The Journal of College and University Student Housing - Volume 45, No. 2 - 16

Amy N. Miele * Florence A. Hamrick

Hight, & Mesirow, 2018; Cheng, 2004), development (Kuh, 1995), and persistence (Peltier,
Laden, & Matranga, 1999). As a result, a
number of student conduct professionals have
chosen to complement formal adjudication
processes with alternative dispute resolution
approaches (ADR) or to implement targeted ADR conduct processes (Katz & Kovack,
2016)-particularly in cases of substantive
community standards violations such as
alcohol violations or vandalism (Knott, 2016).
While writing a comprehensive history
of the student conduct field in the United
States is well outside the scope of this article,
some relevant historical highlights merit attention. During the early period of American
colonial colleges, students were young, 14 or
so (Durnin, 1961), and student misconduct
was typically handled by faculty and/or the
college president (Dannells, 1997; Durnin,
1961; Waryold & Lancaster, 2008). These
college representatives-in accordance with in
loco parentis, or institutional responsibility for
students' well-being and discipline (Bowden,
2007; Waryold & Lancaster, 2008)-assigned
punishments such as fines, loss of privileges,
extra assignments, suspension, or expulsion.
Expulsion in particular often barred students
from enrolling at another colonial college
(Dannells, 1997; Smith, 1994). However, the
most common punishments for misconduct
were physical beatings (Dannells, 1997; Karp
& Frank, 2015; Smith, 1994). In the post-Civil
War period, faculty became more identified
with their research and scholarship responsibilities, and college presidents began to hire
deans of men and/or deans of women who
were assigned responsibility for student discipline (Dannells, 1997; Smith, 1994; Waryold &

16

Lancaster, 2008). Over time, these deans began
to treat misconduct as an educational opportunity that called for focusing on students' moral
and ethical development (Dannells, 1997).
Arguably, the fundamental shift in student
conduct came in 1961 with the U.S. Supreme
Court ruling in Dixon v. Alabama State Board
of Education. In this case, 29 students from
Alabama State College (now Alabama State
University, a public historically Black institution) participated in a sit-in after they were
denied service at a local lunch counter that
served only Whites. Alabama State College expelled nine students (and placed the other 20
on probation) without providing (1) notification
of the disciplinary charges, (2) opportunities
for the students to state their reasons and perspectives, and (3) meetings or hearings with the
students prior to levying the sanctions (Dixon
v. Alabama State Board of Education, 1961). The
court decision affirmed students' rights to due
process, which in this case had been violated.
In the wake of this decision, the doctrine of in
loco parentis-which had been under question
for some time-ended, and public colleges and
universities began to create disciplinary processes that provided due process to students
(many private colleges also followed suit). Consequently, deans of men, deans of women, or
deans of students became student conduct
professionals charged with ensuring students'
due process rights on behalf of the college or
university while holding students accountable
for conduct violations, maintaining educational
aspects of disciplinary processes and sanctions,
(Nestor & Lowery, 2018; Stoner & Lowery, 2004;
Waryold & Lancaster, 2008), and attending to
both individual needs and community well-being (Forry, DiBartolo, & Dixon, 2018).

THE JOURNAL OF COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY STUDENT HOUSING
The Journal of College and University Student Housing - Volume 45, No. 2

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of The Journal of College and University Student Housing - Volume 45, No. 2
