Revisions to the Student Disciplinary Procedures Based on Feedback

5/18/2017

We want to express our deep appreciation to the entire University community for carefully considering
our initial report and providing excellent comments on the proposed disciplinary system in Appendix V.
Your comments have been tremendously helpful and resulted in a series of significant substantive and
procedural improvements to the original disciplinary system summarized below. We believe that your
thoughtful contributions have produced a better document and, most important, a better system for the
University.

1. Statute 21

The current version of Statute 21 was adopted by the Council in May 2014 in response to the Strauss
Report, which called for a revision to Statute 21 and a revisiting of the 1970 all-University
disciplinary procedures for disruptive conduct.
Based on the thoughtful feedback of the faculty members who questioned why disruptive conduct
alone among infractions appears in the Statutes, the Committee recommends that a new faculty
committee be constituted in the autumn to consider revising Statute 21 from the Statutes and to
consider the appropriate scope of the definition of disruptive conduct. Such a change, which would
require the support of the Board of Trustees, would place defining, adjudicating, and disciplining
disruptive student conduct fully in the hands of the faculty.
In light of this recommendation, the Committee withdraws its previously proposed revisions to
Statute 21, thereby removing any reference to the concepts of aggregation across incidents and of
group of individuals.

2. Appointment of Disciplinary Committee Members

Under the 1970 procedures, the President has the authority to appoint faculty members on the
disciplinary committee.
In our revised procedures, faculty members on the disciplinary committee would be chosen by the
Provost in consultation with the Spokesperson of the Committee of the Council from current and
past members over the prior five years of the Council. The Council is the central organ of faculty
governance and is also the group charged with creating the disciplinary procedures for disruptive
conduct.

1. Presumption of Innocence
The presumption of innocence language, which appeared in the 1970 procedures, has been restored.

2. Confidentiality
The confidentiality rules from the first draft have been completely rewritten and dramatically
shortened. Restrictions previously proposed for students were removed; a note reminds students and
others that they may wish to respect the privacy rights conferred outside the University and (non-
University) defamation laws that may apply in a given situation.
Confidentiality granted to student records (as defined by the federal government in FERPA, the
Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act) applies only to the institution and those acting in an
official institutional capacity (e.g., administrators involved in the situation, faculty serving on the
disciplinary committee).
Consistent with other disciplinary procedures on our campus and consistent with the overwhelming
number of higher education institutions across the country (only Columbia allows them), public
hearings would not be permitted. The realities of FERPA, which did not exist when the current
 procedure was adopted, makes a public hearing unworkable. We believe that faculty members are
unlikely to be willing to participate in open hearings and attracting broad faculty participation in
these hearings is essential for the process to function effectively.

3. Role of an Attorney
Students may hire and be advised by an attorney, who may be present to assist and support the
student before, during, and after the disciplinary proceeding.
Consistent with the Universitys other disciplinary systems and those at almost all of our peer
institutions, an attorney may not speak on behalf of a student at a disciplinary proceeding.

4. Support Person
Even under the best of circumstances, disciplinary procedures can be intimidating for students, who
typically come to the procedures knowing little about how the procedures operate.
To try to address that, the University will provide a list of advisors/support people familiar with
University policies from whom a student may (but need not) select one. In a situation where one
student has complained about another student, both may select an individual from this pool.
The existence of this pool will also help to mitigate concerns that students with less access to
financial resources are particularly at risk from a disciplinary process where they lack access to
trusted advisors.
The advisor may not speak on behalf of a student at a disciplinary proceeding.
No student is required to choose an advisor from this pool. A student is free to choose a University
person from outside this pool. A student may choose an advisor from this pool (or from outside it) in
addition to hiring and being advised by an attorney.

5. Sanctions Options and Tone

The Committee wholeheartedly agrees with the Strauss Reports formulation that dissent and
protest are integral to the life of the Universityandshould be affirmatively welcomed, not
merely tolerated by the University. Language to that effect has been added to the first page of the
revised document.
Of the sanctions, only suspension and expulsion appear on a students transcript, and we anticipate
that such sanctions will be rarely used.
Revocation of a degree is no longer on the list of possible sanctions.

6. Delay the Vote in order to Discuss Disruptive Conduct & Discipline Broadly
The Committee believes that the 2016-17 year of deliberations, discussions within and outside the
Committee, and the valuable faculty feedback incorporated into the substantially revised draft
disciplinary procedures address the concerns expressed. The Committee does not believe that more
time is necessary, though the members do recommend that the University exercise special care in
consulting with those who served on these disciplinary committees, should any be convened in the
upcoming year, to solicit feedback and advice about clarifications and modifications.
Delaying the vote would mean starting this process over with a new Council next year. We have
been before the Council this year three times on this topicMay 23rd will be the fourth timeand
there has been an extended amount of deliberation both inside and outside the Council. The Council
has a range of important issues that it needs to deal with and Council time is scarce. To us at least, it
seems time for a vote in the Council.
In addition, the Council will review the revised disciplinary system not later than the Spring Quarter,
2020 to evaluate how it has worked over that period.