AcademicIntegritySeminar.com

1. Disciplinary systems should reflect the diversity of campus cultures.

Beyond the basic elements of due process (notice, an opportunity to be heard, and final decisions supported by substantial evidence), there is no universal model prescribed by the courts for fact-finding and judicial decision-making. Lawful procedures will vary from campus to campus, and may include an initial focus on medication rather than adjudication; “structured conversations” rather than formal hearings; and recommendations to senior officials rather than appellate panels. To paraphrase Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis (1856-1941), each campus disciplinary system is a unique “social laboratory.” By experimenting with different approaches in fact-finding and dispute resolution, these “laboratories” promote and refine core institutional values, while providing new models to the larger society. College disciplinary board members should be wary of stereotyped images of the law (usually the criminal model portrayed in the popular media) and study the design of their campus disciplinary system with an open mind.

2. Common values can be identified and affirmed.

Respecting a variety of fact finding procedures isn’t the same as fostering the idea that people from diverse backgrounds are incapable of identifying and abiding by any shared values. Human beings are social animals. They appreciate qualities associated with cooperation, self-restraint, fairness, and honesty-- what philosopher Sissela Bok calls “minimalist vales” ingrained in “rules of conduct that any society must stress if it is to be viable.” With few exceptions, these are precisely the values affirmed in most college disciplinary systems.

3. Cases should be heard before they are decided.

Members of student conduct hearing boards should treat students the way they would reasonably expect to be treated. A cornerstone of reasonable treatment in the college disciplinary process is a commitment to hearing cases before deciding them.

4. Educational aims and progressive discipline should guide the imposition of sanctions.

Students are often in the midst of an intense period of growth and development. They are likely to test rules, commit wrongs, and make mistakes. While they should be accorded the dignity of being held accountable for their behavior, the punishments imposed should encompass educational aims, including development of the capacity to make reasoned judgments and to understand the feelings of others.

5. Progressive discipline should encompass the interests of people seen and unseen.

Current and future members of campus communities usually remain unseen and unheard when disciplinary cases are resolved. They can’t be present before the hearing panel, even though they have strong interests in maintaining environments where the common good is promoted, and individual liberties protected. Progressive discipline is more than therapy. It requires board members to be tough-minded as well as tender hearted when sanctions are imposed.

6 “Perfection” of human nature isn’t the aim.

The complexity of human nature suggests that good and evil are somehow bound together in ways that promote the highest development of the human personality. Microbiologist Rene Dubos wrote in this regard that:

Every perceptive adult knows he is part beast and part saint, a mixture of folly and reason, love and hate, courage and cowardice. He can be at the same time believer and doubter, idealist and skeptic, altruistic citizen and selfish hedonist. The coexistence of these conflicting traits naturally causes tension but it is nonetheless compatible with sanity. In a mysterious way, the search for identity and the pursuit of self selected goals harmonize opposites and facilitate the integration of discordant human traits into some kind of working accord.

The college disciplinary process isn’t grounded in naive aspirations for human perfection. It reflects a belief, seen in lives like those of St. Augustine and Malcolm X, that the experience of facing and overcoming evil (or unrestrained self-regard) can create rich souls and great personalities.

7. Hearing board members are role models.

Even the best disciplinary process will seem intimidating to most students, since they realize important decisions about their future may be at stake. The words and behavior of hearing board members (even seemingly minor details like facial expressions and body language) will be observed with care and remembered for years. Whether by design or chance, hearing board members are role models. They should display the qualities they seek in others: clarity, courtesy, attentiveness, fairness, honesty, and respect.

8. Hearing board members are learners.

Hearing board members have an unsurpassed opportunity to learn more about human nature in general, and themselves in particular. They should use their experience to integrate theory and practice in ways that promote wisdom and insight. It’s also likely that qualities and habits acquired while serving in a campus disciplinary system-–timeliness, good listening shills, attention to detail, and a sense of fairness and justice–will serve hearing board members for a lifetime.

9. Privacy rights must be respected.

Hearing board members who violate institutional and federal privacy rules may create scars and stigmas lasting a lifetime. Decisions about public release of information should be collaborative, done in accordance with campus policy and the law.

10. The disciplinary process should promote ethical dialogue and critical thinking.

College disciplinary policies reflect an endeavor to codify many core concepts in applied ethics. Those policies should be subjects of frequent debate in campus-wide forums. Dialogue about the purpose and nature of campus rules should also be encouraged in hearings, usually when fact-finding has been completed and sanctions are being determined. The aims are to promote ethical thinking, hear student perspectives, and think anew about the wisdom of college policies.