Talking Stick - January/February 2009 - (Page 45)

each infraction. On paper, it looked very efficient. However, Hobgood challenged the hall directors to consider its practical application, noting that, in practice, the model might not account for contextual variables, things that would be unique to each individual’s situation – and this could make a consistent outcome incongruent with the offense. Rather than being an overly rigid or structured model, the accountability system should allow the residence life department some latitude in dealing with individual violations. It should ensure due process for each student staff member and should give the housing department flexibility in coordinating with the student conduct office. It’s also important to continue scrutinizing the system to make sure that it is reasonable, workable, appropriate, and fair. As Glenn Weppler, director of student community life at Ryerson University in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, notes, “Anytime a rule is broken, it’s crucial to do the investigation before we make a decision: We would much rather give feedback, learn from the situation, accept the consequences, and move forward.” Coordination between the housing department and the student conduct office can help with the difficult task of determining if an offense requires a job action (such as dismissal) or a conduct action (such as attending a substance abuse program). Dealing with student staff who violate the code of conduct or local, state, or federal law requires a partnership, so that both offices will be able to say clearly, “We were able to hold this person accountable.” Though some situations may be handled strictly as a job action, other more severe ones may result in a student staff member both losing their job and going through the student conduct process. Lucinda PoudrierAaronson, director of housing and residential life at the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, stresses the importance of seeing these more serious violationS in the context of the entire residential community: “Student staff members have more to lose than the average resident, but if their actions have direct impact on the residential community then I believe they should be held accountable both through the judicial system as well as employment sanctions.” may be required. In this case, there is still a responsibility to facilitate an educational outcome for the student staff member, but the responsibility to the overall integrity of the system becomes even greater. This is because student staff members, who act as role models and as community stewards, are instruments of accountability within the greater community. The dual action sends a more serious message: “We’re not going to let you continue in your role because you don’t understand our expectations, but we care about you as a person and want to educate you so you can still be a productive member of our campus community.” The most important consideration when dealing with these more serious violations is ensuring that the student staff member does not see the job action and conduct action as the same process. If both are necessary, the student staff member must understand that they are different processes: One addresses the performance of a student employee, while the other addresses the behavior of a member of the campus community. educational benefits When handling a student staff violation, it is important to consider two questions: (a) What is most educationally beneficial to the student? and (b) What action best promotes the overall integrity of the institution’s culture of accountability? Again, what’s at the heart of a developmental or educational approach is that the consequences involve a learning experience for the offender, forcing them to see their actions in a larger context, whether that’s the residential or the campus community. Any student staff member who violates the code should, in Hobgood’s words, ultimately be able to “understand the expectations of oneself, understand one’s role as a staff member, and recommit to that role with the recognition of the chance to do better next time.” In some cases, job action alone may best serve the student and the larger community. When the violation is more serious or more public, both a job action and a conduct action January + February 2009 5

Table of Contents Feed for the Digital Edition of Talking Stick - January/February 2009

Talking Stick - January/February 2009 Contents Online Now Vision Just In Your ACUHO-I Transitions Res Life Facilities Business Special Focus Calendar Assessing Assignments On Your Honor Conversations First Takes Reporting Out Welcome Snapshot

Talking Stick - January/February 2009

For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.