Student Conduct Code Procedure: Rochester

Introduction and purpose

This procedure implements Board of Regents Policy: Student Conduct Code and explains the Rochester campus's process for resolving reports of violations of the Student Conduct Code by students or student organizations. Procedures governing resolution of student-initiated reports of violations against the University are provided pursuant to Board of Regents Policy: Conflict Resolution Process for Student Academic Complaints.

The purpose of the student disciplinary process is to provide a framework for resolving reports of violations of the Student Conduct Code, so that:

• Informal resolution is encouraged. In many cases, a one-on-one conversation and minimal outcome has a better educational outcome for the student(s) than a formal hearing.
• Student development is emphasized. The conduct process emphasizes the educational purpose in student conduct, including helping students understand and accept responsibility for and modify their own behavior.
• Community interests are met. While the emphasis of the conduct process is on responsible student self-development and restorative justice principles, the nature of the offense may require, in fairness to the community, the imposition of outcomes.
• Students receive fair treatment. Most conduct matters are resolved informally, with the agreement of the student(s). When the people involved are unable to reach agreement, however, Board of Regents Policy: Student Conduct Code requires that students have the opportunity to receive a fundamentally fair hearing and a campus-wide appeal.

Policy applicability

The University of Minnesota Rochester (UMR) Student Conduct Code Procedure applies to students in programs administered by the Rochester campus.

In situations involving students enrolled in programs administered by other campuses that take place on the Rochester campus, the Office for Community Standards (OCS) will determine for each reported violation which campus’s process will apply after consulting with the student, administration in the student’s college unit and the disciplinary office of the student’s home campus. In situations where the OCS has determined the UMR Procedure will be followed, the appropriate member of the UMR Student Conduct Team will inform the conduct office on the student’s home campus of reports and resolutions. If a report is not resolved informally and a hearing is scheduled, a member of the student’s home campus will be invited to join the hearing body.

Reports of violations

Reports of violations of the Student Conduct Code can be submitted by anyone using the appropriate Concern Form. Reports should be made as soon as possible after the event takes place.

Informal resolution

Students or student groups that are alleged to have violated the Student Conduct Code have the right to choose an Informal or Formal Resolution process. 

An Informal Resolution can be utilized if the student or student group accepts responsibility for the Student Conduct Code violation(s) and the sanctions and conditions assigned. If the student or student organization agrees to both the policy violation(s) and the outcome, they choose the informal resolution process which also indicates there is no option for appeal.

Informal Resolutions take much less time and preparation than Formal Resolutions. Additionally, Informal Resolutions can feel less stressful and allow students to acknowledge mistakes they may have made with minimal negative attention. It allows for a candid, educational conversation with a professional who can either dismiss the charges if inaccurate or help challenge the student to take responsibility for their actions and, when charges are accurate, learn how to grow and move forward positively. Because of its fair, non-threatening, and educational manner, the Informal Resolution process is frequently used by students or student organizations to resolve complaints.

The offices and administrators that informally resolve complaints under the Student Conduct Code are:

• Student Conduct Team (for most violations)

  The Student Conduct Team seeks to informally resolve complaints of violations of the Student Conduct Code. Student Conduct Team administrators will meet with the student and consult with affected instructors, administrators and community members to develop a proposed written resolution, including outcomes where appropriate. Students may accept the proposed informal resolution, or may instead choose to resolve the matter through a formal hearing. The Student Conduct Team may also choose to send a complaint to a hearing, rather than informally resolve it.

  The Student Conduct Team typically handles complaints of violations of the Student Conduct Code other than academic integrity violations; however, the Student Conduct Team is involved in resolving some complaints of academic integrity violations, especially when those complaints involve repeat violations or other misconduct under the Student Conduct Code, or occur in multiple administrative units.

  Record Hold: students who fail to respond to the Student Conduct Team within five University business days of receiving a complaint of violation of the Student Conduct Code will have a hold placed on their record, preventing them from registering or obtaining an official transcript until they respond to the complaint.

• Instructors (for academic integrity violations)

  Allegations of violations of academic integrity frequently are first raised by the affected instructor and are resolved simply by the assignment of a grade or other academic consequence in the class and the acceptance of that grade or consequence by the student. Students have three University business days to respond to the allegation. If they do not communicate with the instructor by the end of three business days (either via email or face-to-face), this will be understood as accepting responsibility and agreeing to the outcome. Instructors or their units should report all violations of academic integrity to the Student Conduct Team, even if the matter is resolved. The Student Conduct Team is the central repository for all reports of academic integrity violations. In cases where the student does not agree to the informal resolution (either the allegation or the outcome), the formal resolution process will be followed to determine appropriate outcomes.

Formal resolution

If a complaint under the Student Conduct Code is not resolved informally (with either a member of the Student Conduct Team, or the instructor in cases of academic integrity), the student may opt for a formal resolution. A Formal Resolution means the student or student organization is contesting either the policy violation, the sanctions or conditions, or both. Formal Resolutions require the student or student organization to meet with the Committee on Student Conduct (CSC) for a formal hearing (which is recorded). Cases resolved through formal hearings are not eligible for expungement. Outcomes of Formal Resolutions may be appealed to the Chancellor. The hearing procedure varies depending on the circumstances of the complaint. 

The CSC is a campus-wide hearing body composed of faculty, staff, and students who hear complaints and decide outcomes under the Student Conduct Code. See Appendix A: CSC Hearing Procedures for more details on what specifically occurs during the hearing. The CSC has authority to hear all types of complaints under the Student Conduct Code.

A formal record, audio or video recording, or a transcript of the hearing procedure must be kept for appellate purposes. Student Conduct Code hearings are not court cases, and court rules of process, procedure, and evidence do not apply.

A fundamentally fair hearing process (with the exception of cases involving allegations related to Section IV, subdivision 8–see below) allows for students or student organizations to:

• be notified in writing of the alleged violation and the underlying factual allegations; the time, date, and place of the hearing; and the range of possible outcomes;
• receive a prompt hearing;
• present their case, including witnesses;
• hear all evidence against them;
• question adverse testimony;
• be confronted by their accusers (subject to reasonable procedures to address concerns for safety or well-being);
• be accompanied by an advocate of their choice;
• be found responsible only if the information as a whole shows that it is more likely than not that the student's conduct violated Board of Regents Policy: Student Conduct Code;
• receive a written decision following the hearing; and
• receive notification of the procedure for a campus-wide appeal of the decision.

Cases involving alleged violations of Section IV, subdivision 8, Sexual Harassment, Sexual Assault Stalking, and Relationship Violence of Board of Regents Policy: Student Conduct Code will be addressed as described in Administrative Policy: Sexual Harassment, Sexual Assault, Stalking and Relationship Violence.

Preponderance of evidence and possible outcomes

A finding of responsibility for violation of the Student Conduct Code is based on a preponderance of the evidence. 

The preponderance of the evidence standard means that the hearing officer or Committee on Student Conduct members believe that the policy violation is more likely to have occurred than not. The amount of evidence does not factor into the decision of whether or not the policy violation occurred, rather the hearing officer is at least 51 percent convinced that the violation took place based on the evidence provided. 

Board of Regents Policy: Student Conduct Code outlines the range of outcomes for violations. When hearing cases, the CSC is authorized to apply the full scope of outcomes available to the University, including expulsion from the University. Failing to complete the sanctions will result in additional action, and could negatively impact the student or student organization’s standing at the University of Minnesota Rochester.

Interim student suspension

The chancellor may impose an immediate interim suspension on a student or student organization pending a hearing before the appropriate disciplinary committee. This may be done for the following reasons: (1) to ensure the safety and well-being of members of the University community or to preserve University property, (2) to ensure the student's own physical or emotional safety and well-being, or (3) if the student or student organization poses an ongoing threat of disrupting or interfering with the operations of the University. 

During the interim suspension, the student or student organization may be denied access to all University activities or privileges for which the student or student organization might otherwise be eligible, including access to University housing or property. The student or student organization has a right to a prompt hearing before the chancellor on the question of whether the interim suspension should remain in effect until the full hearing is completed. The student or student organization must be informed in writing of the terms of and reasons for the interim suspension, and the opportunity to be heard on the limited questions described above. The underlying case will be heard and decided by the appropriate hearing body, and the case generally will take precedence over other cases pending before that body.

Appeal

Students are entitled to appeal disciplinary decisions made in the hearing process. Students seeking an appeal should consult Appendix B: Chancellor’s Appeal Procedures, which outlines the grounds for an appeal, the procedures for filing and hearing an appeal, and the nature of appellate review. The chancellor is the final authority regarding student conduct.

Academic (grade) decisions by the hearing body are implemented immediately, even pending appeal. Disciplinary outcomes affecting the student's status/attendance at the University generally are stayed pending appeal.

Definitions

Advocate:

Non-attorney chosen by the party who supports the party through the disciplinary process

Attorney:

An individual who has a law degree

Support Person:

For sexual assault, sexual harassment, stalking, or relationship violence case, a person chosen by the party who accompanies the party through the disciplinary process but does not speak or participate in the process.

Student Organizations:

Student-led organizations that are registered and must follow campus policies

Responsibilities

Chancellor:

Ensure the establishment and maintenance of appropriate disciplinary procedures of the

Provost:

Ensure the establishment and maintenance of appropriate disciplinary procedures on the Rochester Campus.

Procedures and Appendices

• Procedure: Committee On Student Conduct Hearing Procedures
• Procedure: Chancellor’s Appeal Procedures
• Procedure: Record Retention, Sharing, and Expunging
• Procedure: Academic Integrity Restoration (AIR)
• Appendix E: Student Conduct Summary & Rights
• Appendix: Student Conduct Process Overview for Non-Academic Policy Violations (google doc)