Campus Safety vs. Student Development: :

Who Wins the Battle When Student Organizations Misbehave

Kim NovakPi Kappa Alpha Fraternity @NovakTalks

Brent PatersonIllinois State University@BGPater

Larry WieseKappa Alpha Order Fraternity @lswiese

The Core Principles

Educational Endeavor

Protect Rights, Health & Safety

Administered Impartially & Fairly

What is the Process?

“[W]henever an institution has established procedures that apply to the imposition of sanctions, the law will usually require that these procedures be followed” (Kaplin & Lee, 2007, p. 458).

Stoner & Lowery (2004) – best practice dictates that the adjudication process should always be documented

Why is the process so IMPORTANT?

No Process Defined

48. A student group or organization may be charged with violations of this Code as outlined in Article II, Sections 8 and 9, whether the alleged violations occurred on or off University property.

49. The officers or leaders or any identifiable spokesperson for a student group or organization may be directed by the Dean of Students or authorized representative to take appropriate action designed to prevent or end violations of this Code by the group or organization. Failure to make reasonable efforts to comply with such directive shall be considered a violation of this Code, both by the officers, leaders or spokesperson for the group or organization and by the group or organization itself.

50. No specific procedures for adjudicating the commission of violations by a student group or organization are established other than the Dean of Students may impose sanctions for group or organization misconduct up to and including revocation or denial of registration, as well as other appropriate sanctions. A student group or organization may appeal the denial or revocation of registration to the UAB as outlined in Section 42 of this Code.

FSL Specific Process

Guidelines for the Greek Community Standards Board The Greek Community Standards Board (GCSB) was established in order to protect the rights of chapters

and individual members in order to promote responsible self-governance of the Greek community at the College. The GCSB allows Greek students the opportunity to become actively involved in the accountability processes at the College. Also, those students who are selected to serve on the board will assume leadership and service positions which will aid the College Student Accountability System.

The GCSB is designed to assist the College in fostering and promoting appropriate behavior in the conduct of the Greek Community. The purpose of the GCSB is to establish a level of acceptable behavior for all fraternities and sororities.

Another purpose of the GCSB is to complement the educational mission of the College. This is accomplished by fostering a sense of community with established standards of behavior that are appropriate to the character and purpose of Greek Chapters and the College.

The GCSB hears cases related to chapter events, not those related to individual Greek members. Examples of cases may include: Social event violations Alcohol violations Minor vandalism (paint on sidewalks, etc.)—if the damage is minor Hazing (if recommended to the GCSB instead of the Student Accountability Committee) Educational opportunities (risk management, attitude towards other chapters, academics, etc.) Incident reports may be referred to the GCSB by either the Director or the Assistant Director of

Community Living. In conjunction with the Director and/or Assistant Director of Student Involvement, cases may be deferred

to the Student Accountability process at the discretion of the Office of Student Development.

Individual = Organization

All student organizations are governed by rules developed by one of six administratively designated University judicial systems, each of which is separate and distinct from the others. These are the Student Government Association (all registered and some recognized organizations), Interfraternity Council, Multicultural Greek Council, National Pan-Hellenic Council, Panhellenic Council, and Residence Halls Association. In most non-living group situations cases would be investigated by the Committee on Student Organizations to determine just cause for disciplinary action. The Residence Halls Association, the Interfraternity Council, the Multicultural Greek Council, the National Pan-Hellenic Council, the Panhellenic Council, and the Off-Campus Student Association (OCSA) will be held responsible to maintain appropriate conduct by the University administrative units assigned to oversee their activities. The OCSA is supervised by the Department of Campus Life. All sororities and fraternities are supervised by the Office of Fraternity & Sorority Affairs. Discipline cases involving any fraternity or sorority will be processed jointly by the Office of Fraternity & Sorority Affairs and Student Conduct Education and Administration. In cases where suspension or expulsion of a fraternity or sorority is a possibility, the case will be referred directly to the Student Conduct Committee for a Level Three hearing.

Procedural rights and obligations for all student organizations are customarily similar to those afforded individual students: Cross reference section 5.04 -5.09 of the Student Code

You Need to Decide

What is your process?

Will you collaborate?

What will collaboration look like?

Who will be the voice of the Institution ?

Jurisdictional Considerations: Policy

Student Code of Conduct Student organization recognition requirements University housing policies (if applicable) Governing Council or Organization Inter/National organization policies Federal, state, local laws

Possible Entities with Jurisdiction:

Office of Student ConductTitle IX Officer

Housing & Residence Life OfficeGoverning council (IFC, PHA, MGC, etc.)

Office of Fraternity/Sorority LifeStudent Government Association

Inter/National headquartersCriminal Court System

Delegated authority vs. assumed authority

Who Should be Making Decisions?

Gorman v. University of Rhode Island, 837 F.2d 7 (1st Cir. 1998) – “an impartial and independent adjudicator ‘is a fundamental ingredient of procedural due process.’

Jurisdictional Considerations: Geography

“As long as the college can articulate a reasonable relationship between the off-campus misconduct and the well-being of the college community, reviewing courts will not overturn a disciplinary action unless they find that the action was arbitrary, an abuse of discretion, or a violation of a student’s constitutional rights” (Kaplin & Lee, 2007, p. 412).

AN INCIDENT

University receives a report that a 19 year-old student was transported to a local hospital with alcohol poisoning – Critical Incident Response Team (CIRT) was called and early verbal reports indicate student was at a party hosted off campus by a fraternity known to have a significant number of club soccer members in their ranks.

Written report from Police and CIRT Team comes in and indicates that a 19 year-old had been drinking with roommate in her residence hall room prior to going to the party

Interim Suspension

Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (1975) – “Students whose presence poses a continuing danger to persons or property or an ongoing threat of disrupting the academic process may be immediately removed from school…[and notice and hearing] should follow as soon as practicable.”

Documentation for the incident includes a city police report submitted through campus police and provides address for off-campus party –identified as a known “off-campus party house” for a fraternity. Estimated that approximately 120 people were at the event and several verbal warnings were issued for underage drinking and a warning for a noise violation was issued. Additionally, the report indicates the student that appeared to be in charge (Bob Martin, President of Tri-Zippo Fraternity) was cooperative.

Student that was transported was found throwing up on front porch and after doing a welfare check a determination was made to take her to the hospital. At the hospital police asked the young woman what she had drank and she indicated that she did 5 shots of something bitter in her room with her roommate who was going out with another group of friends.

The InvestigationBest Practices for Conducting an Investigation (Paterson, 2012)

More Information

Even held at off-campus location hosted at a site that is considered a “unofficial house” for Tri- Zippo, and fraternity President confirmed it was a chapter event.

The fraternity and a sorority were co-hosting an event to celebrate seniors. Alcohol was purchased by individuals and brought to the event some in the form of gifts for seniors.

Guest list was in place as considered a VIP event and not open to the “un -cool” people from chapters.

There was no effort to check IDs and the fraternity indicated that probably 30 people at the event were underage.

Student transported showed up as a date of one of the invited members and was showing signs of intoxication at the door. Server behind bar (a new member of the fraternity) was told not to give her any more alcohol and her date said he would keep an eye on her.

Police responded to noise violation at 11:47PM –issued several warnings for underage possession, a noise violation against renters, and asked that the party start to close down and be closed out by 12:30 AM.

Upon exiting front door, Police saw the student puking over porch rail and do welfare check – then determine she needed to be transported to hospital. When asking her what she drank the young women indicate “shots of something harsh” that her roommate had given her at 9:30 PM – about 5 shots….

Roommate was not at the event and is not a member of either group hosting the party

Student transported indicated she did not recall drinking anything at the party. Fraternity man that brought student transported as his date indicated he took

her outside for air about 5 minutes before police arrived and he did not realize how drunk she was.

Fraternity Sorority Life professional was assigned as one of the investigators and in concluding comments mentioned that she has had concerns about rumors regarding ragging parties at this address and feels that the chapter should minimally lose social privileges for a year, including Homecoming and Greek Week privileges.

 

Individual –vs- Organization

“Developing and enforcing a group misconduct policy does not necessarily eliminate the need for individual students to be held accountable. Individuals can be held accountable for their own actions as well as their actions as part of a recognized organizational entity under the code” (Lancaster & Waryold, 2008, p. 246).

Does your process allow?

Is this even a student org Issue?

The institution must clearly state…the guidelines used to determine if actions of individual members or small groups within an organization constitute action by the organization.What Constitutes Student Organizational Misconduct? (Lancaster & Waryold, 2008, p. 247) – The following criteria, taken individually or as a whole, suggest grounds on which to proceed with an organizational conduct case:

Would a reasonable personal understand the behavior to fall within the scope of the organization’s activity?

The behavior is committed by one or more members of a student group and is sanctioned by the organization and/or its officers.

The behavior is committed by one or more members of a student group during the course of an activity financed by the organization and/or on property owned by the organization.

The behavior is committed by one or more members of a student group and is supported by its members.

The officers of the organization had prior knowledge that the incident would take place.

Members of the organization lied about the incident.

CHARGES:

Organization Charged letter sent on Friday via email) with: Alleged violation of University Student Rules regarding alcohol. Hearing set for following Tuesday at 3:15 PM in VP Conference room.

Process Due:

“Notice should be given of both the conduct with which the student is charged and the rule or policy that allegedly proscribes the conduct” (Kaplin & Lee, 2007, p. 463).

Jenkins v. Louisiana State Board of Education, 506 F.2d 992 (5th Cir. 1975) – charges should be given “in sufficient detail to fairly enable…[the student] to present a defense.”

Procedural Rights

In re: Rensselaer Society of Engineers v. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, 689 N.Y.S.2d 292 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999) – “[J]udicial scrutiny of the determination of disciplinary matters between a university and its students, or student organizations, is limited to determining whether the university substantially adhered to its own published rules and guidelines for disciplinary proceedings so as to ascertain whether its actions were arbitrary or capricious.”

So you are private…..

“Reviewing courts have held private institutions to a requirement of fairness” (Kaplin & Lee, 2007, p. 470). Kwiatkowski v. Ithaca College, 368 N.Y.S.2d 973

(N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1975) – “[T]he college or university’s decision to discipline that student [must] be predicated on procedures which are fair and reasonable and which lend themselves to a reliable determination.”

Best practice: “As a matter of practice, private institutions provide due process rights to students in conduct proceedings that mirror those found at public institutions” (Paterson, 2012, pp. 21-22).

The Reality….

Gorman v. University of Rhode Island, 837 F.2d 7 (1st Cir. 1998) – “Due process, which may be said to mean fair procedure, is not a fixed or rigid concept, but, rather, is a flexible standard which varies depending upon the nature of the interest affected, and the circumstances of the deprivation.”

Sanctioning Equation:

1. What do we know about the problem – how does this inform where we need to focus our efforts

2. What contributed to this problem? What needs to change

3. Which factors can be modified? What can we influence?

4. What will make this happen?

5. What should the outcome of the inquiry process look like?

6. Beyond the organization, who else needs to take action to change?

EVIDENCE:In the hearing the fraternity president and sorority president accept responsibility for hosting the event with alcohol and allowing minors to consume alcohol. The students indicated they did not register the event because it was off campus and policies indicate only on campus events or formal events are to be registered. The students indicate they did not serve the young woman transported but did allow her stay as a brother’s date.

Sanctions assigned only to the fraternity as event was hosted at their live-out. Fraternity was placed on social restriction for one academic year – and will not be allowed to participate in Homecoming or Greek Week.Fraternity must have a membership review and minimally remove the president from office as well as the new member educator that told new members they had to work the party. Limited recruitment restrictions – fraternity cannot extend bids to freshman for next round of recruitment because they let underage people drink at the event. Coordinate a program with local police about alcohol laws – to be offered to entire FSL community as part of annual risk management program.

It was NOT over…

Chapter appealed sanction-citing severity of sanction and due process violation. Indicating in appeal that the campus traditionally does not address off-campus incidents and provided statements from three other fraternities and police blogs that indicate they had parties shut down by local police and citations issued for under-age drinking but were never charged by campus but did have call-in meetings and conversations with FSL advisor about safe party management.

Additionally, the President requested that hearing be moved as he an internship on Tuesday and also wanted his Chapter Advisor to be present and was told by FSL advisor that if he did not show up then a decision would be made in his absence. Chapter Advisor was not allowed to attend the hearing as he is a city police official and the board thought he would have a conflict of interest.

The Appeal

Q&A