SEAHO Report - Spring 2017 - 11

SEAHO Features
As they discuss their role on campus, we review the bystander effect, and how such opportunities for intervention present themselves on a university campus, and in the residence halls. We review the ways in which
complicity to a policy violation or concern reflects their values, and can present challenging ethical dilemmas.
Acknowledging the social impact of reporting policy violations is also important, and participants often discuss
how to focus on removing themselves from situations without breaking trust of their peers or risking their social
relationships. Most importantly, students are given a space to share with peers what's important to them, what
motivates them to be on-campus, and how the decisions they make matter. There is no prompted discussion
about the behaviors that resulted in their documentation through conduct, which contributes to an open and
judgment-free environment, but the students are able to demonstrate their learning through reflection in an
assignment after the workshop ends.
Implementing at Your Campus
As a practice, the Community Standards Workshop served an unmet need on our campus in the sanctioning
process. This year, we strived to bring this model to colleagues as an opportunity to provide something new for
their hearing officers in the sanctioning process by presenting our workshop at the Florida Housing Officers annual meeting and the SEAHO Annual Conference. We designed a step-by-step guide for the planning process,
ranging from a structural analysis of conduct on campus to as assessment of sanctioning gaps in current practice.
1. Structural Analysis
What does conduct look like at your institution? Who is responsible for approving updates to processes, such
as sanctioning? Understanding where a new sanction fits in your process is important before you put too much
work into a project that may not be implemented by your organization.
2. Needs Assessment
What kind of feedback do you collect about conduct? Are new sanctions needed? Do hearing officers have autonomy in assigning sanctions for their cases, or does your process require a certain sanction for each behavior?
Your hearing officers may have interesting perspective regarding how the process is (or isn't) working, and what
infractions seem to be overlooked or missing in the available sanctions.
3. Roles and Responsibilities
Using your structural analysis as a guide, determine who should be involved in planning and implementing the
workshop. What kind of staff are available for hosting or conducting the sessions? It's also important to consider whether or not you have a dedicated presenter or rotating staff to share the responsibility.
4. Training
What kind of training do your hearing officers receive? How are they guided through the sanctioning process,
and how does your department ensure that sanctions are meaningful and relevant? If you are going to encourage
your hearing officers to become involved in presenting the workshop, plan to allow enough time in training to
help them become effective facilitators and familiar with the goals and content.
5. Implementation
Once you have a plan for who needs to be in the room, you can start building a foundation for the content and
delivery. Are there human or departmental resources on your campus for curriculum design, campus reservations, and assessment? Set yourself a deadline and an intended schedule to work toward for hosting your first
session.
6. Assessment
As with any student affairs program or initiative, assessment is necessary. Good assessment begins with a plan
before the first interaction with students. What are your learning outcomes? What resources do you have avail-

SEAHO Report Spring 2017

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of SEAHO Report - Spring 2017