Search Reslife.net
		What is the process due? Written by Jesse M. Ketterman, Jr., Ph.D., Director of Student Development, Frostburg State University The intent of this article is to reflect on due process associated with student discipline. As a backdrop, this article is written in conjunction with the Association for Student Judicial Affairs (ASJA) annual conference in 2007. ASJA is a national organization with a mission of “integration of student development concepts with principles of judicial practice in a post-secondary educational setting, and to promote, encourage and support student development professionals who have a responsibility for judicial affairs” (ASJA, 2007). After reading this article, one should have a greater understanding of due process. Student conduct, which leads to referrals through the student discipline process, has a long history within higher education. Faculty, presidents, and trustees depending on the nature of the behavior handled student discipline in earlier times. As dean of students emerged in the early 20th century, the concept of “in loco parentis” was the approach that prevailed on campuses (Stoner & Lowery, 2004). Views toward student discipline changed in the 1960s with the decision of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Education (1961). The decision in Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Education focused on the process that is due for students in disciplinary hearings on higher education campuses and changed the manner in which institutions handled student discipline. As a result, the field of student discipline emerged. Student discipline evolved as a component of student affairs. As early as 1990, Dannells conducted a survey of 227 baccalaureate-granting institutions, which indicated that 72% of the institutions had a published set of disciplinary procedures. In 1993, Lancaster, Cooper, and Harman surveyed 327 members of the Association for Student Judicial Affairs to determine that 97% of the institutions had a disciplinary officer to handle judicial matters another common term referring to student discipline. Disciplinary officers, often referred to as judicial officers or student conduct administrators, were defined by Stoner and Lowery (2004) as “an official authorized on a case-by-case basis … to impose sanctions upon any student(s) found to have violated the Student Code” (2004, p. 21). With a backdrop of student discipline, the next step is to explore the process / procedures that apply to student discipline. LaRoche (2005) wrote an excellent article on the process that is due to students. Elements discussed by LaRoche include the timely disposition of hearings, the notice due to students, the importance of following an institutions established procedures, the nature of the hearing process, the use of advocates or counsel in the hearing process, and the importance of having a fair hearing. Each of the elements discussed by LaRoche is supported by legal outcomes. Given the elements discussed by LaRoche, the following questions can be posed: Disposition of Hearings: When did the incident occur before being referred to the student conduct process? Given the date of the incident, is it possible to achieve a developmental outcome? Has accurate information been gathered to move forward with a hearing? Notice to Students: How was the student made aware of the proceeding hearing? Is the notice appropriate given the nature of the referral? Is the student aware of the policies that apply to the incident being referred? Did the student receive this notice in writing? Does the student know that suspension may be a possible outcome? Established Procedures: When was the last time the code of student conduct was reviewed? Are you following the procedures listed in the code of conduct? Do the procedures fall in line with relevant case law? Hearing: Does the referred student have an opportunity to present a defense? Are those involved in making a decision regarding the incident impartial? Is the type/formality of hearing appropriate to the possible outcomes? Did the referred student have an opportunity to have witnesses? Did the referred party have an opportunity to question the information being presented against them? Support Person: Are there legal charges associated with this incident? Is the student able to self represent him or herself? Does the nature of the offense warrant a support person? The intent of posing these questions is for the reader to reflect on the disciplinary process at an institution. While there are few absolute answers in response to these questions, it is important to follow the published policies and procedures and the educational philosophy of the institution. Prior research has explored due process in student discipline. Bostic and Gonzalez (1999) found that over 80% of responses indicated that student rights include presenting a defense, a hearing with specific charges, written notice of the hearing and the decision, the option to testify and present witnesses, the option to appeal, the ability to have counsel which does not include an attorney, to be aware of opposing testimony, and to face the accusers. Janosik along with Riehl (2000) continued to explore the perceptions of faculty, staff, and students in regards to due process. The purpose of the study was to determine the degree of support for the flexibility of due process given the nature of the violation. The study indicated that faculty, staff, and students expect greater due process with the increased severity of the sanction or outcome of the hearing. Janosik (2001) continued to explore the perceptions of faculty, staff, and students to identify that parties should receive written notice regarding the date and time of the hearing which should include the charges, having time to prepare for a hearing, and receiving written information about the process. Stoner and Lowery (2004) created a model student conduct code with a hearing script that established standards for institutions of higher education to follow when creating a student disciplinary process. This is a great resource for institutions to use when creating or revising its student code of conduct. The student discipline process used at Frostburg State University can be found in the Pathfinder student handbook. The handbook can be viewed at http://www.frostburg.edu/admin/ses/pathfinder.pdf. Reference: ASJA (2007). Retrieved February 15, 2007 from http://www.asjaonline.org/. Bostic, D., & Gonzalez, G. (1999). Practices, Opinions, Knowledge, and Recommendations from Judicial Officers in Public Higher Education. NASPA Journal, 36(3), 166-183. Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Education, 294 F.2d 150 (5th Cir. Ala. 1961), cert. Denied, 368 U.S. 930 (1961). Dannells, M. (1990). Changes in Disciplinary Policies and Practices. Journal of College Student Development, 31, 408-414. Lancaster, J.M., Cooper, D.L., & Harman, A.E. (1993). Current Practices in Student Disciplinary Administration. NASPA Journal, 30(2), 105-119. LaRoche, C.R. (2005). Student Rights Associated with Disciplinary and Academic Hearings and Sanctions. College Student Journal, 39(1), 149-156. Janosik, S.M. (2001). Expectations of faculty, parents, and students for due process in campus disciplinary hearings. Journal of College Student Development, 42(2), 114-122. Janosik, S.M., & Riehl, J. (2000). Stakeholder support for flexible due process in campus disciplinary hearings. NASPA Journal, 37(2), 444-454. Stoner, E.N., & Lowery, J.W. (2004). Navigating Past the “Spirit of Insubordination”: A Twenty-First Century Model Student Conduct Code with a Model Hearing Script. The Journal of College and University Law, 31(1), 1-77. About the Author Dr. Jesse M. Ketterman, Jr. is the Director of Student Development at Frostburg State University. Dr. Ketterman earned a BS in Business Administration at West Virginia Wesleyan College were he was actively involved in collegiate football and fraternity life. He earned a MED and MBA at Frostburg State University while working as a graduate hall director and professional staff member in the Residence Life Office. While working with student behavior issues Dr. Ketterman earned a Ph.D. in Educational Leadership from Touro University International.