-Trespass) Policy, which may result in permanent prohibition from University property. In addition, because some conduct that violates this policy may also constitute a crime, any person who engages in disruptive conduct that constitutes a criminal act may be arrested and prosecuted.
The System Structure
The University-Wide Standing Disciplinary Committee on Disruptive Conduct
The University-wide Standing Committee on Disruptive Conduct (the “Standing Committee”), which hears and adjudicates complaints against students and RSOs, includes faculty and students drawn from all academic units, and staff representing the academic units and Campus and Student Life. In consultation with the Spokesperson of the Committee of the Council, the Provost will appoint faculty members of the Standing Committee to three-year terms. Those faculty members of the Standing Committee will be drawn first from the pool of faculty who are serving on or have previously served on the Council of the University Senate, and after that, if necessary, from the pool of all faculty. When possible, there should be an effort to maintain a balanced mix of faculty who have served on the Standing Committee before and faculty who are new to the Standing Committee. If at any time, there are not enough faculty members on the Standing Committee available or able to perform their duties in a timely manner, the Provost, in consultation with the Spokesperson of the Committee of the Council, may appoint additional faculty members.
The Provost will appoint the staff and student members of the Standing Committee after soliciting recommendations from each academic dean or their designee. If at any time, there are not enough staff or student members on the Standing Committee available or able to perform their duties in a timely manner, the Provost may appoint additional members after soliciting recommendations from each academic dean or their designee.
The names of all members of the Standing Committee shall be publicly available on a University website. That same website should note that all Irregular Communications2 to the Disciplinary Chairs, any members of the Standing Committee, or any Hearing Subcommittee regarding an ongoing matter are improper and strictly prohibited.
The Disciplinary Board
Within the Standing Committee, there will be at least three Disciplinary Chairs who each serve in that role for one year, generally their first year, during their three-year term on the Standing Committee. The Disciplinary Chairs oversee the disciplinary process for disruptive conduct to ensure appropriateness and consistency of proceedings and outcomes.
The Disciplinary Chairs shall be chosen from the Standing Committee by the Provost, in consultation with the Spokesperson of the Committee of the Council. When possible, the Provost, in consultation with the Spokesperson of the Committee of the Council, may ask one or more Disciplinary Chairs to serve two consecutive terms to provide additional continuity.
If at any time, a Disciplinary Chair is unavailable to perform their duties in a timely manner, the Provost, in consultation with the Spokesperson of the Committee of the Council, may appoint additional Disciplinary Chairs.
The Disciplinary Chairs and the Associate Dean of Students in the University, Center for Student Integrity (or a designee)3 together constitute the Disciplinary Board. Two Disciplinary Chairs and the Associate Dean of Students in the University, Center for Student Integrity shall constitute a quorum of the Disciplinary Board.
All decisions of the Disciplinary Board shall require a majority vote of the Disciplinary Chairs present. In the event that the vote of the Disciplinary Chairs is split evenly, the Associate Dean of Students in the University, Center for Student Integrity will cast the tie-breaking vote. The Associate Dean of Students in the University, Center for Student Integrity will only vote when the vote of Disciplinary Chairs is evenly split.
The names of the Disciplinary Chairs shall be publicly available on a University website. That same website should note that all Irregular Communications to the Disciplinary Chairs, any members of the Standing Committee, or any Hearing Subcommittee regarding an ongoing matter are improper and strictly prohibited.
The Hearing Subcommittees
When a disciplinary matter under this system is referred to a Hearing, the Disciplinary Board shall convene a Hearing Subcommittee to conduct that hearing. The members of a Hearing Subcommittee shall be drawn from the Standing Committee, with input from the Provost. A Hearing Subcommittee shall include at least three faculty members, one student, one staff member, and the Associate Dean of Students in the University, Center for Student Integrity. One of the faculty members shall be designated as the chair of the Hearing Subcommittee (“Subcommittee Chair”). The Associate Dean of Students in the University, Center for Student Integrity shall attend the hearing in a non-voting, advisory capacity.
A Hearing Subcommittee may include alternate members who are available to participate when another member becomes unavailable.
A current Disciplinary Chair shall not serve on a Hearing Subcommittee. When possible, an effort should be made to include at least one former Disciplinary Chair as a member of each Hearing Subcommittee. If the matter to be heard involves a student Respondent who is enrolled in the College at the time of the hearing, the Hearing Subcommittee shall include at least one faculty member with an appointment in the College. Two faculty members, including the Subcommittee Chair, and one additional member (staff or student) of the Hearing Subcommittee constitute a quorum.
All members of the Hearing Subcommittee and the Disciplinary Board must be able to maintain independent judgment and discharge their obligations in a fair-minded fashion, free from material bias and conflicts of interest, or they must recuse themselves.
The System Process
Timing
This policy sets forth various time deadlines for different procedures. For clarity, those deadlines are provided throughout this policy, but they are also set forth in a table at Appendix A.
The deadlines in this policy can be extended by mutual agreement of a student Respondent and the Associate Dean of Students in the University, Center for Student Integrity. With regard to an RSO Respondent, the deadlines may be extended as deemed necessary by the Associate Dean of Students in the University, Center for Student Integrity.
The deadlines in this policy apply even in matters involving multiple Respondents. If some Respondents have requested and agreed to extensions while others have not, the matters will be separated and will proceed independently such that no individual matter is delayed without mutual agreement of an individual student Respondent and the Associate Dean of Students in the University, Center for Student Integrity. When cases are separated in this manner and multiple hearings are required, the Disciplinary Board should make reasonable efforts to convene the same Hearing Subcommittee for each hearing.
Initial Fact Gathering and Notification
Disciplinary matters under this system may be initiated by a complaint made by any University Community member or by an administrative notice of charges submitted by an administrative designee of the Office of the Provost or other designee of the University (the “Administrative Designee of the University”), based on witness statements or other credible and appropriate information.4 Complaints and charges may be brought against individual students or RSOs. The individual or RSO against whom the complaint or charge is made is the “Respondent.”5 Any University community member (individual or group) may make a complaint under this system. The person or group making a complaint is the “Complainant.”6 Where the Administrative Designee of the University submits a notice of charges, the matter may proceed without a complaint and without a Complainant.
Where there are multiple Complainants involving the same event, events, or incident and the same Respondent, or a complaint and a notice of charges involving the same event, events, or incident and the same Respondent, the matters shall be consolidated. In a case with both a complaint and a notice of charges, the Administrative Designee of the University may coordinate with the Complainant to determine how best to proceed with the case. For example, the case might proceed with both the Complainant and the Administrative Designee of the University separately (but in the same matter), presenting their allegations, or with the Complainant exclusively presenting the allegations, or with the Administrative Designee of the University exclusively presenting the allegations. In all events, a Respondent shall only be required to answer once under this policy for a single event or incident. The final resolution of a complaint or notices of charges against a Respondent made under this policy related to a single event or incident shall constitute the sole and final proceedings related to that Respondent for that event or incident.
All complaints and notices of charges that a student or RSO has engaged in conduct that violates Statute 21 should be made in writing and brought promptly to the attention of the Associate Dean of Students in the University, Center for Student Integrity, and in any event, no later than ten Term Days7 after the alleged misconduct occurred. The complaint or notice of charges should identify the name(s) of the person(s) involved, and state with specificity the nature of the misconduct and the circumstances under which it may have been committed. The Complainant or Administrative Designee of the University should make every effort to include all relevant facts known at that time and provide all available supporting materials. In response, the University will conduct a prompt and thorough investigation as detailed below and will do so notwithstanding any external process, such as a law enforcement investigation or criminal prosecution.
Generally, in cases involving a complaint, the Complainant first will discuss the allegation with the Associate Dean of Students in the University, Center for Student Integrity. In cases involving a notice of charges, the Administrative Designee of the University submitting the notice of charges will discuss the allegations with the Associate Dean of Students in the University, Center for Student Integrity. The Associate Dean of Students in the University, Center for Student Integrity will conduct an expeditious inquiry into the facts, which may include but is not limited to interviews, information gathering, and documentation of evidence.
Following the initial inquiry, and no later than five Term Days after receiving a complaint or notice of charges, the Associate Dean of Students in the University, Center for Student Integrity will convene the Disciplinary Board to review the matter. The Associate Dean of Students in the University, Center for Student Integrity will present the case to the Disciplinary Board. As soon as practicable, but no later than seven Term Days after receiving a complaint or notice of charges, if warranted by the complaint, the notice of charges, or any other preliminary information gathered, the Associate Dean of Students in the University, Center for Student Integrity shall notify the Respondent of the complaint or notice of charges. At that time, the Associate Dean of Students in the University, Center for Student Integrity shall direct the Respondent (the accused individual or RSO) to participate in an initial meeting as soon as possible (but no later than five Term Days after being given notice), review this policy and its processes (including the Respondent’s right to have a support person’s assistance throughout the process), and provide a brief written summary of the allegation. If a Respondent declines to participate in the initial information-gathering process, this decision may foreclose participation during later phases of the disciplinary process, including any proceeding before the Disciplinary Board or a Hearing Subcommittee.
In the initial meeting, the Associate Dean of Students in the University, Center for Student Integrity will inform the Respondent of the alleged misconduct and will discuss the allegations and applicable investigatory and adjudicatory processes.
The Disciplinary Board will provide the Complainant, or (in cases involving a notice of charges) the Administrative Designee of the University, and the Respondent with an opportunity to provide evidence and to suggest witnesses. The Disciplinary Board will not interview witnesses whose sole purpose is to provide character information about either party.
At any time after reviewing the matter, the Disciplinary Board shall have the authority and discretion to dismiss the complaint. Alternatively, the Disciplinary Board shall have the authority and discretion to resolve the matter informally or to refer it to a hearing. In making its decision to dismiss a complaint or to resolve the matter informally, the Disciplinary Board should consider the appropriateness of the dismissal or informal resolution in light of the specific case circumstances as well as consistency with prior case outcomes. The Disciplinary Board shall document the reasons for dismissal or for informal resolution.
The Associate Dean of Students in the University, Center for Student Integrity will also ensure that the Complainant (if there is one), the Administrative Designee of the University (if there is one), and the Respondent be updated throughout the investigative process, including timely notice of meetings where the Respondent may be present. More specifically, the Complainant, the Administrative Designee of the University, and Respondent will be given the following written notices: (i) notice that a matter was dismissed, the matter was resolved informally, that the matter was referred to a hearing, or that a further investigation will proceed; (ii) notice of a charge filed and any information that will be used in the hearing process; (iii) notice of the members of the Disciplinary Board; (iv) notice of the date and time of any hearing and a list of members of the Hearing Subcommittee; (v) notice of the Disciplinary Board’s final decisions (to the extent permitted by the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act “FERPA”) and an explanation of the review process; (vi) notice of whether a request for review has been filed; (vii) notice of the outcome of the request for review (to the extent permitted by FERPA) and (viii) notice when the decision and sanctions become final.
All Irregular Communications to the Disciplinary Chairs regarding an ongoing matter are improper and strictly prohibited. If a Disciplinary Chair a receives an Irregular Communication about an ongoing matter, such Disciplinary Chair should retain and not delete such communication but should disregard the contents of the communication and not respond to the communication. The Disciplinary Chair should also provide a copy of such communication to the Office of the Provost, which may take appropriate actions to address the improper communication. In the event that any Irregular Communication or other outside influence has undermined the independent judgment of a Disciplinary Chair, such Disciplinary Chair should recuse themselves from any further proceedings on the related matter.
While the Associate Dean of Students in the University, Center for Student Integrity will at times necessarily receive communications from nonparticipants and will often function as a liaison to the Disciplinary Board, the Associate Dean of Students in the University, Center for Student Integrity shall avoid any outside influence and bias (including from other University administrators) in any case where the Associate Dean of Students in the University, Center for Student Integrity is called upon to cast a tie- breaking vote. In the event that any outside influence has undermined the independent judgment of the Associate Dean of Students in the University, Center for Student Integrity, the Associate Dean of Students in the University, Center for Student Integrity shall recuse themself from any further proceedings on the related matter and the Dean of Students in the University shall appoint a designee who can exercise independent judgment.
At all times the names of the Disciplinary Chairs shall be publicly available and shall be included in any notice sent to the Respondent, the Complainant, or the Administrative Designee of the University. Any party or the Administrative Designee of the University may request the recusal of a Disciplinary Chair on the grounds that such Disciplinary Chair has a genuine and material conflict of interest. Such requests must be made to the Associate Dean of Students in the University, Center for Student Integrity. Requests for recusal must identify with specificity the alleged nature of the conflict of interest. Using reasoned judgment, the other members of the Disciplinary Board shall decide whether the alleged conflict is genuine and material and, if so, whether it compels recusal of the Disciplinary Chair in question.
Informal Resolution
The Disciplinary Board may resolve complaints and notices of charges of disruptive conduct informally. As outlined above, Complainants, Administrative Designees of the University, and Respondents shall have the opportunity to present information and suggest witnesses related to complaints and charges of disruptive conduct. After considering all the information available, the Disciplinary Board will use the preponderance of evidence standard to determine if the Respondent violated Statute 21. In situations involving conflicts between student organizations, the Disciplinary Board shall make reasonable efforts to resolve the differences informally between the organizations.
If the Disciplinary Board concludes that by a preponderance of the evidence, the information obtained supports a finding that the Respondent violated Statute 21, then it will determine an appropriate sanction and may propose an informal resolution to the Respondent. Sanctions included in an informal resolution may include but are not limited to, a warning, disciplinary probation, and/or the suspension of specific student or RSO rights and privileges for a designated period. The Disciplinary Board may not issue an informal disciplinary sanction of suspension or expulsion. Those sanctions require referral to a hearing for formal resolution. The Respondent may choose in writing to accept or reject the finding and sanction proposed in the informal resolution. If the Respondent rejects the finding and sanction, then the Disciplinary Board will convene a hearing. If the Respondent accepts the finding and sanction, a record of such finding and sanction will be issued to the Respondent. If the Respondent accepts the finding and sanction, the resolution of the disciplinary process becomes final and unreviewable within the University, with one exception: if, within 30 Term Days of the resolution, the Associate Dean of Students in the University, Center for Student Integrity or the Disciplinary Board receives new information that materially changes the evaluation of the matter, then the informal resolution may be withdrawn, and the matter referred to a hearing for formal resolution.
At any time before the Disciplinary Board makes a finding and, if appropriate, imposes a sanction, the Disciplinary Board may discontinue the informal resolution process and refer the matter to a formal resolution by hearing. The Disciplinary Board must reach (and give notice to Respondent of) its initial decision to dismiss, resolve informally, or refer a matter to hearing within 15 Term Days of giving the Respondent notice of complaint or notice of charges.
Formal Resolution by Hearing
If the Disciplinary Board decides to refer a matter to a hearing, it shall convene a Hearing Subcommittee. The Associate Dean of Students in the University, Center for Student Integrity shall ask the Complainant or the Administrative Designee of the University to submit in writing the allegations and charges, as well as any available documentation supporting the allegations (to the extent such information has not already been gathered). The Associate Dean of Students in the University, Center for Student Integrity will provide the Respondent with written notice of the allegations, give the Respondent a copy of these procedures, and ask the Respondent to prepare a written response to the allegation within five Term Days of receiving the notice. If there were witnesses to the alleged misconduct, the Associate Dean of Students in the University, Center for Student Integrity may direct them to attend a meeting, ask them to submit a written statement, and/or direct them to appear before the Hearing Subcommittee to answer questions. A Complainant or Administrative Designee of the University shall make every effort to include in the complaint or notice of charges all relevant facts known at that time and provide all available supporting materials.
As soon as practicable, but no later than five Term Days before the hearing, the Associate Dean of Students in the University, Center for Student Integrity will notify the Complainant (if there is one), the Administrative Designee of the University (if there is one), and the Respondent of the names and academic affiliation of members of the Hearing Subcommittee. Any party or the Administrative Designee of the University may request a replacement of any member of the Hearing Subcommittee on the grounds that such member has a genuine and material conflict of interest. Such requests must be made to the Associate Dean of Students in the University, Center for Student Integrity within 48 hours of receiving notice of the identities of the members of the Hearing Subcommittee. Requests must identify with specificity the alleged nature of the conflict of interest. Using reasoned judgment, the Disciplinary Board shall decide whether the alleged conflict is genuine and material and, if so, whether it compels the Hearing Subcommittee member’s replacement.
Format and Order of Proceedings
1. Information Considered by the Hearing Subcommittee and the Role of the Support Person
In connection with the proceeding, the Complainant, the Administrative Designee of the University, and the Respondent will receive the same materials, subject to compliance with FERPA (which may require redaction of certain identifying information), as received by the members of the Hearing Subcommittee. With regard to persons summoned to appear before the Hearing Subcommittee, if the Hearing Subcommittee hears from other individuals, the Complainant (if there is one), the Administrative Designee of the University (if there is one), and the Respondent all have the right to be present.
The Complainant and the Respondent may bring to the disciplinary proceeding a person of their choice whose role is entirely limited to providing support. The Complainant and Respondent are free to select any support person they choose. But the Associate Dean of Students in the University, Center for Student Integrity will develop a list of University academic appointees, staff employees, and students who are willing to serve as support persons. The support person does not function as an advocate or participate directly in any way during the proceeding. If the support person is a lawyer, a representative of the University’s Office of Legal Counsel also will attend the hearing. Regardless of whether a Complainant, Respondent, or witness is represented or supported by counsel, at all times they are expected to speak for themselves, directly communicate with the University personnel involved in the investigatory and adjudicative processes, and submit their own written statements.
2. Hearing Procedures
In order to reach a fair and reasonable resolution of the complaint, hearings before a Hearing Subcommittee will generally follow the procedures described below. The Office of the Dean Students in the University may and should also promulgate specific procedural guidelines that are consistent with these general procedures. In particular, the Office of the Dean of Student in the University should promulgate procedures for admitting and considering evidence during a hearing.
Failure to follow the general procedures set forth here, or the specific procedures promulgated by the Office of the Dean of Students of the University, shall constitute a failure to follow procedures and be grounds for Review (as discussed below).
The general procedures are:
A. The Hearing Subcommittee shall presume the innocence of the Respondent, assume no facts or conclusions, ignore any previous history of disciplinary action with respect to the student or RSO charged, and reach its decision as to whether the Respondent has engaged in the prohibited act solely on the basis of the evidence actually before it. The Hearing Subcommittee may consider all available material evidence regardless of the source of that evidence, so long as that evidence is presented in compliance with these procedures and any specific procedures promulgated by the Office of the Dean of Students in the University.
B. Hearing proceedings are closed. The individuals who may be present in the hearing room(s) during the proceeding are only: members of the Hearing Subcommittee (including alternates), the Associate Dean of Students in the University, Center for Student Integrity, the Complainant, the Administrative Designee of the University, and the Respondent (and their respective support persons), witnesses (when called), and necessary University personnel. The Associate Dean of Students in the University, Center for Student Integrity will work with other University personnel so that any individual whose presence is required may participate in the hearing.
C. All Irregular Communications to the members of a Hearing Subcommittee regarding an ongoing matter are improper and strictly prohibited. In no instance should anyone other than the members of the Disciplinary Board and the members of a Hearing Subcommittee be communicating directly with a Hearing Subcommittee about an ongoing matter other than through the formal hearing procedures. If a member of a Hearing Subcommittee receives an Irregular Communication about an ongoing matter, such member of the Hearing Subcommittee should retain and not delete such communication, but should disregard the contents of the communication and not respond to the communication.
The member of the Hearing Subcommittee should also provide a copy of such communication to the Office of the Provost, which may take appropriate actions to address the improper communication. In the event that any Irregular Communication or other outside influence has undermined the independent judgment of a Hearing Subcommittee member, such member should recuse themselves from any further proceedings on the related matter.
D. The Subcommittee Chair shall remind all present that disciplinary proceedings are distinct from the traditional legal-judicial process, and that the collegiality and trust which binds all members of the University community entails an obligation of candor on the part of all involved in disciplinary proceedings.
E. The Subcommittee Chair shall note that cell phones and any other recording devices may not be used during any part of the hearing proceeding and remind those present that the Hearing Subcommittee may set reasonable time limits for any part of the proceeding and will use reasoned judgment to determine the relevance of, place restrictions on, or exclude any witnesses or information.
F. The Subcommittee Chair shall restate the basic complaint or charge at issue before the Hearing Subcommittee to determine what happened, whether the Respondent engaged in disruptive conduct within the meaning of Statute 21, and, if so, the nature of the sanction to be recommended.
G. The Hearing Subcommittee shall normally ask the Respondent and Complainant or Administrative Designee of the University each to make an opening statement to the Hearing Subcommittee about the allegations in the complaint or notice of charges. If the proceedings involve multiple student Respondents accused of disruptive conduct arising out of the same event, events, or incident, the Respondents each will be heard separately and not in the presence of the other Respondents. If a Respondent refuses to appear before the Hearing Subcommittee, the Hearing Subcommittee shall proceed without that Respondent.
H. The Hearing Subcommittee shall follow the procedures established by this policy and any specific procedures promulgated by the Office of the Dean of Students of the University. The members of the Hearing Subcommittee may ask questions of the Respondent and others coming before the Hearing Subcommittee and may conduct further inquiry.
I. If the Hearing Subcommittee hears from other individuals, the Respondent and Complainant or Administrative Designee of the University have the right to be present.
J. Only the Hearing Subcommittee may ask questions of the Respondent, the Complainant, the Administrative Designee of the University, and others who appear before the Hearing Subcommittee. The Complainant, the Administrative Designee of the University, and the Respondent may not cross-examine or otherwise directly engage one another or others, but may, at the discretion and direction of the Subcommittee Chair, suggest questions to be posed by the Hearing Subcommittee. The Hearing Subcommittee may revise or decline to ask any or all submitted questions.
K. The Subcommittee Chair may decide to move forward in the proceeding at any point if, in their judgment, anyone’s actions cause undue delay. If anyone fails to respect the limitations of their role, engages in active advocacy, or harasses, abuses, or intimidates any participant in the proceeding, the Subcommittee Chair may at their discretion require such person to leave the proceeding. The proceeding will continue in their absence. The Subcommittee Chair will always also be mindful of the necessity of hearing reasonable and relevant points from participants, especially the Complainant and the Respondent.
L. To ensure the integrity of the process, when students (including RSO representatives) speak to the Hearing Subcommittee during the hearing and in the presence of one another, until the Hearing Subcommittee renders its recommendations, the students (including RSO representatives) must maintain confidentiality regarding what was said and must not communicate about the statements with anyone participating in it or with others outside the proceeding.
M. At the conclusion of the proceeding, the Hearing Subcommittee shall normally give the Complainant, the Administrative Designee of the University, and the Respondent the opportunity to make concluding remarks of a reasonable duration.
N. At the completion of the proceeding, the Hearing Subcommittee will deliberate confidentially to consider the information obtained in the course of the proceeding and reach a recommended finding on whether the Respondent violated Statute 21 and, if so, the appropriate recommended sanction. In making a factual determination, the Hearing Subcommittee will apply a preponderance of evidence standard. Namely, the Hearing Subcommittee will decide whether, in consideration of all of the information before it, it is more likely than not that the Respondent’s conduct violated Statute 21. Although axiomatic, it bears noting that non-disruptive protest and dissent should never be punished.
O. Decisions to make recommended findings and sanctions are by majority vote of the members of the Hearing Subcommittee.
P. The Hearing Subcommittee will recommend sanctions that are fair and reasonable given the facts and circumstance of the matter before it. In deciding on recommended sanctions, normally the Hearing Subcommittee will consider the nature of disruptive conduct; mitigating circumstances, if any; and past precedent established by the prior cases resolved through this system. In all cases, the Associate Dean of Students in the University, Center for Student Integrity will provide the Hearing Subcommittee with the facts and circumstances of all past cases and associated sanctions.
Q. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Hearing Subcommittee shall submit to the Disciplinary Board its proposed findings and recommended sanctions. Those findings and recommendations shall not directly be submitted to the Complainants or Respondents.
R. When a case is referred to a hearing, that hearing must be concluded within 20 Term Days of the referral.
3. Final Decision by the Disciplinary Board
The Disciplinary Board will then consider the findings and recommendations of the Hearing Subcommittee. The Disciplinary Board may accept those findings and recommendations, refer the case back to the Hearing Subcommittee for further consideration, request clarification and further explanation from the Hearing Subcommittee, or revise the finding and sanction. On disputed facts, the Disciplinary Board should give appropriate deference to the factual findings of the Hearing Subcommittee. Should the Disciplinary Board have any questions or concerns about those findings, it will refer those questions back to the Hearing Subcommittee for it to consider. In making its decision with regard to disciplinary sanctions, the Disciplinary Board should consider the recommendation of the Hearing Subcommittee but should make its ultimate decision based on its own independent judgment as to the appropriateness of the sanction in light of the specific case circumstances and based on consistency with prior case outcomes.
The Disciplinary Board shall issue its decision and an explanation of the basis for the decision in writing. Once the Disciplinary Board has reached a final decision, the Respondent (and the Hearing Subcommittee) will be notified in writing of the outcome. The notification to the Respondent will include an explanation of the basis for the finding and sanction.
A final resolution must be issued by the Disciplinary Board no later than 47 Term Days after the initial filing of the complaint or notice of charges. Where there is a delay beyond 47 Term days, and that delay is not caused by the student respondent, there will be a Remedy Period of 15 Term days for the matter to be completed. During that Remedy Period, the Provost, in consultation with the Spokesperson of the Committee of the Council, may appoint a new Hearing Subcommittee or new Disciplinary Chairs if is necessary to reach a resolution within the Remedy Period. If no resolution has been reached at the end of the Remedy Period, the matter shall be dismissed.
As with all other stages of the proceedings, all Irregular Communications during the final consideration to the Disciplinary Chairs regarding an ongoing matter are improper and strictly prohibited. If a Disciplinary Chair receives an Irregular Communication about an ongoing matter, such Disciplinary Chair should retain and not delete such communication but should disregard the contents of the communication and not respond to the communication. The Disciplinary Chair should also provide a copy of such communication to the Office of the Provost, which may take appropriate actions to address the improper communication. In the event that any Irregular Communication or other outside influence has undermined the independent judgment of a Disciplinary Chair, such Disciplinary Chair should recuse themselves from any further proceedings on the related matter.
4. Sanctions
The sanctions listed below may be used singly or in combination by the Disciplinary Board and the Hearing Subcommittees, which may also devise new sanctions that they deem appropriate. The same sanction options are available to the Review Board (as described below).
For Individuals
Sanctions delineated here are imposed on individual students for misconduct, whether the misconduct involved only the student or the student as part of a group.
Warning: A letter shall be issued to the student. A prior warning related to misconduct under Statute 21 may be considered in determining a sanction for a current offense.
Disciplinary Probation: During this defined period, a student may continue to enjoy all the rights and privileges of a student except as the Disciplinary Board stipulates. A prior disciplinary probation related to misconduct under Statute 21 may be considered in determining a sanction for a current offense.
Loss of University Privileges: Specific student rights and privileges, such as access to certain University buildings, events, organizations, or employment, may be suspended for a defined period.
Discretionary Sanctions: The Disciplinary Board may require the completion of additional academic work, community service, or restitution/fines by a given deadline.
Disciplinary Suspension: A student is prohibited from exercising any rights or privileges of a student at the University. The minimum length of a suspension is one full academic quarter.
Disciplinary Expulsion: An expelled student permanently forfeits the rights and privileges of a student at the University.
For Recognized Student Organizations
Sanctions delineated here are imposed on Recognized Student Organizations.
Sanctions against an RSO are appropriate when the Disciplinary Board has concluded that the organization itself bears responsibility for the relevant disruptive conduct. Every individual student bears responsibility for their own misconduct, regardless of whether the misconduct occurred in a group setting or as a member of a group. Misconduct by individual members of a group thus may also become a matter for disciplinary action and sanctions against the individuals.
Warning: A copy of the written notice warning the group that it has violated University policies or regulations will be forwarded to Campus and Student Life and the Center for Leadership and Involvement. A prior warning related to misconduct under Statute 21 may be considered in determining a sanction for a current offense. A prior warning issued to an RSO under other disciplinary systems in the University may also be considered in determining a sanction for a current offense under this system.
Disciplinary Probation: During this defined period, the RSO may continue to enjoy all the rights and privileges of a group except as the Disciplinary Board may specifically stipulate. A prior disciplinary probation related to misconduct under Statute 21 may be considered in determining a sanction for a current offense. A prior disciplinary probation issued to an RSO under other disciplinary systems in the University may also be considered in determining a sanction for a current offense under this system.
If, during the period of disciplinary probation, the group is found to have engaged in additional misconduct, the Disciplinary Board will be informed of the group’s probationary status and the circumstances related to the group’s probationary status. The Disciplinary Board must consider the probation in determining further sanction.
Loss of Privileges: The Disciplinary Board may suspend specific group rights and privileges for a designated period of time. Such loss of privileges may include but is not limited to loss of University funding, suspension or revocation of the privilege to apply for University funding, suspension or revocation of the privilege to use University space or facilities, suspension or revocation of the privilege to sponsor, co-sponsor and/or participate in any social event or other activity, and the suspension of revocation of the privilege to raise funds or recruit new members for the group.
Discretionary Sanctions: The Disciplinary Board may assign the group specific academic work, community service for a specific number of hours, or other appropriate discretionary assignments to be completed by a specific date, reporting to local and national organizations of the misconduct, or impose restitution or fines.
Disciplinary Suspension: The Disciplinary Board may impose a disciplinary suspension of Recognized Student Organization status. During the period of suspension, the group is prohibited from exercising any rights and privileges of a Recognized Student Organization in the University. Unless the Disciplinary Board specifically states otherwise in its decision, at the expiration of the period of suspension the group may resume active status as a Recognized Student Organization without any action on the part of the group. However, a group under suspension who has been charged with another misconduct violation may not resume active status as a Recognized Student Organization until final action has been taken on such charge under the relevant system and procedures. The minimum length of a suspension is one full academic quarter.
Disciplinary Withdrawal: The Disciplinary Board may permanently withdraw Recognized Student Organization status. A group whose Recognized Student Organization status has been withdrawn automatically forfeits all rights and privileges as a Recognized Student Organization at the University.
5. Notification of Outcome
Normally, after the Disciplinary Board has reached its final decision, the Associate Dean of Students in the University, Center for Student Integrity will provide the Complainant, the Administrative Designee of the University, and the Respondent with an immediate notification orally or in writing of the outcome of the proceeding. No later than five Term Days after the decision has been issued, the Associate Dean of Students in the University, Center for Student Integrity will provide the Complainant, the Administrative Designee of the University, and Respondent with formal, written notification of the outcome (to the extent permitted by FERPA), including information regarding a request for review. The notification to the Respondent will include an explanation of the basis for the Disciplinary Board’s finding and the sanction.
Only decisions of disciplinary suspension or expulsion will be recorded on the Respondent’s transcript. Decisions of disciplinary suspension usually will read "Not permitted to register from [Date] to [Date]. [Name and Title of the Dean of Students in the University], [Date]" In cases of expulsion the notation will read “Permanently not permitted to register effective [Date]. [Name and Title of the Dean of Students in the University], [Date].” Other offices (for example, Housing and Residence Life, University Registrar) are to be notified of the finding and sanction if the action taken by the Disciplinary Board affects those offices. If required by law or authorized by the Respondent, the Associate Dean of Students in the University, Center for Student Integrity may disclose allegations of misconduct and the outcome of disciplinary proceedings to third parties, including to external organizations.
6. Requests for Review
The Complainant or the Respondent may request a review of the resolution of the disciplinary proceeding within ten Term Days of being informed, in writing, of the decision. The only recognized grounds are: (i) the prescribed procedures were not followed; and (ii) the discovery of new and material information unavailable to the Disciplinary Board and/or the Hearing Subcommittee at the time of the proceeding bears significantly in the student’s favor. A Review Board consists of one faculty member (who also serves as chair), one administrator (designated by the Dean of Students in the University), and one student. The faculty member on the Review Board shall be drawn from the Standing Committee by the Provost, in consultation with the Spokesperson of the Committee of the Council. Members of the Review Board may not be drawn from those currently serving as Disciplinary Chairs or those who were part of the Hearing Subcommittee that heard the matter that is being reviewed.
Decisions of the Review Board are determined by majority vote of the members of the Review Board.
All members of the Review Board must maintain independent judgment and an open mind about the decision under review, and none shall have a conflict of interest with either party.
All Irregular Communications to the Review Board regarding an ongoing matter are improper and strictly prohibited. If a member of the Review Board receives an Irregular Communication about an ongoing matter, such member of the Review Board should retain and not delete such communication but should disregard the contents of the communication and not respond to the communication. The member of the Review Board should also provide a copy of such communication to the Office of the Provost, which may take appropriate actions to address the improper communication. In the event that any Irregular Communication or other outside influence has undermined the independent judgment of a member of the Review Board, such member of the Review Board should recuse themselves from any further proceedings on the related matter.
The Review Board’s decision is final and non-reviewable. In making a decision, the Review Board does not conduct a new disciplinary proceeding and normally does not interview witnesses or seek additional information from the Respondent or Complainant seeking review or witnesses, although the Review Board has the authority to do so and may seek additional information regarding the proceeding from the Associate Dean of Students in the University, Center for Student Integrity.
The Review Board, acting on the basis of the entire record, may sustain, reduce, modify or strike the sanctions imposed if it determines that: (i) prescribed procedures were not followed; and/or (ii) new and material information unavailable to the Disciplinary Board or the Hearing Subcommittee at the time of the proceeding bears significantly in the student’s favor has been discovered. Additionally, if the Board is satisfied in its reasoned judgment that the new and material information not available to the Disciplinary Board and the Hearing Subcommittee more likely than not would have resulted in a different decision, it may require the Disciplinary Board to reconvene and consider the new information in its proceeding.
The Complainant and the Respondent shall be notified in writing of the outcome (to the extent permitted by FERPA) of the request for review within five Term Days after the conclusion of the review. The review constitutes the final process for disciplinary proceedings, and the outcome is final and not reviewable within the University.
7. Confidentiality
The University, including its agents (for example, those who serve on the Standing Committee, the Disciplinary Board, a Hearing Subcommittee, or a Review Board), has a legal obligation under federal law to maintain the confidentiality of student education records, including records used in the disciplinary process that include identifiable student information, except as required by law, for example, as authorized by the student or compelled by a subpoena or court order. Although Respondents, student witnesses and support persons are not bound by the federal law applicable to the University and its agents, they are encouraged to use good judgment when sharing information with third-parties, as some disclosures and related statements may give rise to legal claims against them by persons who believe that the disclosures or statements are false, invade privacy rights or cause reputational damage.
Student as Employee
Nothing in this disciplinary system shall limit any student-employee’s rights under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The system thus would not apply to student-employees’ participation in a demonstration, including a rally or picketing, who are represented by a collective bargaining agent and the demonstration arises in the course of or is incident to a labor dispute involving the University. However, the system applies to conduct not protected by the NLRA, including the prohibitions set forth in Statute 21, such as the destruction of property, threats of physical harm to others, the occupation of University facilities, and the disruption of University events.
Other Information
Disciplinary proceedings under this system apply to any Recognized Student Organization and anyone who has matriculated to the University, whether or not in residence, and to any graduate, but only if the alleged misconduct occurred before the degree was awarded. If a complaint of disruptive conduct against a student who has applied for graduation has been brought to the attention of the Associate Dean of Students in the University, Center for Student Integrity but by the date of graduation the matter has not yet been resolved by the Disciplinary Board, the Disciplinary Board has the discretion and authority to decide whether the Respondent may receive the degree and/or participate in convocation. If a Hearing Subcommittee has been convened by the date of graduation but the proceedings have not concluded, the Respondent shall not participate in convocation, and the student’s graduation shall be postponed until the Disciplinary Board has reached a final determination, and, if applicable, all sanctions have been completed.
Provision for Review of Disciplinary Procedures
The Council of the University Senate shall review, through an appropriate committee, this disciplinary system at least every four years, with the first review scheduled for no later than the Autumn Quarter, 2029.
Appendix A
Timing
Complaints and notices of charges must be made no later than ten Term Days after the alleged misconduct occurred.
No later than five Term Days after receiving a complaint or notice of charges, the Associate Dean of Students in the University, Center for Student Integrity will convene the Disciplinary Board to review the matter.
No later than seven Term Days after receiving a complaint or notice of charges, the Associate Dean of Students in the University, Center for Student Integrity shall notify the Respondent of the complaint or notice of charges.
At that time, the Respondent will be asked to participate in an initial meeting as soon as possible (but no later than five Term Days after being given notice).
The Disciplinary Board must reach (and give notice to Respondent of) its initial decision to dismiss, resolve informally, or refer a matter to hearing within 15 Term Days of giving the Respondent notice of complaint or notice of charges.
The Respondent will have five Term Days from receiving notice of hearing to prepare a written response to the allegations.
No later than five Term Days before the hearing, the Associate Dean of Students in the University, Center for Student Integrity will notify the Complainant, the Administrative Designee of the University, and the Respondent of the names and academic affiliation of members of the Hearing Subcommittee.
When a case is referred to a hearing, that hearing must be concluded within 20 Term Days of the referral.
A final resolution must be issued by the Disciplinary Board no later than 47 Term Days after the initial filing of the complaint or notice of charges.
No later than five Term Days after decision has been issued, the Associate Dean of Students in the University, Center for Student Integrity will provide the Complainant, the Administrative Designee of the University, and Respondent with formal, written notification of the outcome (to the extent permitted by FERPA), including information regarding a request for review.
The Complainant or the Respondent may request a review of the resolution of the disciplinary proceeding within ten Term Days of being informed, in writing, of the decision.
The Complainant and the Respondent shall be notified in writing of the outcome (to the extent permitted by FERPA) of the request for review within five Term Days after the conclusion of the review.
Footnotes:
[1] Examples might include counter-demonstrations and counter-events; marches that do not drown out speakers; silent vigils; teach-ins; protest signs that do not block the vision of the audience; boycotts of speakers or events; pointedly challenging speakers during question-and-answer sessions, albeit in a way that does not monopolize that portion of the event or prevent the speaker from responding.
[2] The term “Irregular Communications” here and elsewhere in this policy refers to a communication with a board, committee, or subcommittee member or party that is made outside of the prescribed procedures of this policy. This could be a communication from someone not involved in the process or from someone who is involved but is communicating in an improper way. For example, a Respondent, Complainant, or support person would be engaged in an Irregular Communication if they contacted a Disciplinary Chair or member of a Hearing Subcommittee directly outside of the investigative, informal resolution, or hearing process. Additionally, all communications of any sort under this policy should be sent to and shared with the Associate Dean of Students in the University, Center for Student Integrity. In cases where someone has information that they think is pertinent to the proceedings but is unsure whether communicating that information would constitute an Irregular Communication, the information should be communicated exclusively to the Associate Dean of Students in the University, Center for Student Integrity.
[3] If the Associate Dean of Students in the University, Center for Student Integrity is unavailable or unable to perform their responsibilities under this policy, those responsibilities may be performed by a designee of the Associate Dean of Students in the University, Center for Student Integrity or of the Dean of Students in the University. All references to the Associate Dean of Students in the University, Center for Student Integrity in this policy include such designee when necessary.
[4] The University shall promulgate rules for receiving reports and information about disruptive conduct. Notices of charges can be based on those reports or other credible and appropriate information of which the University is aware.
[5] All references to “the Respondent” shall include the plural “Respondents” for cases where there are multiple Respondents.
[6] All references to “the Complainant” shall include the plural “Complainants” for cases where there are multiple Complainants.
[7] Term Days means business days during Summer, Autumn, Winter, and Spring Quarters and the September Term. This excludes days during Winter Break, Thanksgiving Break, Spring Break, days that fall between quarters or terms, and holidays and weekends.