judicial affairs final paper

8/9/2019 Judicial Affairs FINAl Paper

1/22

Judicial Affairs Program 1

Analysis of College Student Development Theory

as it Relates to the Judicial Affairs Department

at the University of Utah

Anna Adams, Trisha Jensen, Aimee Frost, & Andrew Stone

University of Utah

ELP 6620: College Student Development Theory

Fall 2008


2/22


Introduction to Judicial Affairs

Judicial Affairs is a key component to Student Affairs. Through judicial meetings,

hearing officers are able to help students reflect on poor decisions they have made. Officers are

also able to individualize education to better suit the student and assist them in being better

informed about university policies. College years function as something of a developmental

testing ground between adolescence and adulthood, a time to examine and test new roles,

attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors, a time when an individual can give full attention to change and

development (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991, p. 58). Hearing officers should be challenging

students by holding them accountable for their actions, while still providing the support needed

for them to develop.

The purpose of this paper is to critically analyze Judicial Affairs at the University of Utah

using student development theory. After doing extensive research and interviewing Ms. Lori

McDonald, Assistant Dean of Students at the University of Utah, we have concluded that it may

be beneficial to adjust the current policy and process used by this department.

Overview of the University of Utahs Judicial Affairs Department

Student judicial affairs professionals are challenged with creating policies and processes

for discipline that both foster a sense of community and help students make connections between

what they learn and how they live (OReilly & Evans, 2007, p. 121). OReilly and Evans (2007)

also state the discipline process must be seen as developmental while prompting students to

learn the reality of accountability (p. 121). It is through the judicial affairs process that students

are better able to understand how their community is affected by their actions. Students are held

accountable for their actions and, through the judicial process, are given another chance to be a

successful part of the community.


3/22


Institutional Context

The University of Utah is the states largest and oldest institutions. It offers over 100

undergraduate programs and more than 90 graduate programs to over 28,000 students

(http://www.obia.utah.edu/content/fastfacts.pdf). As seen in their mission statement, the

University of Utah is dedicated to education and the process of learning (see Appendix A), the

University faculty and staff are committed to helping students excel. We zealously preserve

academic freedom, promote diversity and equal opportunity, and respect individual beliefs. We

advance rigorous interdisciplinary inquiry, international involvement, and social responsibility.

The mission shows that the Dean of Students Office, where Judicial Affairs is housed, is on the

right track by educating students through the judicial process.

Department History and Dynamics

Judicial Affairs has been housed in the Dean of Students Office for at least the past 18

years (L. McDonald, personal communication, November 12, 2008). This is as long as Ms.

McDonald has been employed by this office. There are three hearing officers that handle the

initial, more informal judicial meeting with students who have been accused of a violation. The

three officers are the Dean of Students, Annie Nebeker Christensen, Associate Dean of Students,

Lori McDonald, and Assistant Dean of Students, Jay Wilgus (L. McDonald, personal

communication, November 12, 2008).

After meeting informally with the hearing officer, a student can either accept their

suggested sanction or, if they cannot come to an agreement, the student is referred to the Student

Behavior Committee, which is made up of two students, two faculty and two staff members. The

faculty and staff appointments are made by the Presidents Office, but recommendations can be


4/22


made by the Dean of Students Office. Faculty and staff are appointed for a three year term, while

students serve for only one year.

Methodology of Research

An informational interview was conducted with the Associate Dean of Students, Lori

McDonald to gather information and insight about the current judicial process. We inquired

about all aspects pertaining to behavioral student misconduct, which is processed in the Dean of

Students Office. Additionally, there are two other areas of student misconduct that occur on

campus: academic misconduct and residential living misconduct. Each of these areas are

processed through their respective departments. For the purposes of this paper, we focused

specifically on behavioral misconduct.

In order to analyze this area comprehensively, Michael D. Coomes article Using Student

Development to Guide Institutional Policy and Nevitt Sanfords model ofSupport and Challenge

was referenced. These two resources provided a wealth of knowledge pertinent to student

conduct issues.

Summary of Development Models used as Lens for Analysis

Each of Coomes seven observations were used to evaluate the University of Utahs

judicial process. Sanfords model of Challenge and Support was also used as an additional

theoretical lens with which to view the process.

Observation One: Institutional policy must be general and flexible

Coomes first observation describes the importance of having continual respect for all

students as individuals:

Developmentally, students differ in the tasks they undertake during their lives (and their

collegiate careers); in the way they interpret and make meaning of their experiences and


5/22


the world; in the stylistic approaches they utilize for resolving the challenges of learning,

growth and development. (Coomes, 2005, p. 638)

The variations between students also include their gender, race, ethnicity and sexual

orientation (Coomes, 2005, p. 638). At the University of Utah, the judicial process is an

excellent example of this first observation.

From our interview it was apparent that Ms. McDonald recognizes the differences in the

campus population at the University of Utah and this fact is reflected in the steps involved in the

campus judicial process. There is no formal model or matrix in place to outline violations and

the resultant sanctions. Any student being accused of a violation is sent a letter to request they

make an appointment with the hearing officer assigned to the case. Students are not required to

make an appointment; however it is in their best interest because it affords them the chance to be

heard. If this opportunity is taken by the student and the hearing officer decides that a violation

has been committed, the hearing officer will then work with the student to formulate an

appropriate sanction for the violation.

The University of Utahs lack of a judicial matrix allows the hearing officer to mold the

process as an educational experience, instead of a punitive process. This lack of structure to

allow the flexibility to educate is not a new idea. The revised version of the Student Personnel

Point of View (American Council on Education, 1949) suggests that, when the need for social

discipline does arise, the college should approach the problem as a special phase of counseling in

the development of self-responsibility for behavior rather than in a spirit of punishment of

misbehavior (p. 25). Not all students will respond the same to the same sanctions, so it is

important that the hearing officer has the flexibility to work one-on-one with the student to


6/22


design a sanction that will serve as an educational and developmental benefit to that particular

student (L. McDonald, personal communication, November 12, 2008).

Observation Two: Institutional policy must treat students as adults by emphasizing student

responsibility

Coomes second observation is philosophically echoed in the Student Personnel Point of

View, 1949: the student is thought of as a responsible participant in his [or her] own

development and not as a passive recipient of an imprinted economic, political, or religious

doctrine, or vocation skill (American Council on Education, 1949, p. 17). Coomes (2005)

questions whether universities are still implementing in loco parentis ideology by making

decisions in the best interest of students without first checking with students (p. 639).

The University of Utah attempts to avoid making decisions for the student by ensuring

that each student accused of a violation is afforded due process. By sending the student an

invitation to participate in an informal judicial proceeding with the hearing officer, the university

is placing the responsibility of follow through in the adult hands of the student. If the student

does not respond to the invitation in a timely fashion, the hearing officer can proceed with the

investigation and make a decision about the case without the students voice. By allowing

students the choice to come forward and take responsibility for their actions and the

consequences, the university is acknowledging students responsibility and freedom of choice

(Coomes, 2005, p.639).

Coomes (2005) points out that there is no guarantee that empowering students as adults

will result in adult behavior (p. 640). Acknowledging that there is no guarantee, the university

tracks students and their code violations to ensure that repeat offenses are not handled as first


7/22


time infractions. Not having a matrix to outline violations and the resulting sanctions may give

the impression that the university is not treating students as adults.

If a student repeatedly violates the alcohol policy, there may be a point when writing an

essay or taking an alcohol addiction course comes across as coddling the student. It may benefit

the university and its students to institute a matrix or schedule for number of infractions and

educational restitutions. This would allow the hearing officer the freedom to work with the

student to create developmental sanctions, but also give them the influence to show students the

repercussions of not taking the process seriously.

Observation Three: Institutional policy must be inclusive of differences

Through his research Coomes observed that because of the racial and ethnic diversity of

students, institutional policy makers must be cognizant of these differences and refrain from

developing policies that support only the values and norms of the dominant culture (Coomes,

2005, p. 640). From the interview with Ms. McDonald, it is apparent that the University of Utah

has adopted this theory. According to Ms. McDonald, she would be very hesitant to mandate any

matrix of consequences for violations of the Student Code, because every student is different,

and each violation is different (personal communication, November 12, 2008). She mentioned

that she did not want to be tied down by a policy when each sanction or consequence should be

tailored to each individual students experience.

Every opportunity for learning should be tailored to each students experience and

understanding. The difficulty with not having a standard matrix is that some students may

develop a misunderstanding of how rules and laws function off campus. If a law is violated off

campus, the student will receive a consequence which fits the crime. On campus, when the

Student Code is violated, one might receive suspension and another might write a paper for the


8/22


same violation. Ms. McDonald said that if a student comes in willing to admit their mistake and

wants to work with her, she is usually more lenient. On the other hand, if a student comes in with

a violation and will not take responsibility, they might receive a much tougher sanction. This

strategy makes sense in a campus community, however off campus students will be held

accountable to laws, regardless of race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or feelings of remorse.

Observation Four: Institutional policy must encourage involvement across a range of activities

that encompasses both the in-class and out-of-class lives of students

According to research performed by Strange (1994), growth in students occurs:

When students are ready to face challenges, are provided with adequate (but not stifling)

support to meet those challenges, and are forced to interact with their environment. It is

incumbent on colleges to offer students opportunities to stretch beyond their current level

of development while providing adequate support structures to assist students as they

strive to accomplish new and difficult tasks. (p. 401)

One of the first challenges students will encounter when they begin their college career is how to

deal with the new freedom and lack of perceived supervision. For many students, this is their

first time away from home and setting up their own rules and responsibilities is often neglected.

The neglect of this responsibility can lead to a violation of the Student Code, thus landing them

in Dean of Students Office.

Instead of simply accepting that this is just a natural transition to adulthood, student

conduct programs should look for ways to teach effective responsibility to students before they

run into trouble. One way to do this is to ensure that each student has read or is at least aware of

the Student Code they have committed to follow. Ms. McDonald explained that when a student

comes to the university, they are agreeing to follow the Student Code. She explained that the


9/22


Code is online for students to read and they are encouraged to read it when they attend

orientation (personal communication, November 12, 2008).

To help curtail the number of students who violate the Code, the university should take a

more proactive role in publicizing it. If students are required to obey certain rules, but not be

provided with the policy that outlines those standards, then they are simply being encouraged to

embrace the lack of responsibility and educational opportunities that Strange (1994) outlines.

Coomes proposed that institutions should, develop opportunities for students to become

involved and experience challenges that will force them to move beyond their current level of

development (Coomes, 2005, p. 641). This concept is important to any professional working in

student affairs and is in line with the widely accepted student involvement theory provided by

Alexander Astin (1984).

There are many theories that confirm students who are involved in and out of the

classroom have a better chance of stretching themselves and developing more. A great

opportunity for students to get involved and learn would be to serve as a member of the Student

Behavior Committee. Ms. McDonald explained that two faculty members, two staff, and three

students make up the Student Behavior Committee (personal communication, November 12,

2008). The President appoints the faculty and staff positions and the Associated Students of the

University of Utah (ASUU) Student Body Officers appoint the students.

This appointment provides students with a great opportunity to learn about student

development and the Student Code. The process provides them with valuable experiences in

collaborating with many areas on campus, critical thinking, and analyzing situations. Because of

the importance of out of classroom learning, Coomes would recommend that this opportunity be

available to any interested student and not reserved just for student leaders in ASUU and their


10/22


associates. If all interested students had the opportunity to apply for this position, the committee

would benefit from having a more diverse student voice.

Coomes (2005) also recommended that students should have the opportunity to

participate in teachable moments:

Serving as a tutor in an adult literacy program, working with persons who are homeless

are all important teachable moments the students peer group is the single most potent

source of influence on growth and development during the undergraduate years. (p. 641)

As a consequence of violating the Code, students should be required to involve themselves

somewhere on campus. For example, if a student violates the alcohol policy, they should be

asked to participate in a support group for others who are struggling with alcohol addiction.

Community service is an excellent opportunity for students to make restitution for their violation

while teaching them important lessons about community engagement. All violations to the

Student Code should be treated as teachable moments for students.

Observation Five: Institutional policy must be proactive and based on sound theoretical and

ethical foundations

When looking at the University of Utah judicial affairs program, there is no theoretical

foundation that the judicial affairs process is based on. However, the universitys model is built

on a strong ethical foundation. Professional practice should be driven by the application of

reasoned explanations for the implementation of action (Coomes, 2005, p. 642). The hearing

officers feel it is important to communicate with the students openly and to build a relationship

with them. This is why all students are afforded the opportunity of due process, which gives

them the opportunity to be heard (L. McDonald, personal communication, November 12, 2008).


11/22


Having a theoretical foundation would give the hearing officers a better understanding of

what students are going through or where they are at in their lives. It is important to have

knowledge of different theories and to find a theory that fits into the mission of the department.

Every department on campus interacts with students differently and finding a theory or model

that fits the uniqueness of each office is essential. The Judicial Affairs Offices Student Conduct

Administration and Discipline (2008) document states (see Appendix B):

It is the Universitys intention that students who violate the Student Code learn from their

mistakes. The student behavior process is designed to be a part of a students educational

experience. Each conduct case is to be viewed separately and there is no set disciplinary

response for each incident. The variables of each case will dictate unique outcomes. (p. 1)

It is clear from reading this statement that the focus placed on students having an educational

experience through the judicial process is central. To help ensure that students have an

educational experience through this process, it is important to find out where a student is at in

their development. Each student develops at a different rate and by knowing the different stages

of development, it will increase the rate at which students successfully learn from their mistakes

and do not get in trouble again.

Observation Six: Institutional policy must be open to periodic review

The University of Utah has made six revisions (that could be found) to the Code of

Student Rights and Responsibilities (Student Code). The most recent revision was made

February 3, 2008 (http://www.regulations.utah.edu/academics/6-400.html). When doing

revisions for any document that is from the university, there is a process it goes through,

including the Academic Senate and the Board of Trustees. The Student Code is reviewed on a

regular basis and is revised and republished roughly once every two years.


12/22


Observation Seven: Institutional policy must be tied to the contextual dynamics of the particular

institutional setting

Coomes elaborates on his seventh observation by explaining that each institution should

be able to articulate how their processes encourage development and learning in their students.

When talking with Ms. McDonald, there was no explicit mention of any guiding theories used to

determine the outcomes of student cases. Perhaps with additional time, Ms. McDonald could

have outlined how the current policy of flexibility and educational opportunities is tied to the

particular context of the University of Utah.

Nevitt Sandfords Model of Challenge and Support

Ms. McDonald did, however, point out that her philosophy is to educate students while

upholding proper disciplinary action (L. McDonald, personal communication, November 12,

2008). This goal can be related to Nevitt Sanfords model ofSupport and Challenge. Support

and Challenge are evident when students try to lessen the tension produced by the collegiate

environment and succeed to the extent that environmental support is available (Evans, Forney,

& Guido-DiBrito, 1998, p. 7). When a student exhibits questionable behavior, it is most likely

because they are still adjusting to the college environment that has different rules than they might

be used to. With the proper education, support and guidance, each student is sure to adapt

successfully.

Recommendations

After much discussion about the method and theories used by the University of Utah, the

following recommendations are proposed. According to university policy when a student is

accepted and registers for their first class they have agreed to follow the University of Utah

Student Code. Current practice at the university is to include the Code as part of the course


13/22


catalog printed every two years. Students are directed to the Code and course catalog as part of

their orientation experience; however there is no requirement to read the Code and no follow-up

to ensure each student is familiar with the Code they agree to follow. We recommend that the

university provide more accessibility to the Student Code. This strategy could be accomplished

by emailing the Code to each student or by requiring students to read the Code before they can

register for classes.

Providing students with educational opportunities outside of the classroom is an

important part of the college experience. These opportunities can range from student activities to

faculty interaction to volunteering. In his theory of student involvement, Astin (1984) theorized:

Frequent interaction with faculty is more strongly related to satisfaction with college than

any other type of involvement or, indeed, any other student or institutional characteristic.

Students who interact frequently with faculty members are more likely than other

students to express satisfaction with all aspects of their institutional experience. (p. 294)

Our recommendation would be to extend involvement opportunities, such as serving on the

Student Behavior Committee, to all students. By only allowing the participants to be affiliated

with ASUU, many students are deprived of a great opportunity for learning and experience.

Many students are interested in pursuing a career in fields which require experience in critical

thinking and mediation. The Student Behavior Committee provides a great opportunity to gain

these experiences. By opening these three positions to any student who wants to apply, the

committee would experience the benefits of more diversity, consistency, and experience.

Lastly, we recommend the institution adopt a matrix that outlines violations and the

resulting sanctions. Currently the university reserves the right to decide consequences based on

individual cases or experiences. The benefits of having a matrix would be to ensure that the


14/22


institution treats all students fairly. It is also important that students develop of sense of personal

responsibility, as well as what is right and wrong.

An example of this type of matrix can be found at nearby Westminster College.

According to Westminster College (2008), if a student is found to have harassed another student

they will be required to participate in three counseling sessions (www.westminstercollege.edu).

In some cases, the outlined punishment may be excessive or not entirely appropriate for that

particular student, but having a matrix would provide the hearing officer with direction when

handling student code violations. After referencing the matrix that professionals could still retain

the authority and flexibility to treat individual students situations according to their unique and

individual nature.

Gary Pavela (2008), one of the nations leading experts in higher education law, has said

discretion is an important tool for keeping order. If students believe that their teachers and

administrators are unable to exercise any judgment, they are not likely to consider them people

they can confide in or trust (p. 6).

The university is a place where students should learn accountability and appropriate

behavior. As professionals, we have the responsibility to teach effective behavior and good

practices. Each student should understand the rules they have committed to adhere by and each

professional should understand how to effectively handle each violation; to ensure it is an

educational opportunity for all parties.

Limitations of Study

In talking with Ms. McDonald, it was clear that there are several processes in place to

ensure that students are treated equally and ethically. There are a few processes, however, that

we thought should receive further scrutiny. A few of the limitations are the absence of a


15/22


consequence matrix, undergraduate students serving on the Student Behavior Committee and

limited access and knowledge of the Student Code of Rights and Responsibilities.

When a violation of the Student Code is reported, the accused student is provided the

opportunity of due process, meaning the student is given the opportunity, not right, to be heard

(L. McDonald, personal communication, November 12, 2008). Following the students

description of events, the hearing officer and the student will decide what the most appropriate

course of action should be. Depending on the student conduct violation, the consequences each

student will face differ dramatically. At the University of Utah, there is currently no matrix for

determining which violation receives what consequence, which makes the judicial process

subjective and creates the possibility for inconsistency. A system such as this one allows for a

greater amount of flexibility and customization to a students particular situation, yet potentially

allows inconsistency between cases. A matrix or outline would at least afford some consistency

to the process.

Currently, there are three different administrators who serve as hearing officers. Even

though these professionals work in the same office at the same university, they are three unique

individuals who most likely view situations quite differently. To ensure some amount of internal

consistency, the three hearing officers meet weekly to discuss their cases. Additionally, the

hearing officers share insight and ideas as to how to handle certain behavioral issues. Their

responses to different cases might be more consistent and fair if there was a matrix that all three

referenced in their decision making.

There is also the concern of having a students peer(s) serving on the Student Behavior

Committee. This committee is in charge of hearing all appealed misconduct cases. Ms.

McDonald said that every precaution is taken to ensure that students serving on the Student


16/22


Behavior Committee, who may have intimate knowledge of a students case being appealed, are

replaced for the time being. Fairness is thus upheld in these situations. However, there is always

the risk of students encountering each other following a hearing in classes, clubs, or other student

activities. These situations could cause discomfort for both parties involved.

Furthermore, student appointments for the Student Behavior Committee serve a term of

one academic year; this allows for a low amount of consistency on the committee. Additionally,

due to the limited amount of resources available for student travel, student committee members

are rarely able to attend national student judicial conferences, such as the Association for Student

Judicial Affairs. By not attending this conference, students are not keeping abreast of current

issues facing college campuses and more importantly, how those issues are being resolved. This

information is vital to ensure fairness and equality when dealing with the Student Code.

Next, it appears that there is a limited knowledge of the Student Code of Rights and

Responsibilities among students. Currently, all students receive a printed copy of the Student

Code at orientation and are able to view the Code online at any time. Ms. McDonald predicts that

the University of Utah will soon provide the Code online only. Naturally, this action will save

the amount of paper that the office is required to distribute, yet might also limit the amount of

students who come in contact with the Code.

Another limitation of the current process is that since there are no explicit theories

guiding student misconduct practices, the program might change dramatically if one or all of the

hearing officers were to change. This leaves the program vulnerable to potential inconsistencies

from year to year.

A final limitation in the methodology of this study was that we were unable to interview

any students who have gone through the behavioral misconduct process because of


17/22


confidentiality policies. By not hearing a students perspective of the process, our knowledge has

been biased with respect to solely hearing an administrators point of view on the effectiveness

of the program.

Conclusion

By examining the judicial affairs process at the University of Utah, it is apparent that the

current system is working just fine. However, by viewing the process through Coomes seven

observations and Sanfords model ofChallenge and Support, it is simple to see that the process

could function in a more developmentally consistent format. The current hearing officers take

their charge to educate and advance students development seriously, but what will happen to

this department and its credibility when one or all of them leaves? Ms. McDonald has been in

the office for almost 18 years and there is no policy or matrix in place to ensure that her

foundation of flexible, developmentally educational processes will remain in her absence.

This department will continue to successfully foster a safe environment where students

are afforded the opportunity to take responsibility for their actions and the students will go

through the process none-the-wiser, but, as professionals scrutinizing the foundations of this

university department, they have a long way to go. Hopefully, the recommendations offered in

this study will someday help to build a new, stronger foundation for an important cog of the

university.


18/22


References

American Council on Education, Committee on Student Personnel Work. (E.G. Williamson,

Chair). (1949). The student personnel point of view (rev. ed.). (American Council on

Education Studies, Series 6, No. 13). Washington, DC: American Council on Education.

Astin, A.W. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal

of College Student Personnel, 25, 297-308.

Coomes, M. D. (2005). Using Student Development to Guide Institutional Policy. In Wilson, M.

E. & Wolf-Wendel, L. E,ASHE Reader on College Student Development Theory (pp.

635-646). Pearson Publishing.

Evans, N.J., Forney, D.S., & Guido-DiBrito, F. (1998). Student development in college. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

McDonald, L., personal communication, November 12, 2008.

OReilly, F. L., & Evans, R. D. (2007). Community: Calling students to be accountable.

Christian Higher Education, 6, 119-130.

Pascarella, E. & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). College Impact Models of Student Change.How

College Affects Students. (p. 50-61).

Pavela, Gary. (2008). Understanding Due Process: An overview for college administrators.Law

and Policy in Higher Education. Retrieved November 25, 2008, from

http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dfdpvzp9_678d29cr3f3.

Strange, C.C. (1994). Student development: The evolution and status of an essential idea.

Journal of College Student Development, 35, 399-412.

University of Utah. (n.d). Code of Student Rights and Responsibilities. Retrieved November 18,

2008, from http://www.regulations.utah.edu/academics/6-400.html.


19/22


University of Utah. (2008, November 18).Fast Facts: Autumn Semester 2008. Retrieved

November 23, 2008, fromhttp://www.obia.utah.edu/content/fastfacts.pdf.

University of Utah. (n.d.).Mission Statement. Retrieved November 23, 2008, from

http://www.admin.utah.edu/president/mission.html.

Westminster College. (2008). http://www.westminstercollege.edu


20/22


Appendix A

University of Utah Mission Statement

The mission of the University of Utah is to serve the people of Utah and the world

through the discovery, creation and application of knowledge; through the dissemination of

knowledge by teaching, publication, artistic presentation and technology transfer; and through

community engagement. As a preeminent research and teaching university with national and

global reach, the University cultivates an academic environment in which the highest standards

of intellectual integrity and scholarship are practiced. Students at the University learn from and

collaborate with faculty who are at the forefront of their disciplines. The University faculty and

staff are committed to helping students excel. We zealously preserve academic freedom, promote

diversity and equal opportunity, and respect individual beliefs. We advance rigorous

interdisciplinary inquiry, international involvement, and social responsibility.


21/22


Appendix B


22/22


judicial affairs final paper

Documents