Talking Stick - March/April 2015 - 63

 60  CONTINUeD

CONVERSATIONS

is each other. We are constantly in
communication and talking about
situations and cases as they come up.
We also use Maxient as our conduct
database, which helps us track the case
management.
TS: One would assume that a
centralized system leads to more
prescribed outcomes and less
autonomy in judgments. Is this
perception true? How do you think
most staff feel about that? Students?

Sukys: Yes and no. We do have a
standardized sanction cut sheet that
makes our outcomes more prescribed;
however, there is a lot of wiggle room
within that sheet. As hearing officers
for residence life, we are able to make
decisions based on what we see in the
case. We are trusted to make decisions
that allow the student to have an
educational experience if they come
through the conduct process.
Compton: I think that's a fair
perception; however, even in a
decentralized system, hearing officers
are constantly trying to find the
correct balance between consistency
and fairness. Our guidelines provide
ranges of sanctions to help hearing
officers, but they can go outside
of those guidelines if they feel it's
appropriate and can articulate that
reasoning. I think staff, particularly
housing staff, where conduct is not
their full-time job, find some comfort
in knowing what the expectations are
and what is typical. I also think there
are folks who wish they had a lot more
flexibility.

Harris: Yes, the centralized system
leads to more prescribed outcomes.
However, depending on the incident
and meeting with the student the
outcome is not always cut and dried.
The purpose of sanctions is to educate
the student. Therefore, the students
can receive an educational component
with their sanctions or just educational
assignments they must complete
within a certain amount of time.

Krikau: Yes. I think for many of our
entry-level staff there is comfort in
this because, frankly, the first year
of hearing cases can be scary and
overwhelming. The two directorlevel employees who are involved in
student conduct processes consult with
each other and with me frequently
regarding decisions. When I first
arrived here, there was a perception
from some students that there were
no conduct processes because conduct
was completely decentralized to each
residence hall director.
TS: There have been many high-profile
cases in recent years where campus
conduct officers are hearing cases far
more severe than alcohol violations
or property damage. How do you
think that might affect how conduct is
approached in the future?

Krikau: Frankly, this is scary.
In my opinion, hearing officers
adjudicating sexual assault, violence,
and threatening behavior cases
should have that work be the majority
of their position description. The
training and legal issues involved are
complex, with case law continually
informing best practices, and they
require consistent attention. These
cases should not be heard with
limited wisdom on Title IX guidance,
current case law interpretation, and
training in educational adjudication
and sanctioning. In order for these
cases to be heard appropriately
and with confidence, they are best
handled through a centralized and
documented process. The alternative is
to confuse students and to muddle or
obfuscate our own processes, leading
to capricious and untenable positions
that put our students and institutions
at undue risk.

remove students from the university.
As a field we have an opportunity to
try new things and to make things
better. I do think our processes will
be impacted by state legislation and
actions (e.g., North Carolina in 2013
approving a bill to allow students to
have legal representation, not just in
an advisory role, in a conduct process
that may result in separation).

Compton: While it may be more
widespread currently, I don't feel
this is a recent trend. In my 15 years
in student conduct, across several
institutions, we have always dealt
with things like assault, distribution
of drugs, and sexual misconduct.
The heightened scrutiny and federal
guidance related to sexual assault and
sexual misconduct on campuses has
impacted our processes. The stakes are
high, and it's important to get it right.
There has been a backlash against
student conduct dealing with what
are seen as criminal issues while at
the same time our obligation to do
so has never been more clear. I am
seeing more and more institutions
steer away from hiring student
affairs professionals to direct conduct
offices. Instead, some institutions are
opting for folks trained as attorneys.
It's a natural response to our work
becoming more and more the focus
of legal mandates, but I think the
solution is not in switching to staffs of
attorneys but instead better preparing
our graduate students to read,
understand, and interpret policy and
law. 

We're just getting started. Read the complete
transcript of this conversation at
www.acuho-i.org/talkingstickonline.

Kogan: Conduct processes are a
developmental tool for college and
university administrators to assist
in educating students outside the
classroom. Conduct staff are not out
to get students, nor is it our goal to
MARCH + APRIL 2015

63
http://www.acuho-i.org/talkingstickonline
Talking Stick - March/April 2015

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Talking Stick - March/April 2015
