Upload
annaadamsc
View
218
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/9/2019 Judicial Affairs FINAl Paper
1/22
Judicial Affairs Program 1
Analysis of College Student Development Theory
as it Relates to the Judicial Affairs Department
at the University of Utah
Anna Adams, Trisha Jensen, Aimee Frost, & Andrew Stone
University of Utah
ELP 6620: College Student Development Theory
Fall 2008
8/9/2019 Judicial Affairs FINAl Paper
2/22
Judicial Affairs Program 2
Introduction to Judicial Affairs
Judicial Affairs is a key component to Student Affairs. Through judicial meetings,
hearing officers are able to help students reflect on poor decisions they have made. Officers are
also able to individualize education to better suit the student and assist them in being better
informed about university policies. College years function as something of a developmental
testing ground between adolescence and adulthood, a time to examine and test new roles,
attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors, a time when an individual can give full attention to change and
development (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991, p. 58). Hearing officers should be challenging
students by holding them accountable for their actions, while still providing the support needed
for them to develop.
The purpose of this paper is to critically analyze Judicial Affairs at the University of Utah
using student development theory. After doing extensive research and interviewing Ms. Lori
McDonald, Assistant Dean of Students at the University of Utah, we have concluded that it may
be beneficial to adjust the current policy and process used by this department.
Overview of the University of Utahs Judicial Affairs Department
Student judicial affairs professionals are challenged with creating policies and processes
for discipline that both foster a sense of community and help students make connections between
what they learn and how they live (OReilly & Evans, 2007, p. 121). OReilly and Evans (2007)
also state the discipline process must be seen as developmental while prompting students to
learn the reality of accountability (p. 121). It is through the judicial affairs process that students
are better able to understand how their community is affected by their actions. Students are held
accountable for their actions and, through the judicial process, are given another chance to be a
successful part of the community.
8/9/2019 Judicial Affairs FINAl Paper
3/22
Judicial Affairs Program 3
Institutional Context
The University of Utah is the states largest and oldest institutions. It offers over 100
undergraduate programs and more than 90 graduate programs to over 28,000 students
(http://www.obia.utah.edu/content/fastfacts.pdf). As seen in their mission statement, the
University of Utah is dedicated to education and the process of learning (see Appendix A), the
University faculty and staff are committed to helping students excel. We zealously preserve
academic freedom, promote diversity and equal opportunity, and respect individual beliefs. We
advance rigorous interdisciplinary inquiry, international involvement, and social responsibility.
The mission shows that the Dean of Students Office, where Judicial Affairs is housed, is on the
right track by educating students through the judicial process.
Department History and Dynamics
Judicial Affairs has been housed in the Dean of Students Office for at least the past 18
years (L. McDonald, personal communication, November 12, 2008). This is as long as Ms.
McDonald has been employed by this office. There are three hearing officers that handle the
initial, more informal judicial meeting with students who have been accused of a violation. The
three officers are the Dean of Students, Annie Nebeker Christensen, Associate Dean of Students,
Lori McDonald, and Assistant Dean of Students, Jay Wilgus (L. McDonald, personal
communication, November 12, 2008).
After meeting informally with the hearing officer, a student can either accept their
suggested sanction or, if they cannot come to an agreement, the student is referred to the Student
Behavior Committee, which is made up of two students, two faculty and two staff members. The
faculty and staff appointments are made by the Presidents Office, but recommendations can be
8/9/2019 Judicial Affairs FINAl Paper
4/22
Judicial Affairs Program 4
made by the Dean of Students Office. Faculty and staff are appointed for a three year term, while
students serve for only one year.
Methodology of Research
An informational interview was conducted with the Associate Dean of Students, Lori
McDonald to gather information and insight about the current judicial process. We inquired
about all aspects pertaining to behavioral student misconduct, which is processed in the Dean of
Students Office. Additionally, there are two other areas of student misconduct that occur on
campus: academic misconduct and residential living misconduct. Each of these areas are
processed through their respective departments. For the purposes of this paper, we focused
specifically on behavioral misconduct.
In order to analyze this area comprehensively, Michael D. Coomes article Using Student
Development to Guide Institutional Policy and Nevitt Sanfords model ofSupport and Challenge
was referenced. These two resources provided a wealth of knowledge pertinent to student
conduct issues.
Summary of Development Models used as Lens for Analysis
Each of Coomes seven observations were used to evaluate the University of Utahs
judicial process. Sanfords model of Challenge and Support was also used as an additional
theoretical lens with which to view the process.
Observation One: Institutional policy must be general and flexible
Coomes first observation describes the importance of having continual respect for all
students as individuals:
Developmentally, students differ in the tasks they undertake during their lives (and their
collegiate careers); in the way they interpret and make meaning of their experiences and
8/9/2019 Judicial Affairs FINAl Paper
5/22
Judicial Affairs Program 5
the world; in the stylistic approaches they utilize for resolving the challenges of learning,
growth and development. (Coomes, 2005, p. 638)
The variations between students also include their gender, race, ethnicity and sexual
orientation (Coomes, 2005, p. 638). At the University of Utah, the judicial process is an
excellent example of this first observation.
From our interview it was apparent that Ms. McDonald recognizes the differences in the
campus population at the University of Utah and this fact is reflected in the steps involved in the
campus judicial process. There is no formal model or matrix in place to outline violations and
the resultant sanctions. Any student being accused of a violation is sent a letter to request they
make an appointment with the hearing officer assigned to the case. Students are not required to
make an appointment; however it is in their best interest because it affords them the chance to be
heard. If this opportunity is taken by the student and the hearing officer decides that a violation
has been committed, the hearing officer will then work with the student to formulate an
appropriate sanction for the violation.
The University of Utahs lack of a judicial matrix allows the hearing officer to mold the
process as an educational experience, instead of a punitive process. This lack of structure to
allow the flexibility to educate is not a new idea. The revised version of the Student Personnel
Point of View (American Council on Education, 1949) suggests that, when the need for social
discipline does arise, the college should approach the problem as a special phase of counseling in
the development of self-responsibility for behavior rather than in a spirit of punishment of
misbehavior (p. 25). Not all students will respond the same to the same sanctions, so it is
important that the hearing officer has the flexibility to work one-on-one with the student to
8/9/2019 Judicial Affairs FINAl Paper
6/22
Judicial Affairs Program 6
design a sanction that will serve as an educational and developmental benefit to that particular
student (L. McDonald, personal communication, November 12, 2008).
Observation Two: Institutional policy must treat students as adults by emphasizing student
responsibility
Coomes second observation is philosophically echoed in the Student Personnel Point of
View, 1949: the student is thought of as a responsible participant in his [or her] own
development and not as a passive recipient of an imprinted economic, political, or religious
doctrine, or vocation skill (American Council on Education, 1949, p. 17). Coomes (2005)
questions whether universities are still implementing in loco parentis ideology by making
decisions in the best interest of students without first checking with students (p. 639).
The University of Utah attempts to avoid making decisions for the student by ensuring
that each student accused of a violation is afforded due process. By sending the student an
invitation to participate in an informal judicial proceeding with the hearing officer, the university
is placing the responsibility of follow through in the adult hands of the student. If the student
does not respond to the invitation in a timely fashion, the hearing officer can proceed with the
investigation and make a decision about the case without the students voice. By allowing
students the choice to come forward and take responsibility for their actions and the
consequences, the university is acknowledging students responsibility and freedom of choice
(Coomes, 2005, p.639).
Coomes (2005) points out that there is no guarantee that empowering students as adults
will result in adult behavior (p. 640). Acknowledging that there is no guarantee, the university
tracks students and their code violations to ensure that repeat offenses are not handled as first
8/9/2019 Judicial Affairs FINAl Paper
7/22
Judicial Affairs Program 7
time infractions. Not having a matrix to outline violations and the resulting sanctions may give
the impression that the university is not treating students as adults.
If a student repeatedly violates the alcohol policy, there may be a point when writing an
essay or taking an alcohol addiction course comes across as coddling the student. It may benefit
the university and its students to institute a matrix or schedule for number of infractions and
educational restitutions. This would allow the hearing officer the freedom to work with the
student to create developmental sanctions, but also give them the influence to show students the
repercussions of not taking the process seriously.
Observation Three: Institutional policy must be inclusive of differences
Through his research Coomes observed that because of the racial and ethnic diversity of
students, institutional policy makers must be cognizant of these differences and refrain from
developing policies that support only the values and norms of the dominant culture (Coomes,
2005, p. 640). From the interview with Ms. McDonald, it is apparent that the University of Utah
has adopted this theory. According to Ms. McDonald, she would be very hesitant to mandate any
matrix of consequences for violations of the Student Code, because every student is different,
and each violation is different (personal communication, November 12, 2008). She mentioned
that she did not want to be tied down by a policy when each sanction or consequence should be
tailored to each individual students experience.
Every opportunity for learning should be tailored to each students experience and
understanding. The difficulty with not having a standard matrix is that some students may
develop a misunderstanding of how rules and laws function off campus. If a law is violated off
campus, the student will receive a consequence which fits the crime. On campus, when the
Student Code is violated, one might receive suspension and another might write a paper for the
8/9/2019 Judicial Affairs FINAl Paper
8/22
Judicial Affairs Program 8
same violation. Ms. McDonald said that if a student comes in willing to admit their mistake and
wants to work with her, she is usually more lenient. On the other hand, if a student comes in with
a violation and will not take responsibility, they might receive a much tougher sanction. This
strategy makes sense in a campus community, however off campus students will be held
accountable to laws, regardless of race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or feelings of remorse.
Observation Four: Institutional policy must encourage involvement across a range of activities
that encompasses both the in-class and out-of-class lives of students
According to research performed by Strange (1994), growth in students occurs:
When students are ready to face challenges, are provided with adequate (but not stifling)
support to meet those challenges, and are forced to interact with their environment. It is
incumbent on colleges to offer students opportunities to stretch beyond their current level
of development while providing adequate support structures to assist students as they
strive to accomplish new and difficult tasks. (p. 401)
One of the first challenges students will encounter when they begin their college career is how to
deal with the new freedom and lack of perceived supervision. For many students, this is their
first time away from home and setting up their own rules and responsibilities is often neglected.
The neglect of this responsibility can lead to a violation of the Student Code, thus landing them
in Dean of Students Office.
Instead of simply accepting that this is just a natural transition to adulthood, student
conduct programs should look for ways to teach effective responsibility to students before they
run into trouble. One way to do this is to ensure that each student has read or is at least aware of
the Student Code they have committed to follow. Ms. McDonald explained that when a student
comes to the university, they are agreeing to follow the Student Code. She explained that the
8/9/2019 Judicial Affairs FINAl Paper
9/22
Judicial Affairs Program 9
Code is online for students to read and they are encouraged to read it when they attend
orientation (personal communication, November 12, 2008).
To help curtail the number of students who violate the Code, the university should take a
more proactive role in publicizing it. If students are required to obey certain rules, but not be
provided with the policy that outlines those standards, then they are simply being encouraged to
embrace the lack of responsibility and educational opportunities that Strange (1994) outlines.
Coomes proposed that institutions should, develop opportunities for students to become
involved and experience challenges that will force them to move beyond their current level of
development (Coomes, 2005, p. 641). This concept is important to any professional working in
student affairs and is in line with the widely accepted student involvement theory provided by
Alexander Astin (1984).
There are many theories that confirm students who are involved in and out of the
classroom have a better chance of stretching themselves and developing more. A great
opportunity for students to get involved and learn would be to serve as a member of the Student
Behavior Committee. Ms. McDonald explained that two faculty members, two staff, and three
students make up the Student Behavior Committee (personal communication, November 12,
2008). The President appoints the faculty and staff positions and the Associated Students of the
University of Utah (ASUU) Student Body Officers appoint the students.
This appointment provides students with a great opportunity to learn about student
development and the Student Code. The process provides them with valuable experiences in
collaborating with many areas on campus, critical thinking, and analyzing situations. Because of
the importance of out of classroom learning, Coomes would recommend that this opportunity be
available to any interested student and not reserved just for student leaders in ASUU and their
8/9/2019 Judicial Affairs FINAl Paper
10/22
Judicial Affairs Program 10
associates. If all interested students had the opportunity to apply for this position, the committee
would benefit from having a more diverse student voice.
Coomes (2005) also recommended that students should have the opportunity to
participate in teachable moments:
Serving as a tutor in an adult literacy program, working with persons who are homeless
are all important teachable moments the students peer group is the single most potent
source of influence on growth and development during the undergraduate years. (p. 641)
As a consequence of violating the Code, students should be required to involve themselves
somewhere on campus. For example, if a student violates the alcohol policy, they should be
asked to participate in a support group for others who are struggling with alcohol addiction.
Community service is an excellent opportunity for students to make restitution for their violation
while teaching them important lessons about community engagement. All violations to the
Student Code should be treated as teachable moments for students.
Observation Five: Institutional policy must be proactive and based on sound theoretical and
ethical foundations
When looking at the University of Utah judicial affairs program, there is no theoretical
foundation that the judicial affairs process is based on. However, the universitys model is built
on a strong ethical foundation. Professional practice should be driven by the application of
reasoned explanations for the implementation of action (Coomes, 2005, p. 642). The hearing
officers feel it is important to communicate with the students openly and to build a relationship
with them. This is why all students are afforded the opportunity of due process, which gives
them the opportunity to be heard (L. McDonald, personal communication, November 12, 2008).
8/9/2019 Judicial Affairs FINAl Paper
11/22
Judicial Affairs Program 11
Having a theoretical foundation would give the hearing officers a better understanding of
what students are going through or where they are at in their lives. It is important to have
knowledge of different theories and to find a theory that fits into the mission of the department.
Every department on campus interacts with students differently and finding a theory or model
that fits the uniqueness of each office is essential. The Judicial Affairs Offices Student Conduct
Administration and Discipline (2008) document states (see Appendix B):
It is the Universitys intention that students who violate the Student Code learn from their
mistakes. The student behavior process is designed to be a part of a students educational
experience. Each conduct case is to be viewed separately and there is no set disciplinary
response for each incident. The variables of each case will dictate unique outcomes. (p. 1)
It is clear from reading this statement that the focus placed on students having an educational
experience through the judicial process is central. To help ensure that students have an
educational experience through this process, it is important to find out where a student is at in
their development. Each student develops at a different rate and by knowing the different stages
of development, it will increase the rate at which students successfully learn from their mistakes
and do not get in trouble again.
Observation Six: Institutional policy must be open to periodic review
The University of Utah has made six revisions (that could be found) to the Code of
Student Rights and Responsibilities (Student Code). The most recent revision was made
February 3, 2008 (http://www.regulations.utah.edu/academics/6-400.html). When doing
revisions for any document that is from the university, there is a process it goes through,
including the Academic Senate and the Board of Trustees. The Student Code is reviewed on a
regular basis and is revised and republished roughly once every two years.
8/9/2019 Judicial Affairs FINAl Paper
12/22
Judicial Affairs Program 12
Observation Seven: Institutional policy must be tied to the contextual dynamics of the particular
institutional setting
Coomes elaborates on his seventh observation by explaining that each institution should
be able to articulate how their processes encourage development and learning in their students.
When talking with Ms. McDonald, there was no explicit mention of any guiding theories used to
determine the outcomes of student cases. Perhaps with additional time, Ms. McDonald could
have outlined how the current policy of flexibility and educational opportunities is tied to the
particular context of the University of Utah.
Nevitt Sandfords Model of Challenge and Support
Ms. McDonald did, however, point out that her philosophy is to educate students while
upholding proper disciplinary action (L. McDonald, personal communication, November 12,
2008). This goal can be related to Nevitt Sanfords model ofSupport and Challenge. Support
and Challenge are evident when students try to lessen the tension produced by the collegiate
environment and succeed to the extent that environmental support is available (Evans, Forney,
& Guido-DiBrito, 1998, p. 7). When a student exhibits questionable behavior, it is most likely
because they are still adjusting to the college environment that has different rules than they might
be used to. With the proper education, support and guidance, each student is sure to adapt
successfully.
Recommendations
After much discussion about the method and theories used by the University of Utah, the
following recommendations are proposed. According to university policy when a student is
accepted and registers for their first class they have agreed to follow the University of Utah
Student Code. Current practice at the university is to include the Code as part of the course
8/9/2019 Judicial Affairs FINAl Paper
13/22
Judicial Affairs Program 13
catalog printed every two years. Students are directed to the Code and course catalog as part of
their orientation experience; however there is no requirement to read the Code and no follow-up
to ensure each student is familiar with the Code they agree to follow. We recommend that the
university provide more accessibility to the Student Code. This strategy could be accomplished
by emailing the Code to each student or by requiring students to read the Code before they can
register for classes.
Providing students with educational opportunities outside of the classroom is an
important part of the college experience. These opportunities can range from student activities to
faculty interaction to volunteering. In his theory of student involvement, Astin (1984) theorized:
Frequent interaction with faculty is more strongly related to satisfaction with college than
any other type of involvement or, indeed, any other student or institutional characteristic.
Students who interact frequently with faculty members are more likely than other
students to express satisfaction with all aspects of their institutional experience. (p. 294)
Our recommendation would be to extend involvement opportunities, such as serving on the
Student Behavior Committee, to all students. By only allowing the participants to be affiliated
with ASUU, many students are deprived of a great opportunity for learning and experience.
Many students are interested in pursuing a career in fields which require experience in critical
thinking and mediation. The Student Behavior Committee provides a great opportunity to gain
these experiences. By opening these three positions to any student who wants to apply, the
committee would experience the benefits of more diversity, consistency, and experience.
Lastly, we recommend the institution adopt a matrix that outlines violations and the
resulting sanctions. Currently the university reserves the right to decide consequences based on
individual cases or experiences. The benefits of having a matrix would be to ensure that the
8/9/2019 Judicial Affairs FINAl Paper
14/22
Judicial Affairs Program 14
institution treats all students fairly. It is also important that students develop of sense of personal
responsibility, as well as what is right and wrong.
An example of this type of matrix can be found at nearby Westminster College.
According to Westminster College (2008), if a student is found to have harassed another student
they will be required to participate in three counseling sessions (www.westminstercollege.edu).
In some cases, the outlined punishment may be excessive or not entirely appropriate for that
particular student, but having a matrix would provide the hearing officer with direction when
handling student code violations. After referencing the matrix that professionals could still retain
the authority and flexibility to treat individual students situations according to their unique and
individual nature.
Gary Pavela (2008), one of the nations leading experts in higher education law, has said
discretion is an important tool for keeping order. If students believe that their teachers and
administrators are unable to exercise any judgment, they are not likely to consider them people
they can confide in or trust (p. 6).
The university is a place where students should learn accountability and appropriate
behavior. As professionals, we have the responsibility to teach effective behavior and good
practices. Each student should understand the rules they have committed to adhere by and each
professional should understand how to effectively handle each violation; to ensure it is an
educational opportunity for all parties.
Limitations of Study
In talking with Ms. McDonald, it was clear that there are several processes in place to
ensure that students are treated equally and ethically. There are a few processes, however, that
we thought should receive further scrutiny. A few of the limitations are the absence of a
8/9/2019 Judicial Affairs FINAl Paper
15/22
Judicial Affairs Program 15
consequence matrix, undergraduate students serving on the Student Behavior Committee and
limited access and knowledge of the Student Code of Rights and Responsibilities.
When a violation of the Student Code is reported, the accused student is provided the
opportunity of due process, meaning the student is given the opportunity, not right, to be heard
(L. McDonald, personal communication, November 12, 2008). Following the students
description of events, the hearing officer and the student will decide what the most appropriate
course of action should be. Depending on the student conduct violation, the consequences each
student will face differ dramatically. At the University of Utah, there is currently no matrix for
determining which violation receives what consequence, which makes the judicial process
subjective and creates the possibility for inconsistency. A system such as this one allows for a
greater amount of flexibility and customization to a students particular situation, yet potentially
allows inconsistency between cases. A matrix or outline would at least afford some consistency
to the process.
Currently, there are three different administrators who serve as hearing officers. Even
though these professionals work in the same office at the same university, they are three unique
individuals who most likely view situations quite differently. To ensure some amount of internal
consistency, the three hearing officers meet weekly to discuss their cases. Additionally, the
hearing officers share insight and ideas as to how to handle certain behavioral issues. Their
responses to different cases might be more consistent and fair if there was a matrix that all three
referenced in their decision making.
There is also the concern of having a students peer(s) serving on the Student Behavior
Committee. This committee is in charge of hearing all appealed misconduct cases. Ms.
McDonald said that every precaution is taken to ensure that students serving on the Student
8/9/2019 Judicial Affairs FINAl Paper
16/22
Judicial Affairs Program 16
Behavior Committee, who may have intimate knowledge of a students case being appealed, are
replaced for the time being. Fairness is thus upheld in these situations. However, there is always
the risk of students encountering each other following a hearing in classes, clubs, or other student
activities. These situations could cause discomfort for both parties involved.
Furthermore, student appointments for the Student Behavior Committee serve a term of
one academic year; this allows for a low amount of consistency on the committee. Additionally,
due to the limited amount of resources available for student travel, student committee members
are rarely able to attend national student judicial conferences, such as the Association for Student
Judicial Affairs. By not attending this conference, students are not keeping abreast of current
issues facing college campuses and more importantly, how those issues are being resolved. This
information is vital to ensure fairness and equality when dealing with the Student Code.
Next, it appears that there is a limited knowledge of the Student Code of Rights and
Responsibilities among students. Currently, all students receive a printed copy of the Student
Code at orientation and are able to view the Code online at any time. Ms. McDonald predicts that
the University of Utah will soon provide the Code online only. Naturally, this action will save
the amount of paper that the office is required to distribute, yet might also limit the amount of
students who come in contact with the Code.
Another limitation of the current process is that since there are no explicit theories
guiding student misconduct practices, the program might change dramatically if one or all of the
hearing officers were to change. This leaves the program vulnerable to potential inconsistencies
from year to year.
A final limitation in the methodology of this study was that we were unable to interview
any students who have gone through the behavioral misconduct process because of
8/9/2019 Judicial Affairs FINAl Paper
17/22
Judicial Affairs Program 17
confidentiality policies. By not hearing a students perspective of the process, our knowledge has
been biased with respect to solely hearing an administrators point of view on the effectiveness
of the program.
Conclusion
By examining the judicial affairs process at the University of Utah, it is apparent that the
current system is working just fine. However, by viewing the process through Coomes seven
observations and Sanfords model ofChallenge and Support, it is simple to see that the process
could function in a more developmentally consistent format. The current hearing officers take
their charge to educate and advance students development seriously, but what will happen to
this department and its credibility when one or all of them leaves? Ms. McDonald has been in
the office for almost 18 years and there is no policy or matrix in place to ensure that her
foundation of flexible, developmentally educational processes will remain in her absence.
This department will continue to successfully foster a safe environment where students
are afforded the opportunity to take responsibility for their actions and the students will go
through the process none-the-wiser, but, as professionals scrutinizing the foundations of this
university department, they have a long way to go. Hopefully, the recommendations offered in
this study will someday help to build a new, stronger foundation for an important cog of the
university.
8/9/2019 Judicial Affairs FINAl Paper
18/22
Judicial Affairs Program 18
References
American Council on Education, Committee on Student Personnel Work. (E.G. Williamson,
Chair). (1949). The student personnel point of view (rev. ed.). (American Council on
Education Studies, Series 6, No. 13). Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
Astin, A.W. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal
of College Student Personnel, 25, 297-308.
Coomes, M. D. (2005). Using Student Development to Guide Institutional Policy. In Wilson, M.
E. & Wolf-Wendel, L. E,ASHE Reader on College Student Development Theory (pp.
635-646). Pearson Publishing.
Evans, N.J., Forney, D.S., & Guido-DiBrito, F. (1998). Student development in college. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
McDonald, L., personal communication, November 12, 2008.
OReilly, F. L., & Evans, R. D. (2007). Community: Calling students to be accountable.
Christian Higher Education, 6, 119-130.
Pascarella, E. & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). College Impact Models of Student Change.How
College Affects Students. (p. 50-61).
Pavela, Gary. (2008). Understanding Due Process: An overview for college administrators.Law
and Policy in Higher Education. Retrieved November 25, 2008, from
http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dfdpvzp9_678d29cr3f3.
Strange, C.C. (1994). Student development: The evolution and status of an essential idea.
Journal of College Student Development, 35, 399-412.
University of Utah. (n.d). Code of Student Rights and Responsibilities. Retrieved November 18,
2008, from http://www.regulations.utah.edu/academics/6-400.html.
8/9/2019 Judicial Affairs FINAl Paper
19/22
Judicial Affairs Program 19
University of Utah. (2008, November 18).Fast Facts: Autumn Semester 2008. Retrieved
November 23, 2008, fromhttp://www.obia.utah.edu/content/fastfacts.pdf.
University of Utah. (n.d.).Mission Statement. Retrieved November 23, 2008, from
http://www.admin.utah.edu/president/mission.html.
Westminster College. (2008). http://www.westminstercollege.edu
8/9/2019 Judicial Affairs FINAl Paper
20/22
Judicial Affairs Program 20
Appendix A
University of Utah Mission Statement
The mission of the University of Utah is to serve the people of Utah and the world
through the discovery, creation and application of knowledge; through the dissemination of
knowledge by teaching, publication, artistic presentation and technology transfer; and through
community engagement. As a preeminent research and teaching university with national and
global reach, the University cultivates an academic environment in which the highest standards
of intellectual integrity and scholarship are practiced. Students at the University learn from and
collaborate with faculty who are at the forefront of their disciplines. The University faculty and
staff are committed to helping students excel. We zealously preserve academic freedom, promote
diversity and equal opportunity, and respect individual beliefs. We advance rigorous
interdisciplinary inquiry, international involvement, and social responsibility.
8/9/2019 Judicial Affairs FINAl Paper
21/22
Judicial Affairs Program 21
Appendix B
8/9/2019 Judicial Affairs FINAl Paper
22/22
Judicial Affairs Program 22