The spring 2014 semester at the University of Idaho has seen several critical issues debated across campus — from changes in the tobacco policy to whether or not students should be allowed to carry concealed firearms on campus. Another of these issues, brought to light late last semester, is the expansion of UI’s Student Code of Conduct jurisdiction to include off-campus violations.
Members of Sigma Nu and a member of neighboring Delta Gamma relax outside Sigma Nu Monday night.
Students were first informed through an email about the expansion, which was later confirmed, and the new policy went into effect Feb. 1.
“If the student’s behavior does not violate the student code of conduct, they have absolutely nothing to worry about,” said Craig Chatriand, associate dean of students. “The second piece of that is that it has to have a negative impact on the university, and after looking at all sorts of policies that’s the most common language that is out there.”
In other words, if a UI student breaks the code of conduct off campus, and the university decides that action was harmful to the interests of the university, then that student may see repercussions through a university investigation and review process. Chatriand said that students charged with violating the code of conduct would have the chance to voice their side of the story and dispute whether or not their behavior is actually in violation of the code of conduct, or to argue that it did not have a negative effect on the university.
Previously, Chatriand said, UI’s policy only applied only to instances of sexual assault, rape or sexual misconduct that happened off campus, but after new recommendations made by UI’s Alcohol Task Force last spring, the groundwork was laid for the expansion of the jurisdiction policy to start in the spring semester of the current academic year.
“The changes that were made late last semester have jurisdiction for all violations of the student code of conduct for off-campus behavior, as well,” Chatriand said.
Chatriand said that since the implementation of the new jurisdiction policy, certain kinds of misconduct have been brought to his attention that UI would not have been able to do anything about before.
“One of the issues with that is in terms of what gets reported to the university,” Chatriand said. “The biggest change is that we’ve had several instances of interpersonal violence or battery come to us from off campus that normally I don’t think we would have.”
While all students are treated equally under the student code of conduct, this only applies if the matter is reported to UI authorities. In the residence halls, for example, staff members are required to report misconduct, but houses in the Greek system might choose to handle misconduct internally.
“Any violation that’s reported to us, we deal with, whether it’s in a residence hall or the Greek system,” Chatriand said. “This should have no greater or lesser impact on Greek houses than anywhere else.”
The idea of universities having jurisdiction in cases of misconduct that happen away from campus is not a new one. Chatriand said most regional universities, such as Washington State University and University of Montana, already have similar policies in place, and that UI was an anomaly before this spring.
“We’re going to talk to (other universities) to see how they’ve applied their off-campus jurisdiction,” Chatriand said. “I think as we move forward, people are going to see how it affects them. There might be a little bit of a transition period, but I think students will get used to it pretty quickly.”
Codes at other universities
Melynda Huskey, dean of students at WSU, said that WSU’s policy is largely to the benefit of both its students and the university itself, which partners with local police and the City of Pullman to make sure that they are kept in the loop when an investigation involving WSU students occurs.
“Like a lot of larger institutions in smaller towns, we have a closer relationship,” Huskey said.
To this end, WSU’s Office of Student Accountability, campus police and the Pullman Police Department hold weekly integration meetings.
“It can be a really powerful tool to cultivate the relationship between the university and the city,” Huskey said.
This cooperation between the university and the city is done voluntarily on the part of WSU, Huskey said, to make sure that everyone is represented fairly and the students get the attention they deserve. She said this is done because it can be easy for small details in an individual case to slip through the cracks when so many groups are involved.
Unlike UI, which has only recently expanded its jurisdiction policy, similar policies at WSU and other universities in Washington have been regulated by a uniform state code for years.
“We’re in a slightly different position because our university codes are part of the Washington administrative code,” Huskey said. “We’re required to update it every three years, but these changes have been minor.”
If a student were to violate the code of conduct, Huskey said, there is a procedure in place depending on the type and severity of the violation. The student may have their case brought up at a conduct hearing made up of university staff, and they have the right to be notified in advance should such a hearing take place. She said the entire process is a pretty common practice at many major universities, and she was unable to think of any specific examples in which WSU students were negatively impacted by the off-campus jurisdiction policy.
“I think individual students may well not be satisfied with the outcome of their individual student conduct cases, but I don’t think they’d be dissatisfied with the process,” Huskey said. “We try to be as transparent as possible with how the code works. Our goal is to be educational and informative for students.”
WSU’s jurisdiction policy is carried out by the Office of Student Standards and Accountability (SSA), referred to as the “executional arm” of the university by its director, Adam Jussel, who took the job in 2013.
SSA makes sure that students have a voice in matters related to the code of conduct, and that students who are involved in misconduct have a chance to tell their side of the story. SSA is called in whenever the actions of a student adversely affect the university or the larger Pullman community, whether they happen on or off campus.
SSA also places educational sanctions on those students, when applicable. This may be as punishment for violations such as physical assault, disregard of campus safety rules or campus drug policy, or for breaking the law at the state, local or federal level.
“If a member of the Pullman community makes some sort of a claim at our office, we will investigate it,” Jussel said. “We at least look into it.”
SSA and the jurisdiction policy at WSU make a difference when it comes to the involvement of campus authorities, Jussel said, using the hypothetical example of a student who received a DUI. At other universities, city police may never inform campus authorities of the incident, but at WSU, Jussel’s office would be notified.
“I would say (the cooperation) is extremely effective,” Jussel said. “We’re always working to foster those relationships in a way that’s more proactive than reactive.”
One of the main areas of concern for SSA, Jussel said, is being certain that students understand their rights and responsibilities at WSU. Among other activities, WSU provides educational seminars on hazing prevention for Greek students, and they post a copy of the school’s mission statement and student handbook online for anyone to see.
The critical part of WSU’s jurisdiction policy is section WAC 504-26-200, which outlines the responsibility of the student and states that the student standards of conduct apply to all university premises, university sponsored activities and off-campus conduct that adversely affects the university or the pursuit of university objectives.
There is not, however, a list of items that explain these adverse impacts of student behavior in detail. Generally speaking, if a student is not breaking the rules outlined in the rest of the handbook, they won’t get in any trouble, but WSU also has sole discretion over what does and does not constitute a violation of the code of conduct.
“It’s interesting, because I originally looked at it and thought, ‘that’s vague.’ But now I look at it through experience, and it’s kind of like a smell test,” Jussel said.
Jussel said the university prefers to have some discretion over conduct violations, because it allows them to look at each situation individually, and make a decision based on the merit of each case.
When dealing with the Greek system, for example, how a conduct violation is handled can depend on whether an individual or chapter leadership is involved. Potential repercussions for a chapter as a whole, or merely individuals within the chapter, can be more easily sorted out on a case-by-case basis, and the fluidity of the jurisdiction policy allows for this.
“I wouldn’t say we get a frequent amount, but I would say over my tenure here, there have been several cases that require that kind of nuance,” Jussel said.
Overall, Jussel said, the focus of SSA and the WSU jurisdiction policy is not to punish, but simply to fulfill the obligation of the university to investigate instances of student misconduct in Pullman in a fair and balanced way.
Another factor to consider, as is the case at UM, is whether or not a student’s behavior breaks the law.
“My understanding is that if the misconduct takes place off campus, then it doesn’t fall under the jurisdiction of the student conduct code,” said Claudia Eccles, associate legal counsel at UM. “The only off-campus behavior that’s adjudicated on campus under the student conduct code, as a violation of the student conduct code, is if it’s a violation of Montana law or federal law.”
This could also apply to past criminal offenses, Eccles said, since it is common practice for universities to screen applicants and require full disclosure of past criminal activities. If a potential student has been convicted of a sexual crime, or is under some kind of probation or other criminal prosecution, this could affect their enrollment eligibility.
“This has been, quite honestly, long established at the university before I got here, and I’ve been here eight years,” Eccles said. “It could be, and I don’t know that this is the case here, but it could be that universities don’t want to have a convicted felon as a student at their institution.”
If there is a violation of the student code of conduct at UM, Eccles said, the investigation process starts with the dean of students, who decides whether or not there is actually a violation. If there is, the case can then go through a hearing process in which the student is brought before a review board made up of other students and faculty members. The case is ultimately settled by the review board, and if necessary, academic sanctions are made — a process that is similar to those at UI and WSU.
In the end, while there are some specific circumstances where things may be different on a case-by-case basis, such as the severity of the infraction, the impact on the university and the possibility of an infraction being settled before it is ever reported to university authorities, the overall framework of the new jurisdiction policy only brings UI in line with other regional institutions, and Chatriand said he would be happy to sit down with individual students or student organizations to explain the ins and outs of the code of conduct, and the new jurisdiction policy.
“I do think that as students talk to students from other institutions, they’ll find it does not have an adverse effect,” Chatriand said. “If you don’t violate the student code of conduct, you’ll have nothing to worry about.”
Daniel Durand can be reached at [email protected]