ASCA Journal Fall 2013

Journal of The Association of Student Conduct Administrators The premier authority in higher education for student conduct administration and conflict resolution

www.theasca.org Volume 5

Table of Contents

Behavioral Intervention and Threat-Assessment Teams in Higher Education: Results From an Exploratory Study .............................. 1

Reframing Campus Conflict: Student Conduct Practice Through a Social Justice Lens ......................................................................................... 38

The Historical Evolution of Student Participation in Disciplinary Proceedings ...................................................................... 43

1

BEHAVIORAL-INTERVENTION TEAMS

Behavioral-Intervention and Threat-Assessment Teams in Higher Education: Results From an Exploratory Study

Keywords: higher education, behavioral-intervention team, threat-assessment team, student-care team, student affairs professionals, at-risk students, students of concern

2

BEHAVIORAL-INTERVENTION TEAMS Abstract The purpose of this study is to survey higher education administrators to explore implementation of behavioral-intervention teams and threat-assessment teams. Administrators from 188 institutions responded. Results showed how teams are forming and working to respond to threatening situations in the most effective manner. Institutions are seeking to clarify institutional responsibility, minimize liability, bring institutional resources together, and develop strategies to assist students, while attempting to maintain safe campuses.

3

BEHAVIORAL-INTERVENTION TEAMS

Behavioral-Intervention and Threat-Assessment Teams in Higher Education: Results From an Exploratory Study

No student affairs professional or university administrator wants to respond to a student death. The encounter can forever impact the professional experience of one who has been called to facilitate the institutional response to this type of tragedy. In the wake of the shooting tragedies at Virginia Tech on April 16, 2007, and at Northern Illinois University on February 14, 2008, campus educators and administrators have reexamined the ways they handle threatening situations and persons on their campuses (Randazzo & Plummer, 2009). The reasonable professional response to managing at-risk students is in a state of change. For the purposes of this article, at-risk students are defined as troubled students or students in some type of crisis (psychological, financial, etc.). Identifying the key goal of how to manage at-risk students is important, as lack of planning and preparation in working with these students are no longer options for college and university administrators (Knowles & Dungy, 2010). The topic of behavioral-intervention and threat-assessment teams was not a common issue for discussion in higher education prior to these tragedies, even though threat-assessment rubrics such as the Delworth model were in existence as far back as 1989 (Delworth, 1989). These teams provide a centralized institutional response to assist with troubled students and disturbing situations in an effort to maintain a safe campus environment. For consistency purposes, all naming variations in this article are referred to as “team,� unless referring to a specific team is necessary based on the literature or the study results.

This exploratory pilot study provides new data to better understand the current institutional responses to implementing behavioral-intervention teams, threat-assessment teams,

4

BEHAVIORAL-INTERVENTION TEAMS and student-care teams. Senior-level student affairs professionals were the participants in the study. The study was conducted in the spring of 2010. Participants provided feedback regarding their institutional approach related to developing teams, and the results provide a new understanding of current institutional responses to implementing behavioral-intervention teams.

Literature Review Campus administrators nationwide have recognized a need for threat-assessment teams at their institutions. The Virginia Governor’s Report that was released after the Virginia Tech shootings pointed out that prior to this incident, very few higher education institutions had threatassessment teams (Virginia Tech Review Panel, 2007). The report also noted there is an extensive body of literature regarding threat assessment at the elementary and secondary education levels. Insufficient attention has been given to threat assessment at the higher education level, and therefore efforts to assist in resolving threats on college campuses have been insufficient as well (Weisenback Keller, Hughes, & Hertz, 2011). Research suggests the importance of “active engagement with troubled students sooner, rather than later” (Pavela & Joffe, 2007, slide 5).

The existing literature regarding teams is inconsistent in the way the teams are named or defined. There are several different variations of names, such as a threat-assessment team, a behavioral-intervention team, a student-care team, a critical-incident response team, and a persons-of-concern team (Dunkle, Silverstein, & Warner, 2008; Pavela, 2008; Pavela & Joffe, 2007; Randazzo & Plummer, 2009; Sokolow & Lewis, 2009). To help explain the various naming conventions, Virginia Tech President Charles Steger noted that the use of the name “threat assessment team” may inadvertently give the impression that this type of team has a more narrow focus than its intended role (Randazzo & Plummer, 2009, p. 56). Cornell (2010) uses the

5

BEHAVIORAL-INTERVENTION TEAMS term threat assessment as a form of violence prevention, therefore excluding other types of nonviolent situations from the scope of these teams. Most important, the name of the team reflects the communication of the team’s purpose, so it should be well-thought out (Higher Education Mental Health Alliance, 2012).

The Commonwealth of Virginia mandated through state law the creation of threatassessment teams at each public college and university (Randazzo & Plummer, 2009). In a 2008 study, Gray (2008) found that of 437 respondents, 64% indicated that following the tragedy at Virginia Tech, greater attention and respect was given to campus security. Additionally, courts have imposed a duty on colleges to protect students from foreseeable harm in some situations like hazing or the presence of dangerous persons on campus (Kaplin & Lee, 2007).

Conversely, there are also arguments against the creation of teams on campuses. Redden (2008) noted that there could be problems with attempting to predict campus violence. Notably, any type of actuarial formula or combinations of formulas to assess students who may be threats on campus can lead to false positives. Redden also wrote that the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools determined that there is no useful profile for school shooters, rather there are general behavioral commonalities. Similarly, the FBI cautions against the use of labeling students based on warning signs, because shared characteristics such as suicidal ideologies and feelings of mistreatment are not specific to violent individuals (Drysdale, Modzeleski, & Simons, 2010).

LaBanc, Krepel, Johnson, and Herrmann (2010) pointed out that while there is no way to predict violence on campuses, threat-assessment teams can “assess known threats and if necessary take early action and diffuse potentially violent situations” (p. 69). Additionally, Cornell (2008) stated that according to the National Crime Victimization Survey and U.S. Department of Education,

6

BEHAVIORAL-INTERVENTION TEAMS 93% of crimes experienced by students occur off-campus, and the off-campus murder rate is 28 times higher than the on-campus crime rate.

Roles of Campus Teams The roles of threat-assessment teams can vary from campus to campus, but there are a number of universal roles the teams play. Cornell asserts, “The basic function of a college threat assessment team is to provide consultation and assistance to other units of the institution when dealing with a potentially dangerous situation” (2010, p. 11). Cultural differences in approaches to psychological care and differences in organizational frameworks exist among institution types.

Administrators must be aware that at some institutions their ability to affect change without conflict may not be possible (Tierney, 1988). Perhaps the most important role of teams is to detect and monitor potentially violent students. The team can also monitor students who may be troubled or troubling in other ways (Dunkle, Silverstein, & Warner, 2008). Teams should engage with troubled students as early as possible, helping them to receive appropriate professional help when necessary (Pavela, 2008). Teams can coordinate the responsive efforts of multiple units on campuses.

Recommendations exist regarding the composition of threat-assessment teams. Dunkle, Silverstein, and Warner (2008) recommend a team chaired by the institution’s senior student affairs administrator. Other members of the team should include a “mental health professional, disability specialist, law enforcement, and legal counsel, while residence life staff, university chaplains and religious leaders, academic deans and faculty, international office representatives, campus health services, and others as needed may also be included” (Dunkle, Silverstein, and Warner, 2008, p. 634). Suggested team composition from Virginia Tech’s threat-assessment team includes the chief of police (team leader), dean of students, two student affairs

7

BEHAVIORAL-INTERVENTION TEAMS representatives, an academic affairs representative, legal counsel, a human resources representative, and a clinical psychologist (Randazzo & Plummer, 2009).

To evaluate the risk to the campus community, a threat-assessment team may use a riskassessment rubric or model in determining the level of risk posed by a person. The Delworth Model of Threat Assessment (1989), also known as the Assessment-Intervention of Student Problems Model, is a three-component tool to help identify troubling behaviors. The model consists of team formation, an assessment process for channeling students into the most appropriate on- or off-campus resources, and intervention with the student of concern. An alternate model proposed by Weisenback Keller, Hughes, and Hertz (2011) for higher education includes the “interface of five components: data sources, data collection, data analysis, incident response, and incident response evaluation and feedback� (p. 84).

To be most effective, teams should break down information silos on campuses while also serving as a valuable tool in referring campus community members to necessary resources. One notable connection is with the campus counseling center. Students are presenting college campuses with growing numbers of mental health concerns, which in turn can manifest into troubling behaviors if not treated appropriately. Knowles and Dungy (2010) reported that more than 90% of campus counseling center directors in 2007 indicated an increase in students with severe psychological disorders. While partnering with teams, university counseling centers can help universities be proactive in identifying and addressing threatening behaviors.

Team meeting records and the stipulations surrounding record keeping are an important procedural component of teams. These procedures include the right of the student to inspect student records as subject by the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA) (Pub. L. No. 93-380). FERPA allows educators to share confidential information with law

8

BEHAVIORAL-INTERVENTION TEAMS enforcement, medical personnel, and others without the student’s consent to protect the health and safety of others (Fischer & Wilson, 2007). As a result of the Virginia Tech shooting, the Department of Education clarified FERPA regulations regarding an institution’s ability to disclose education records without student consent to protect the health and safety of students (U.S. Department of Education, 2007). While exceptions and guidelines exist for sharing information, universities still struggle with how much information can be legally shared under FERPA (Penven & Janosik, 2012). A review of team literature did not reveal any recommended record-keeping process that exists concerning threat-assessment teams and identifiable student information. Gray (2008) found that most campuses, regardless of record-keeping systems, have improved how information is shared among campus constituents. While some institutions, such as Virginia Tech, record the names of students discussed, others do not (Randazzo & Plummer, 2009).

Given that these teams are a fairly new addition to most college campuses, it is important to understand what institutions across the country are doing to respond to the impetus for the creation and implementation of teams. There are gaps in the literature about the formation and functions of teams, which this study addressed by acquiring a basic understanding of what institutions are doing in this evolving area of responsibility. This exploratory study provides a baseline for understanding how colleges and universities across the country are forming teams and responding to at-risk students.

Methods Given the exploratory nature of the study, the questions for the research were as follows: How many and what type of teams do institutions have? What are the functions, mission, composition, training, and meeting frequency of the teams? What are the record-keeping

9

BEHAVIORAL-INTERVENTION TEAMS mechanisms of the teams? Are there differences among teams by type of institution? Are there differences in ratings of overall effectiveness of teams? Are teams meeting institutional requirements? Are teams helping to decrease legal liabilities by type of institution?

The purpose of this study, a preexperimental design, was to explore the existence of teams that were developed to respond to students who are at-risk, thus allowing a better understanding of the current professional response to implementing teams. The data collected by means of the survey were descriptive, including types of teams, institutions, etc. Institutional outcomes data, such as the number of cases reviewed annually, types of interventions, and their adjudications, were not collected. This type of descriptive research provides data about the phenomenon being studied, but it cannot determine causal relationships (Royse, Thyer, & Padgett, 2010). This method was used to explore the current status of these teams within institutions of higher education. The survey also contained some qualitative questions. The openended items on the survey explored the topic area and allowed for a richer view of the topic (Creswell, 1998). This initial research seeks to provide a description of the current state of teams and explore this area where there is currently limited quantitative or qualitative research.

Senior student affairs officers from 1,044 institutions belonging to the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators (NASPA) were invited to complete the study.

This population was sent an email invitation asking them or the best representative from their institution to complete an electronic survey. They were also sent a follow-up reminder to complete the survey two weeks after the initial request was sent.

Data collection. The survey was entered online using the web-based survey software called Blue. Participants were self-selected, and so the results may not be generalizable to all institutions. However, given the lack of research in this area of campus teams and the important

10

BEHAVIORAL-INTERVENTION TEAMS roles they serve, the exploratory nature of this study was necessary to inform the field of the current state of these types of teams formed in institutions across the country and to serve as a point for future research. Informed consent was obtained via a survey preamble explaining that they were invited to participate and that participation was voluntary. The consent clearly indicated that they had the right to decline to answer any question and refuse to participate or withdraw their participation at any time. The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board at the researchers’ university.

Measures. Because of the exploratory nature of this study and given the recent advent of these types of teams, an instrument that comprehensively addressed all aspects of team development related to assisting students did not exist. The researchers, therefore, designed a survey that was piloted by senior student affairs administrators (n = 8) who had implemented teams at their institutions. They completed the instrument as designed and they recommended the addition of questions related to record keeping, advertising for the team, and determining the criteria for concerns brought before the team. Questions were added to reflect this content area identified by these professionals.

The survey consisted of demographic questions such as type of institution (including 2or 4-year, public or private, community or technical), student enrollment, number of students living on-campus, and location (i.e., urban or rural). The respondents were instructed that the word “team� was defined as a general team that could describe a committee, task force, or a group of university representatives organized to respond to student needs. They were asked if their institution had a team designed to respond to in-crisis or at-risk students and if there was more than one team at their university. The respondents were then instructed to think about each of the teams separately and answer questions about the functions of that group. Questions about

11

BEHAVIORAL-INTERVENTION TEAMS teams included name, mission, length of existence, functions, membership and leadership, frequency of meetings, record keeping, training, and methods by which members make the campus community aware of their team. There was also a section asking the respondents to consider their institution’s response to their teams. Questions asked respondents to rate their confidence that the team was (a) meeting institutional expectations, (b) managing legal liabilities when dealing with students in distress, (c) effectively addressing threat assessment or behavioral intervention on campus, and (d) minimizing institutional liability based on risks associated with recent high-profile violent acts committed on college campuses. These four questions were asked using a five-point Likert scale, with a 5 indicating the highest level of agreement.

Data analysis. The data were analyzed using parametric statistics, including measures of central tendency for the number of teams, length of existence of teams, and effectiveness ratings.

These differences were also analyzed by institution type. Correlations were run to determine relationships between the team characteristics and student enrollment. Open-ended questions yielding qualitative data explored key themes, illustrative quotations, and unique responses.

Results Administrators at 1,044 institutions across the country were invited to participate in the study. Some emails were returned, and out of the remaining 993 invitations, 181 responded, for a response rate of 18%. When asked if they had a team designed to respond to students in crisis or at-risk, 175 indicated that their institutions did have such a team. Five participants stated that they did not have a team at their institution. Of those who responded that they did have a team, 60 institutions (34%) had more than one team, and eight institutions reported having three teams.

Only one institution indicated that they had four different types of teams. The mean number of teams was 2.24 (SD = .979). A content analysis was conducted for the question of title of the

12

BEHAVIORAL-INTERVENTION TEAMS respondent who completed the survey. The most frequent response was the vice-president level (n = 124, usually listed as vice president for student affairs or student life); followed by dean of students (n = 52 plus 10 associate dean of students); and counseling center staff or directors (n = 8). Other titles included directors of student life, judicial officer, campus safety director, case manager, health services director, and support services director or coordinator.

Demographics The majority of respondents (88%, n = 159) indicated that their institutions were 4-year colleges or universities; the other 12% (n = 22) were 2-year institutions. Respondents were fairly evenly split by public (53%, n = 95) and private (47%, n = 85). Thirty-five schools indicated they were a community or technical college, and 45 indicated they were affiliated with a religious organization. Sixty percent (n = 100) of the respondents indicated that their institutions were located in an urban area, and 40% (n = 66) indicated that they were located in a rural area.

There was no significant difference in the numbers of teams per school by 2-year/4-year (F = .917, p = .480); public/private (F = .934, p = .450); community/technical school (F = .847, p = .501); or religious affiliation (F = .894, p = .473). Student enrollment at institutions varied, with 5% having fewer than 1,000 students; 19% having 1,000–2,499; 22% having 2,500–4,999; 32% having 5,000–9,999; 11% having 10,000–14,999; 5% having 15,000–19,999; 8% having 20,000– 29,999; and 7% having a student enrollment of more than 30,000.

Team Functioning When asked if they were confident that their team(s) were adequately meeting their institutions’ expectations, 74% (n = 134) indicated they were confident or very confident, (M = 3.90, SD = .79). Similarly, when rating their belief that by implementing these teams they were meeting the reasonable professional standards to effectively manage their legal liabilities when

13

BEHAVIORAL-INTERVENTION TEAMS dealing with students in crisis, 75% (n = 135) indicated they were confident or very confident (M = 3.91, SD = .80). On an overall effectiveness rating of their team(s), 78% (n = 140) indicated their team(s) as effective or very effective (M = 3.95, SD = .75). When asked if their team(s) was created to minimize institutional liability based on risks associated with recent high-profile violent acts committed on college campuses, 38% (n = 69) agreed or strongly agreed, while 35% (n = 62) disagreed or strongly disagreed that this was why the team(s) was formed (M = 3.04, SD = 1.11). See Table 1 for a summary of these items. When analyzed to determine mean differences, none of these items differed significantly by type of institution (urban vs. rural [meeting reasonable professional standards t = -.636, df = 164, p = .130; overall effectiveness t = 1.092, df = 164, p = .277; created to minimize institutional liability t = 1.108, df = 164, p = .269]; 2-year vs. 4-year [meeting reasonable professional standards t = -.562, df = 179, p = .575; overall effectiveness t = -.636, df = 179, p = .525; created to minimize institutional liability t = -.433, df = 78, p = .665]; public vs. private [meeting reasonable professional standards t = -1.209, df = 178, p = .228; overall effectiveness t = -.127, df = 178, p = .899; created to minimize institutional liability t = -.030, df = 178, p = .976]). There was a significant positive correlation between number of students living on campus and confidence the team was meeting institutional expectations (r = .178, p < .05).

Table 1 Team Effectiveness Ratings Item

Mean

SD

n

Adequately meeting institution’s expectations Meeting reasonable professional standards to effectively manage legal liabilities Overall team effectiveness Team was created to minimize institutional liability

3.9 3.91

.79 .80

134 135

% Responding with a “4” or “5” Level of Agreement 74% 75%

3.95 3.04

.75 1.11

140 69

78% 38%

14

BEHAVIORAL-INTERVENTION TEAMS Because there was a recognition that institutions were likely to have multiple teams to respond to student needs, respondents were asked to consider one team at a time to answer a series of questions to gain more information about each team. This section of results is specific to the team that was listed as their first team (n = 175).

Team formation. The average length of years the team had been in existence was 4.26, with a range of 6 months to 30 years; the median was 3 years. Number of students living on campus was divided into two groups, based on the median of 1,200. There was no significant difference in number of teams by the number of students living on-campus (t = -1.184, df = 66, p = .241). There was a negative correlation between number of teams and student enrollment, although it was not statistically significant (r = -.038, p = .76). When asked to describe the function of the team, the breakdown was as follows: 49% were behavioral intervention, 18% were threat assessment, 13% described the team function as “other,” 10% were student care, and 9.7% described them as academic. The following selected team names of participant institutions illustrates the diversity of teams: quality of life team, student in distress, at-risk committee, student intervention team, invisible safety net, students of concern, consultation and assessment team, cares team, early intervention team, case management group, and risk assessment team.

Team functions and responsibilities. The respondents were asked to check all functions the team serves. The most frequently cited were as follows: sharing information among appropriate offices, making referrals for students in crisis, and assessing at-risk students. “Other” functions listed that were not included as categories on the survey included follow-up with faculty and staff, action planning for students, debriefing, family support/working with parents, and student financial issues. See Table 2 for a list of these specific functions and the number that indicated their team as being involved in these activities.

15

BEHAVIORAL-INTERVENTION TEAMS Table 2 Teams’ Most Frequently Occurring Functions Function Sharing information among appropriate offices Making referrals for students in crisis Assessing at-risk students Ensuring appropriate follow-through with students Responding to a crisis that threatens the wellbeing of an individual student or group of students Responding to student behavior that is disruptive to the university community Identifying student behaviors that disrupt the learning environment Keeping records on students considered “atrisk” or who are in crisis Serving as a source of information to faculty and staff Initiating internal review of the crisis situation Responding to incidents where the person of concern is faculty and staff Dealing with students with academic difficulties

n 167 164 163 154

% 95 94 93 88

153

87

151

86

142

81

132

75

126

72

112 96

64 55

52

30

Situations. The respondents reported that their teams encounter a number of different situations.

Those situations most frequently addressed by the teams included threats of violence to others, emotional distress, suicidal threats, and inappropriate communications. “Other” situations listed by participants included substance abuse and dependency, repeated judicial violations, changes in personal circumstances, and family issues. See Table 3 for a list of the different types of situations encountered and the number of respondents that identified them.

Table 3 Situations Most Frequently Addressed by Teams Situation Threats of violence to others Emotional distress

n 165 158

% 94 90

16

BEHAVIORAL-INTERVENTION TEAMS Suicidal threats Inappropriate communications Classroom disruptions Stalking behaviors Diagnosed mental health disorders Failing grades Financial difficulties

156 150 149 146 129 49 40

89 86 85 83 74 28 23

Team membership. When asked who was on the team, those from the campus community who were identified as members included the following: counseling center director, director of public safety, director of housing, and dean of students. “Others” who were identified included: academic advising, financial aid, disabilities services, legal counsel, university ministry, athletics, international office, women’s services, registrar, and career services. See Table 4 for a list of roles making up team memberships. The most frequently identified chair was the dean of students (n = 72) or vice president of student affairs (n = 44). Institutional organizational structure and titles associated with positions varied.

Table 4 Team Membership Member Title Counseling Center Director Public Safety Director Residence Life/Housing Director Dean of Students Student Conduct Officer Campus Health Services Director Faculty Representative Vice President of Student Affairs Other

n 153 139 125 114 112 81 72 61 125

% 15 14 13 12 11 8 7 6 13

Meeting frequency. The frequency of meetings varied with 31% responding that their teams met weekly, 29% on an “as-needed” basis, 24% met twice per month, and 10% said they met monthly. To make others aware of their team, the respondents indicated that they used

17

BEHAVIORAL-INTERVENTION TEAMS several methods including visits to units to discuss the team (22%), campus electronic notifications to faculty and staff (21%), and a website (14%). Other responses with less than 10% were ads in the campus newspaper, awareness events, brochures, hard copy publications, and campus e-notifications to students.

Record keeping. Seventy-nine percent (n = 135) said their teams keep records of meetings. Of those that did so, 94% (n = 132) indicated they kept records of specific students who were discussed. When asked who had access to records, the most frequently occurring responses were the vice president of students affairs or dean of students (34%), director of the counseling center (13%), director of public safety (9%), student conduct officer (9%), and director of housing (6%). Other responses included the faculty representative and the director of campus health services. Twelve percent indicated that all members have access to these records.

Some of the record keeping methods identified included private or informal handwritten files, meeting minutes, electronic files, databases of contacts, and judicial affairs management software. Others stated that they were still determining how to best keep records.

Team training. More than half of the respondents (67%, n = 117) indicated that their teams received training. This was an open-ended question and participants were asked to list the kind of training received. These included webinars, review of FERPA laws, national conferences, tabletop exercises, trainings by the National Center for Higher Education Risk Management (NCHERM), and crisis-intervention training. Respondents indicated seeking out training from national experts in the field, as well as local experts in the area of counseling, mental health, and crisis intervention.

Mission statements. This open-ended question was analyzed by coding the common themes that were identified in the mission statements provided by the respondents. These themes

18

BEHAVIORAL-INTERVENTION TEAMS indicated the teamâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s purpose and included assessing situations as potentially harmful or dangerous, assisting the students involved, deciding how to intervene, and referring students for services on- or off-campus. Promoting the safety and health of the university community was another commonly mentioned aspect of the mission statement, as was fostering good communication between key stakeholders on campus. Another unifying theme was the desire of the institutions to proactively respond to and provide a coordinated university response whenever a situation arises on campus.

Discussion The results from this study provide new information and clarity about implementing teams, which is an emerging field within student affairs. It has become a reasonable professional practice to have some type of team approach to responding to disruptive, at-risk, or students of concern. The results of this study show that institutions across the country are creating multiple types of teams to better respond to students in crisis and to improve communications among various departments.

Team Logistics Most of the respondents were from 4-year institutions and there was an almost equal split between public and private. The teams were rated as being highly functional, effective overall, and meeting the needs of their institution. There was almost an even number of respondents who thought their teams were created to minimize institutional liability based on risks associated with recent high-profile violent acts committed on college campuses and those that did not. The average length of time the teams had been in existence was about 4 years, indicating that most institutions have only recently implemented their teams. The Virginia Tech Review Panel (2007) found that very few institutions had teams of this nature 4 to 5 years ago.

19

BEHAVIORAL-INTERVENTION TEAMS About half of the teams were characterized as behavioral-intervention teams with others described as threat assessment (which were mandated in Virginia and Illinois for public institutions of higher education [Randazzo & Plummer, 2009]), student care, and some as academic concerns. This seems to show a focus on assessing behaviors of students. The most frequently cited team functions were sharing information among appropriate offices and making referrals. From this, the researchers inferred most teams are now moving toward a more coordinated response to working with distressed students. Having a better understanding of the functions of teams allows for other institutions to consider how they could respond to the types of situations they are likely to experience. This supports the suggestion that active engagement with students in distress should happen as soon as possible upon identification (LaBanc et al., 2010; Pavela, 2008; Pavela & Joffe, 2007).

The situations that the administrators in the sample indicated they most frequently encountered were threats of violence to others and mental health issues. These are functions that should be universal for these types of teams (Dunkle et al., 2008), and it seems the teams in this sample were aware of these needs. They are recognizing the increase in the prevalence of psychological distress in students and working toward better interventions (Knowles & Dungy, 2010). Knowing the situations that likely will be encountered allows administrators to determine which employees would best be able to serve in response to those situations. Those on campus who staff these teams varied, but there were some consistent members including directors of counseling centers, public safety, residence life, student conduct officers and deans of students.

These findings seem to support the staffing recommendations made by Dunkle et al. (2008).

Once membership for a team is determined, that team can decide the meeting frequency based on volume of cases and institutional objectives.

20

BEHAVIORAL-INTERVENTION TEAMS Record Keeping and Training Record keeping seems to be a practice that varies by institution. Many do keep records of specific students, but those methods vary including means, such as electronic files and handwritten informal notes. Information sharing is essential in assisting students in distress and colleges are improving how this is done on their campuses (Gray, 2008). The training administered to teams was provided by multiple methodologies and included the use of national experts as well as in-house review of pertinent laws.

Many questions about best practices for these teams are still unanswered. Implementing these teams and responding to the regular caseload often provides complex scenarios that present multiple options for responses. Professionals seeking the most appropriate response to complex situations will have to balance the institutional culture, safety, community needs, best practices, institutional liability, and the individualâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s rights.

Implications for Student Affairs Professionals Threat-Assessment, Behavioral-Intervention, or Student-Care Team Several states are considering following the lead of the Virginia and Illinois state legislatures who have moved to requiring institutions to have threat-assessment teams, further illustrating the need for campuses to be prepared for potentially threatening situations. Much of the literature and programs marketed and promoted to provide education and training is focused on the language of threat-assessment teams. The name itself can immediately make people think the team has a level of expertise at assessing threat and then, presumably, appropriately responding to this threat. The behavior leading to concern may not be violent or specifically threatening, it may just be concerning.

21

BEHAVIORAL-INTERVENTION TEAMS If a team is going to be a threat-assessment team, they must receive expert training, because they are taking on a significant responsibility for determining future foreseeable threats based on past or current information. According to the Department of Education and the Secret Service, â&#x20AC;&#x153;There is no accurate or useful profile of students who engaged in targeted school violenceâ&#x20AC;? (Vossekuil et al., 2002, p. 33). Given that there is no useful profile, institutions following this model need to be cautious about creating a system that could falsely label students as a threat. Once an individual is identified as a perceived threat, administrators may feel compelled to take disciplinary action that is not consistent with promulgated behavioral standards, potentially violating the rights of the student. Most colleges will not have the necessary staff (police, profilers, psychologists, licensed mental health professionals, etc.) or the financial resources to appropriately manage a threat-assessment team.

From this pilot study, it appears that there is no nationally established name that institutions consistently use to identify their team; the names of these teams are as diverse as the institutions involved in the study. It is interesting to note that the professional staff members who responded were more inclined to implement teams that were behavioral-intervention oriented.

This could be that these teams actually do more intervention-based work looking out for the well-being of the student than threat-assessment analysis.

Initial team terminology suggested titling these teams as threat-assessment teams.

However, based on results from this study, institutional practices have indicated there are administrators who are concerned about implementing an actual threat-assessment team or titling it a threat-assessment team. Based on professional interactions, some reasons could include the following, but this is an area that is open for further study: 1. concerns about inability to accurately predict a threat;

22

BEHAVIORAL-INTERVENTION TEAMS 2. level of expertise and training needed for professionals to feel confident about their ability to determine a threat with limited information and time; 3. legal concerns about establishing an institutional team that professes to assess individuals who are a threat to others given that there can be false positives; and 4. a title that appears to take away the developmental and caring component of what student affairs professionals are trained to provide.

As a profession, student affairs administrators should call these groups “behavioralintervention teams” or “student-care teams,” given that administrators are not embracing the threat-assessment team terminology. Behavior-intervention teams or student-care teams better reflects the developmental aspect of which student affairs professionals are keenly aware. These teams may include evaluation of potential harm, but it is not stated as the main focus. The names “behavioral-intervention team” and “student-care team” rather than “threat-assessment team” are less likely to cause additional angst for those students being referred. Institutions that are required by state law to have a threat-assessment team, or if they have more than one team and have the resources to successfully implement a threat-assessment rubric, may want to call their specific team a threat-assessment team.

Response to Student Behavior The standard practice for codes of student conduct is to have language that prohibits threats. Under the behavioral-intervention model, a threat would be addressed as a behavioral concern and as a violation of the standards of the university. That concern and violation allows for institutional action. It is not a process of assessing future threats or the possibility for violent action; it is an approach that addresses actual behavior, as it becomes far more complicated to assess potential for violent acts by members of the community. Angry writing in an English class

23

BEHAVIORAL-INTERVENTION TEAMS is an example of a type of situation where it can be complicated for a team to cover all areas of potential concern.

Every institution wants to keep their students safe; the pertinent question is how best to keep them safe while maintaining institutional objectives and studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; rights. Institutions do not want to remove students from the academy just because they are perceived to be odd. People often equate confrontation or disrespect with the possibility for violent action. Again, confrontation by a student does not necessarily mean that student is going to act out violently.

There can be a heightened level of concern that members of the community have to this confrontation, especially considering the high-profile incidents that have occurred on campuses.

Future research should explore the legality and feasibility of how administrators will respond to the problem of being concerned about a student that is unwilling to accept a referral for a mental health assessment or maintain recommended mental health treatment. One option is to recommend assessment but do nothing to the student if they are unwilling, since they have done nothing to violate institutional rules. There is a level of concern with this option, because the student might act out in the future in a way that is disruptive to the community or, worse, commit a violent act against others.

Administrators may want to consider, in consultation with their legal counsel and institutional culture, if they are going to require or mandate assessments for students that are identified as a concern for teams but who have not violated any institutional rules. College officials may want to be more open by codifying this ability and promulgating it within the Student Handbook, Code of Student Conduct, or other relevant student document. This could be challenged legally by students saying it violates their rights. Taking no action other than recommending a referral for a student of concern could open the team and the institution to

24

BEHAVIORAL-INTERVENTION TEAMS second-guessing the foreseeable harm of their decisions in the event an incident did occur in the future.

Administration of Teams The results of this study indicate that the majority of teams are chaired by the vice president for student affairs or dean of students. This seems logical, as many teams were initially created to look at issues involving students. This indicates that teams are becoming a responsibility for the student affairs profession. Financial resources as well as the needed staff time by team members need to be analyzed by institutions as they determine the appropriate resources for their team.

For teams that have a high volume of cases, these responsibilities can become a significant time burden. Some administrators have hired case coordinators or case managers to help with managing the responsibilities of their team. Look for this trend to continue as faculty, staff, and students become more aware of campus teams, as teams are professionalized and as responsibilities increase. For teams that experience a high case volume and meet on a regular basis, someone needs to provide education for the campus community, manage the cases, maintain records, ensure appropriate follow-up, and coordinate training. Institutions with a high volume of cases that make case administration just an additional responsibility for an employee, without reducing other responsibilities, are risking that cases and team administration will not receive the attention they need, potentially resulting in tragedy.

If an institution has not established a team with clear institutional responsibilities, they should. Because there are expectations for institutions to protect community members from foreseeable harm, these teams are necessary in todayâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s highly litigious society. The team should include appropriate representatives from the campus who are empowered by the institution to

25

BEHAVIORAL-INTERVENTION TEAMS respond to these concerns. Team leaders should think about how best to involve faculty on their teams. If cases are coming from academic areas, faculty input would be valuable. The results provide a guide for team membership, team responsibilities, training, and likely situations that a team would address.

Implications for Research The limitations of the study included a small sample size and lack of a random sample.

Future studies should include an assessment of the volume of cases that teams are responding to on a weekly and annual basis. It is encouraged that teams keep this information so they have longitudinal data on the number of situations that require their attention. These types of data would be useful when comparing volumes of cases based on a wide variety of team and institutional variables. Ideally, the student affairs profession needs to determine, through research using record keeping and data analysis, if the implementation of these teams are having the desired results. Are students receiving support sooner and in a more comprehensive manner, thus allowing them to remain at universities and be successful?

Future studies should include collecting more specific information about the types of training that teams are receiving and what standard they are using to evaluate potential threats and the appropriate response (mental health assessment, anger management requirements, probation, removal from the institution, or notification to external authorities). They could examine the best method to include faculty and determine if expertise by discipline, such as social work, psychology, or counseling, might best assist the team.

A better understanding is needed about how universities that have multiple teams communicate and delineate responsibilities. How staff time is being allocated to accomplish the objectives of the team should be evaluated. Are the team responsibilities an additional job

26

BEHAVIORAL-INTERVENTION TEAMS responsibility for existing staff with no other shift in job responsibilities? Research needs to be conducted about case manager responsibilities and the growth of this position within higher education. Understanding the legal research including case law and legislative requirements will be an important aspect of future research.

Knowing what warning signs of foreseeable harm establishes a legal duty that requires institutional action should be an area of future study and will likely be an area of litigation. Over time, legal cases will provide guidance for institutions trying to reduce the chance for acts of violence on their campus without violating the rights of students or employees. When the U.S. Supreme Court decided their landmark nonacademic student misconduct case in Dixon v.

Alabama State Board of Education (1961), litigation followed, helping to clarify the legal framework for implementing codes of student conduct. The results of this study show that most of these teams were created recently, and it will take time before these institutional best practices and legal rulings provide a clearer framework.

27

BEHAVIORAL-INTERVENTION TEAMS

References Cornell, D. (2008). No title. NASPA Leadership Exchange.

Cornell, D. (2010). Threat assessment in college settings. Change, 42(1), 8–15.

Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Delworth, U. (1989). Dealing with the behavioral and psychological problems of students. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Education, 294 F.2d 150 (1961).

Drysdale, D., Modzeleski, W., & Simons, A. (2010). Campus attacks: Targeted violence affecting institutions of higher education. U.S. Secret Service, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools, U.S. Department of Education, and Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Department of Justice. Washington, D.C., 2010.

Dunkle, J. H., Silverstein, Z. B., & Warner, S. L. (2008). Managing violent and other troubling students: The role of threat assessment teams on campus. Journal of College and University Law, 34(3), 585–636.

The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974, Pub. L. No. 93-380.

Fischer, K., & Wilson, R. (2007). Virginia Tech was slow to respond to gunman, panel finds.

Chronicle of Higher Education, 54(2), 3.

Gray, R. H. (2008). Virginia Tech one year later: How campuses have responded. Campus Safety, 16(2), 18–28.

28

BEHAVIORAL-INTERVENTION TEAMS Higher Education Mental Health Alliance. (2012). Balancing safety and support on campus: A guide for campus teams. Retrieved from http://www.jedfoundation.org/professionals/programs-and-research/campus_teams Kaplin, W. A., & Lee, B. A. (2007). The law of higher education, student version. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Knowles, C., & Dungy, G. J. (2010). The emotional health and violence connection: Prevention, intervention, and resiliency. In B. O. Hemphill & B. H. LaBanc (Eds.), Enough is enough: A student affairs perspective on preparedness and response to a campus shooting. Sterling, VA: Stylus.

LaBanc, B. H., Krepel, T. L., Johnson, B. J., & Herrmann, L. V. (2010). Managing the whirlwind: Planning for and responding to a campus in crisis. In B. O. Hemphill & B. H. LaBanc (Eds.), Enough is enough: A student affairs perspective on preparedness and response to a campus shooting. Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Pavela, G. (2008). Colleges wonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t help students by fearing them. Chronicle of Higher Education 54(25), A37.

Pavela, G., & Joffe, P. (2007, October 9). Responding to troubled and at-risk students. NASPA Webinar.

Penven, J. C., & Janosik, S. M. (2012). Threat assessment teams: A model for coordinating the institutional response and reducing legal liability when college students threaten suicide.

Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 49(3), 299â&#x20AC;&#x201C;314.

Randazzo, M. R., & Plummer, E. (2009). Implementing behavioral threat assessment on campus: A Virginia Tech demonstration project. Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.

29

BEHAVIORAL-INTERVENTION TEAMS Redden, E. (2008, April 7). Predicting and preventing campus violence. InsideHigherEd.com.

Royse, D. D., Thyer, B. A., & Padgett, D. K. (2010). Program evaluation: An introduction (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

Sokolow, B. A., & Lewis, W. S. (2009). The NCHERM 2009 whitepaper: 2nd generation behavioral intervention best practices. NCHERM. Retrieved from http://www.nabita.org/docs/2009NCHERMwhitepaper.pdf Tierney, W. G. (1988). Organizational culture in higher education: Defining the essentials.

Journal of Higher Education, 59(1), 2â&#x20AC;&#x201C;21.

U.S. Department of Education. (2007). Balancing student privacy and school safety: A guide to the family educational rights and privacy act for colleges and universities. [Brochure].

Washington, D.C.: Author.

Virginia Tech Review Panel. (2007). Mass shootings at Virginia Tech: April 16, 2007. Report presented to Virginia Governor Timothy M. Kaine. Available at www.governor.virginia.gov/TempContent/techpanelreport.cfm Vossekuil, B., Fein, R., Reddy, M., Borum, R., & Modzeleski, W. (2002).

The Final Report and Findings of the Safe School Initiative: Implications for the Prevention of School Attacks in the United States. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Safe and Drug-Free Schools Program and U.S. Secret Service, National Threat Assessment Center, Washington, D.C. Weisenback Keller, E., Hughes, S., & Hertz, G. (2011). A model for assessment and mitigation of threats on the college campus. Journal of Educational Administration, 49(1), 76â&#x20AC;&#x201C;94.

30

BEHAVIORAL-INTERVENTION TEAMS

J. Michael Mardis, PhD Dean of Students & Associate Vice President for Student Affairs University of Louisville Louisville, KY

Dana J. Sullivan, MSW, PhD Department of Social Work Western Kentucky University Bowling Green, KY

Christian Gamm, PhD Assistant Director of Graduate School Admissions University of Louisville Louisville, KY

31

REFRAMING CAMPUS CONFLICT Reframing Campus Conflict: Student Conduct Practice Through a Social Justice Lens Edited by Jennifer Meyer Schrage and Nancy Geist Giacomini

32

REFRAMING CAMPUS CONFLICT

Student conduct practitioners long have struggled with balancing the legalistic requirements of due process, mandated by Dixon and subsequent cases, with the developmental and educational expectations of their institutions of higher learning. The Association for Student Conduct Administration (ASCA) always has offered a forum for dialogue around this question of balance.

Now, through Reframing Campus Conflict: Student Conduct Practice Through a Social Justice Lens,” editors Jennifer Schrage and Nancy Giacomini offer a coalescence of much of this dialogue into a linear model. The Spectrum Model offers guidance for conflict resolution along a continuum beginning with informal dialogues and ending with formal adjudication processes. The book offers an invaluable and insightful examination by many knowledgeable authors concerning the challenges of conflict resolution on campus. It lays out a pathway approach in which the Spectrum Model could be employed and offers excellent examples of how to sustain such an approach in an institutional setting.

The book consists of three parts: “Responding to Conflict on Campus: Foundations for Student Affairs Educators” (chapters 1–4); “Pathways Within the Spectrum Model” (chapters 5–12); and “Sustainable Innovation” (chapters 13–17). In Chapter 1, Schrage and Giacomini provide a foundation for the book, arguing that “current campus adjudication models are not keeping pace with” (p. 7) the evolving values, diversity trends, and developmental convictions present on contemporary campuses. In Chapter 2, “When Student Learning and Law Merge to Create Educational Student Conflict Resolution and Effective Conduct Management Programs,” Taylor and

33

REFRAMING CAMPUS CONFLICT Varner present a convincing dialogue about “how to create a robust conduct management program fully infused with conflict resolution pathways” (p. 40). Chapter 3, “Why Objectivity Is Not Enough: The Critical Role of Social Justice in Campus Conduct and Conflict Work,” provides a thorough discussion of social justice in conduct settings.

Authors Holmes, Edwards, and De Bowes challenge readers and practitioners with the assertion that “… we cannot explore fully the lens of social justice without turning that lens upon ourselves” (p. 51). Chapter 4 concludes Part One with “Providing a Spectrum of Resolution Options” in which Schrage and Thompson explore the Spectrum Model and the manner in which it may be applied to make conduct systems responsive to the diversity and culture of modern campuses.

In Part Two, pathways represented through the Spectrum Model are fully presented. The chapter titles in this section provide clear descriptions about the content of each chapter. Robinson, in Chapter 5, discusses “Moving Toward a Healthier Climate for Conflict Resolution Through Dialogue.” Chapter 6 author Giacomini explores “The Art of Conflict Coaching: Transferring Interpersonal and Group Conflict Resolution Skills to a One-on-One Setting.” In Chapter 7, Wilgus and Holmes introduce “Facilitated Dialogue: An Overview and Introduction for Student Conduct Professionals.” In Chapter 8, Warters takes readers through “Models of Mediation Practice.” Goldblum’s topic in Chapter 9 is “Restorative Justice From Theory to Practice.” Karp offers “Reading the Scripts: Balancing Authority and Social Support in the Restorative Justice Conference and the Student Conduct Hearing Board” in Chapter 10. Schrage and Goldfarb return in Chapter 11 with “Using Shuttle Diplomacy to Resolve Campus Conflict.” Giacomini

34

REFRAMING CAMPUS CONFLICT concludes Part Two with Chapter 12, “Incorporating Principles of Conflict Resolution and Social Justice Into Formal Student Conduct Code Pathways.”

Parts One and Two present the environmental issues and solutions as well as the model and its pathways; the authors of Part Three move to provide “Sustainable Innovation,” a clever title that, while perhaps offering a “play” upon the earlier frequent use of climate metaphor, presents five concluding chapters that do indeed suggest innovation that is sustainable. Chapter authors Olshak, Rashid, and Giacomini alternate in exploring the understanding and implementation of ideas suggested by the “Spectrum Model” approach. Readers will likely appreciate this section of the book that, unlike many theory-based books, truly grounds the theory of the Spectrum Model in practical application. This section concludes with Chapter 17, Giacomini’s “Sharing Stories: Program Innovations of Our Colleagues,” a rich and informative recounting of firstperson practitioner experiences.

The practice of student conduct would benefit from a clear, linear model of how conflict and conduct resolution might be viewed along a continuum. This book provides one such well-considered approach to the topic. Readers who wish to fully understand the Spectrum Model will no-doubt benefit from a thorough and careful reading of the entire book. However, one of the virtues of the book is that other readers, interested only in “bits” of practice, such as social justice, will also find the book useful as a resource to which they may turn as their interest in alternative practices grows. Parts One and Three, and especially Chapter 17, provide a wealth of thought-provoking ideas that any practitioner would find valuable in assessing their own practice.

35

REFRAMING CAMPUS CONFLICT Some may question whether the Spectrum Model is the answer to conflict concerns on campus, or whether it is simply a stimulus to further dialogue about these concerns. Other readers may not appreciate the almost evangelical approach a few of the authors bring to their ideas. But this is in the nature of new and sometimes controversial ideas. In any event, these are small quibbles with a work that does much to advance the dialogue surrounding the balancing of legal, ethical, developmental, and educational concerns.

Significantly, the book offers a vantage point from which readers, especially those directly engaged in conduct practice, may assess where the profession has been and where it may be headed. It will be of interest not only to conduct officers but also to faculty who teach in the area of student affairs or higher education administration and to those in related fields of interest who wish to better understand the complexity and growing sophistication of the discussions surrounding resolution of student conflict on campus. To those critics who may believe that practitioners are not sufficiently engaged in thoughtful analysis about important issues of conduct on campus, this book will serve as a rebuttal and, in some cases, as a revelation.

36

REFRAMING CAMPUS CONFLICT Authorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Note James M. Lancaster Professor of Education Appalachian State University

37

HISTORY OF STUDENT INVOLVEMENT IN ADJUDICATION The Historical Evolution of Student Participation in Disciplinary Proceedings

38

HISTORY OF STUDENT INVOLVEMENT IN ADJUDICATION ABSTRACT Although there have been a number of authors who examined the evolution of student disciplinary issues at colleges and universities, this work specifically focuses on the use of students in the adjudication of their peers throughout the history of American higher education. Beginning with the Colonial Colleges and ending with the present period, this article highlights many of the reoccurring debates that continue to influence the practice of student conduct in the modern context. Particular attention is paid to how institutions have struggled to balance the concepts of student self-governance and administrative control as well as the impact this tension may hold for those currently in the field of student conduct administration.

39

HISTORY OF STUDENT INVOLVEMENT IN ADJUDICATION The importance of using discipline in an educational setting to control misconduct and encourage moral development extends as far back as Aristotle’s Nichomacean Ethics and Socrates’s Meno (Nucci, 1989). At the college and university level, “Discipline is as old as higher education itself, dating back to the nascent University of Paris almost 800 years ago” (Dannells, 1988, p. 127). It has also been one of the most controversial and contested topics in all of higher education (Appleton, Briggs, & Rhatigan, 1978; Dannells, 1997; Dannells & Lowery, 2004; Lancaster & Cooper, 1998). One of the more interesting and controversial topics within student conduct literature has been the role that students should play in the disciplinary adjudication of their peers (Rudolph, 1962/1990; Smith, 1994). Although there have been a number of excellent works that have focused on the topic of student discipline in the context of U.S. higher education history (Brubacher & Rudy, 1976; Dannells, 1997; Rudolph, 1962/1990; Smith, 1994), this article specifically focuses on the historical evolution of student participation in American disciplinary proceedings. Although student involvement in disciplinary decision making is an accepted tenant of the Academy today (student involvement in disciplinary adjudication is advocated in two of the primary sources guiding student conduct practice: the Council for the Advancement of Standards’ Guidelines for Student Conduct Programs (Dean, 2006) as well as Stoner and Lowery’s (2004) Model Student Conduct Code), the history of this movement following Thomas Jefferson’s initial idea at the University of Virginia in 1825 (Lowery, 1998a; Smith, 1994; Wagoner, 1986) highlights many of the recurring debates in the modern field of student conduct practice.

The following history, while not intended to be a completely exhaustive review, is meant to assist current student conduct administrators in understanding how the field’s

40

HISTORY OF STUDENT INVOLVEMENT IN ADJUDICATION comprehension of this topic has evolved and how recurring philosophical tensions still shape today’s work with students in situations of misconduct.

Tracing the Steps: Student Involvement in Disciplinary Adjudication Colonial Colleges to 1900 The history and evolution of student discipline in American higher education, in many respects, mirrors the development of American colleges and universities (Smith, 1994). In the colonial colleges, discipline was a primary responsibility of the college president, who would often delegate less serious offenses to faculty members and take the most serious infractions before the trustees for resolution (Dannells & Lowery, 2004; Schetlin, 1967; Smith, 1994). When America’s first colleges were founded, there were no borders between the institution’s charge to develop a student’s intellect and to supervise his moral and ethical growth (Rudolph, 1962/1990). The first attempts at student selfgovernance originated in the period following the American Revolution, when the “spirit of liberty” caused the war-propelled students to openly protest and rebel against the paternalistic disciplinary measures (Smith, 1994, p. 79; see also Brubacher & Rudy, 1976; Rudolph, 1962/1990). In this context, the first fundamental attempt to change the approach and philosophy of student discipline was initiated by Thomas Jefferson in 1825 at the University of Virginia (Brubacher & Rudy, 1976; Smith, 1994). Jefferson proposed using a disciplinary court consisting only of students to resolve misconduct issues and even advocated the use of a university jail (Smith, 1994). Jefferson, however, “was forced to cease his efforts during the university’s first year after a late-night disturbance by students, including his nephew, resulted in an attack on two faculty members” (Lowery, 1998a, p. 16; see also Wagoner, 1986). Other colleges, such as Amherst in 1828

41

HISTORY OF STUDENT INVOLVEMENT IN ADJUDICATION followed by Colgate and Trinity, also experimented with more student responsibility in disciplinary matters during this time, but these efforts did not last more than a couple of years and had â&#x20AC;&#x153;no permanent significanceâ&#x20AC;? (Brubacher & Rudy, 1976, p. 124; see also Freidson, 1955; Smith, 1994).

Following the Civil War, the introduction of the Germanic model of education to America contributed to the expansion of student disciplinary participation in two separate ways. First, this model stressed the importance of perceiving students as responsible adults who were capable of making mature and rational decisions on their own (Brubacher & Rudy, 1976; Smith, 1994). Second, the Germanic model, as well as the Industrial Revolution, caused faculty members to become more concerned with their research than with student behavioral issues (Dannells, 1997; Smith, 1994). Additionally, during this period, college presidents became increasingly occupied with an expanding curriculum, fiscal duties, and external relations and did not have the time, interest, or patience to deal with student misconduct issues (Dannells, 1997; Dannells & Lowery, 2004). Beginning with the University of Illinois in 1867, there was another movement to permit students to take more responsibility for conduct issues through the use of honor systems and judicial tribunals. While some institutions, such as Amherst, the University of Virginia, West Point, and Bryn Mawr, found their honor systems to be successful, attempts at student self-governance in disciplinary matters were largely ineffective throughout the early 1900s (Brubacher & Rudy, 1976). Institutional presidents of the early 1900s noted that students were both unqualified and unable to adequately enforce discipline upon their peers, and many attempts at early forms of student self-governance were dramatic failures (Brubacher & Rudy, 1976; Dannells, 1997; Smith, 1994).

42

HISTORY OF STUDENT INVOLVEMENT IN ADJUDICATION 1900 to the 1960s Starting in the late 1800s and carrying through the early 20th century, three emerging trends led to the gradual expansion of student involvement in disciplinary matters, which would eventually reach its climax in the 1960s. First, the diminished role of faculty in disciplinary matters that occurred during the late 19th century was accompanied by the creation of “specialists” chosen by the college president to deal with student matters, including conduct (Dannells, 1997; Schetlin, 1967; Smith & Kirk, 1971).

These specialists were the first college employees to carry the title Dean of Men/Women and later Deans of Students (Appleton, Briggs, & Rhatigan, 1978; Dannells, 1997). The early deans not only expanded on the philosophy and practice of student discipline but also encouraged counseling as a form of “corrective action” and generally encouraged student involvement in disciplinary matters (Dannells, 1997, p. 8). Second, the creation of the early deans eventually led to the student personnel movement in the early 20th century and, with it, a change in the general philosophy of how administrators approached their interaction with students (Smith, 1994). In 1937, the American Council on Education published The Student Personnel Point of View, which stated that the appropriate philosophy of higher education must focus on the development of the whole student rather than merely intellectual training (American Council on Education, 1937; Smith, 1994). The growing number of collegiate staff working in areas outside of academic training that encompassed the student personnel movement embraced this approach of educating the “whole student,” and “[d]iscipline became an unfortunate point of separation between the early deans and the emerging student personnel specialists” (Dannells & Lowery, 2004, p. 180). The student personnel specialists tended to view the

43

HISTORY OF STUDENT INVOLVEMENT IN ADJUDICATION early deans’ approach to discipline as merely punitive and neglectful of the moral development aspects that accompanied the alteration in focus under The Student Personnel Point of View (Appleton, Briggs, & Rhatigan, 1978; Dannells, 1997; Dannells & Lowery, 2004). Third, accompanying the student personnel movement and the focus on educating the whole student was the gradual diversification of the student bodies at America’s colleges and universities. Starting in the early 20th century, the traditional college populations of “old-money predominantly white Anglo-Saxon students” (Smith, 1994, p. 83) were joined by a host of first-generation students who brought new opinions based on their diverse backgrounds (Dannells & Lowery, 2004, Smith, 1994). The diversification of student bodies resulted in new complaints about the administration of campus discipline and calls for greater levels of student self-governance (Dannells, 1997; Smith 1994). As stated by Smith (1994), “The net result of the conflicting forces present during the 1930s was a new and persistent movement to give students a more meaningful role in the handling of their own education” (p. 83).

The movement toward permitting a more meaningful role for students in the handling of their own education that was fostered in the 1930s gained only a little momentum during the 1940s and 1950s with the influx of older students entering college at the end of War World II (Smith, 1994). Despite the fact that this generation of mature students “could not digest the traditional palliatives served up by the dean to justify student conduct regulation and discipline” (Smith & Kirk, 1971, p. 277; see also Levine, 1986) and a small number of institutions experienced protests during this period (Levine, 1986; Lowery, 1998b; Smith & Kirk, 1971), widespread crisis was avoided because most veterans were more concerned with their vocational and educational aspirations than

44

HISTORY OF STUDENT INVOLVEMENT IN ADJUDICATION revolting against disciplinary conditions (Dannells & Lowery, 2004). Even as students continued to lobby for more authority to participate in disciplinary proceedings during the 1940s and 1950s, their demands were “accompanied by significant debate about the efficacy of students as disciplinarians” (Smith, 1994, p. 83).

The 1960s The trend toward allowing more student self-governance in disciplinary proceedings reached its zenith in the 1960s, and it was during this period that peer-review hearings boards became a common means of adjudicating instances of student misconduct. Forces such as the civil rights movement, the anti–Vietnam War movement, and a realization of the power of activism through the student protest movement “conspired to change colleges’ expectations of their students and methods of discipline” (Dannells, 1997, p. 10; see also Gibbs, 1992; Smith, 1994). Courts of law, however, may be more responsible than any of the student protest movements for the vast proliferation of peer-review hearing boards. In 1961, the watershed case of Dixon v. Alabama Board of Education was decided. In Dixon (1961),1 a Fifth Circuit court held that Alabama State

1

Dixon (1961) involved the appeal of six African American students who were expelled from Alabama State College without notice or an opportunity to present their version of the events. Although the issue before the Fifth Circuit involved whether due process, as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, requires notice and a hearing opportunity for students expelled due to misconduct at statesupported institutions, the case was grounded in the civil rights movement of the period. In their District Court complaint, the students stated that their expulsion from Alabama State College was retaliation against or punishment for seeking service in a publicly owned lunch counter in the basement of the Montgomery courthouse that was reserved for White customers. On the same day as the incident in the courthouse, Governor Patterson of Alabama, acting in his role as Chair of the State Board of Education, contacted the president of Alabama State College, H. C. Trenholm, and suggested that the students would be expelled if he were the president of the college. An attorney for the expelled students, the notable Civil Rights attorney Frank Gray, stated that Trenholm had little choice in the matter or else he would be challenging the Governor directly (Gray, 2002). While the expelled students lost their initial case at the District Court level before Judge Frank Johnson, their appeal litigated by Thurgood Marshall, Fred Gray, Jack Greenberg, and Derrick Bell was successful before the Fifth Circuit (Dixon, 1961). As the expulsion letter from Trenholm listed no specific acts for which the students were expelled, the Fifth Circuit asserted that the only act in which the six students participated was the incident at the Montgomery Court House lunch counter. While 20 other students were placed on probation for participating in protests surrounding the event, there was no

45

HISTORY OF STUDENT INVOLVEMENT IN ADJUDICATION College violated the constitutional due process rights of several students who were expelled without notice of the charges or an official hearing where the students could present their version of the events. Although Dixon was a Fifth Circuit opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court referred to Dixon as the “landmark” decision that defined a student’s entitlement to due process protections in campus disciplinary proceedings (Goss v. Lopez, 1975, p. 576). While stating that due process in campus misconduct cases required “something more than an informal interview with an administrative authority at the college” (Dixon, 1961, p. 158), the Dixon court did not go as far as to say that peer participation in disciplinary proceedings was necessary.

Although Dixon in no way mandated the use of peer-review hearing boards, many colleges and universities created them anyway due to a belief that formal disciplinary systems similar to the procedures utilized in the American criminal justice process would insulate them from potential litigation for failing to afford students their due process rights (Baldizan, 1998; Bostic & Gonzalez, 1999; Cooper & Lancaster, 1995; Dannells, 1997; Gehring, 2001; Lancaster, Cooper, & Harman, 1993; Lowery, 1998a; Steele, Johnson, & Rickard, 1984; Travelstead, 1987). But as Dannells and Lowery (2004) asserted, “This movement caused concern that such adversarial systems, borrowed from our system of criminal justice, focused primarily on the mechanism of the disciplinary process to the detriment of the educative purposes” (p. 181). While not all institutions created peer-review hearing boards following the recognition of student due process evidence that the six expelled students had done so. In holding that the Fourteenth Amendment requires certain due process rights for students accused of misconduct at state-supported institutions of higher education, the Fifth Circuit outlined those rights as follows: “The student should be given the names of the witnesses against him and an oral or written report on the facts to which each witness testifies. He should also be given the opportunity to present to the Board [Board of Education], or at least to an administrative official of the college, his own defense against the charges and to produce either oral testimony or written affidavits of witnesses on his behalf” (Dixon, 1961, p. 159).

46

HISTORY OF STUDENT INVOLVEMENT IN ADJUDICATION rights in Dixon, this decision is cited as one of the major reasons student involvement in disciplinary adjudication increased dramatically during the 1960s (Dannells, 1997; Dannells & Lowery, 2004; Smith, 1994).

Present Period The literature tracing the history of student involvement in disciplinary administration typically concludes following the period of expansion in the 1970s with assertions similar to that of Dannells and Lowery (2004) who stated, â&#x20AC;&#x153;This trend continues to shape student judicial affairs and student involvement remains high on most campusesâ&#x20AC;? (p. 192). It is important to note, however, that while fear of litigation in the wake of Dixon may have been a factor in the proliferation of peer-review hearing boards during the 1960s, judicial affairs literature from the 1970s to today has attempted to shift conduct practice from a focus on legal ramifications to an emphasis on the personal and moral development of students (Baldizan, 1998; Boots, 1987; Caruso, 1978; Cooper & Lancaster, 1995; Dannells, 1997; Gehring, 2001; Greenleaf, 1978; Healy & Liddell, 1998; Lancaster & Cooper, 1998; Lowery, 1998a; Ostroth & Hill, 1978; Pavela, 1985; Stoner & Cerminara, 1990; Travelstead, 1987; Winston & Saunders, 1998). It remains unclear whether or not the recent literature in judicial affairs that urges a focus on development over legalism has resulted in an expansion or decrease of the student involvement in disciplinary adjudication over the past several years.

A 2009 study by Shook (2011) gathered information from 297 American 4-year institutions of higher education regarding student involvement in disciplinary adjudication. Comparing data regarding (a) the total percentage of institutional disciplinary cases resolved by a process involving students and (b) the hearing models to

47

HISTORY OF STUDENT INVOLVEMENT IN ADJUDICATION resolve campus misconduct situations to recent surveys of campus disciplinary systems (Dannells, 1990; Hoekema, 1994; Lancaster, Cooper, & Harman, 1993; Ostroth, Armstrong, & Campbell, 1978; Paterson, Kibler, & Lemons, 1988; Steele, Johnson, & Rickard, 1984), Shook found no dramatic changes during the past 30 years.

Although the comparison between Shook’s study and the previous studies (Dannells, 1990; Hoekema, 1994; Lancaster, Cooper, & Harman, 1993; Ostroth, Armstrong, & Campbell, 1978; Paterson, Kibler, & Lemons, 1988; Steele, Johnson, & Rickard, 1984) offered no definitive proof that recent trends in the field of student conduct have affected the extent of student participation in disciplinary adjudication, Shook’s study revealed that student involvement in the resolution of campus misconduct issues was actually quite low. An examination of the extent of student involvement in the components of disciplinary complaint resolution in Shook’s study demonstrated that students had some means of participating in the disciplinary process at 55.55% of responding institutions, but they only had decision-making authority at 23.66% of responding institutions (p. 135). While not statistically significant, students had the most decision-making authority at the adjudication stage, followed by the initial level of appeal, the final level of appeal, and then investigation, respectively. The lack of substantive student involvement is further demonstrated by the fact that nearly half (46.48%) of all disciplinary cases were resolved administratively, and 81.01% of responding institutions indicated that students were only involved in a quarter or less of their total disciplinary cases (p. 135).

Despite the existence of mechanisms for student participation in disciplinary adjudication, the (a) low level of student decision-making authority in matters of campus

48

HISTORY OF STUDENT INVOLVEMENT IN ADJUDICATION misconduct and (b) the low percentage of total disciplinary cases resolved by a process involving students, led Shook (2011) to conclude that, today, student involvement in the administration of campus discipline is more symbolic than substantive. While Shook’s study provided data specifically pertaining to the extent of student participation in the resolution of campus misconduct cases, the assessment as to whether student involvement in this area remains “high,” as stated by Dannells and Lowery (2004, p. 192), or low, as noted by Boyer (1987), who stated “student involvement in campus governance is almost nonexistent” (p. 244), seems to be a subjective one.

Conclusion The brief history of student participation in campus disciplinary proceedings articulated above may assist current student conduct administrators in understanding the long-standing roots of the current tension between the competing concepts of student self-governance and administrative control. This tension is expressed in the following comment by the American Association of University Professors (2001): “Ways should be found to permit significant student participation within the limits of attainable effectiveness. The obstacles to such participation are large and should not be minimized” (p. 267). When it comes to limiting student involvement in the administration of campus discipline, several arguments have been expressed: (a) the time and resources considerations involved with selecting and training peer-review boards make them inefficient (Ardaiolo & Walker, 1987; Cordner & Brooks, 1987; Dannells, 1997; Hayes & Balough, 1990; Serr & Taber, 1987; Sisson & Todd, 1995; Steele, Johnson, & Rickard, 1984); (b) peers are more likely to proscribe harsher and potentially unfair sanctions than trained conduct administrators (Janosik, 2001; McCabe & Pavela, 2000); (c) a student’s

49

HISTORY OF STUDENT INVOLVEMENT IN ADJUDICATION brief participation on a peer-review board during their collegiate tenure results in a constant lack of continuity in the overall disciplinary system (American Association of University Professors, 2001; Tierney, 2004); and (d) peer-review hearing boards have become a “magnet for litigation” (McCabe & Pavela, 2000, p. 37), because a failure to abide by the institution’s promulgated rules and procedures is the primary threat for legal action in disciplinary hearings (Schaer v. Brandeis University, 2000; see also Bickel & Lake, 1999; Kaplin & Lee, 2006; Lake, 2005; Stoner & Lowery, 2004).

Proponents of student participation in disciplinary adjudication, however, have noted several compelling arguments in favor of extending the opportunity to students, namely: (a) the putative benefits to the students who actually serve on the peer-review boards2 (Caruso, 1977; Cooper & Schwartz, 2007; Dalton & Healy, 1984; Dannells, 1997; Maloney, 1998; Mullane, 1999; Pavela, 2008); (b) the student self-governance component of peer-review boards serves to strengthen the overall campus community (Boyer, 1990; Kompalla & McCarthy, 2001; McCabe & Makowski, 2001; McDonald, 2002; Pavela, 2002); (c) students accused on misconduct will benefit through a belief that students learn best from their peers (American College Personnel Association, 1993; Bambenek, Enderle, Wagner & Weaver, 2000; McCabe & Pavela, 2000; O’Reilly & Evans, 2007; Stoner, 2000; Wilson, 1996); and (d) considerations of inherent justice and fairness steeped in the “concept of having one’s fate determined by an impartial jury of

2

Reported benefits to the students who serve on peer-review hearing boards include: (a) increased listening and analytical reasoning skills; (b) appreciation for moral decision making; and (c) a renewed commitment to the institution (Caruso, 1977; Cooper & Schwartz, 2007; Dalton & Healy, 1984; Danne lls, 1997; Maloney, 1998; Mullane, 1999; Pavela, 2008). Concerning peers serving as disciplinary adjudicators, Ostroth, Armstrong, and Campbell (1978) stated, “Students can wrestle with difficult value judgments, learn how to analyze information, and develop effective decision-making patterns through judicial experience. Experience shows that students usually learn responsibility by being placed in positions that demand it” (p. 26).

50

HISTORY OF STUDENT INVOLVEMENT IN ADJUDICATION his or her peers” (Zdziarski & Wood, 2008, p. 102) is a fundamental concept in American society.

As demonstrated throughout this work, an institution’s decision as to what role students should play in the administration of campus discipline may be found in the philosophical, or practical, arguments they choose to endorse. No matter what decision is reached, there will remain a fundamental tension around the use of students as administrative decision makers. This tension is perhaps best summarized in the concluding comment from Tierney (2004): For some, shared governance is a central totem of the academy; if academe did not have shared governance, then one’s conception of a college or university inevitably would change. For others, shared governance is the root cause of many of academe’s problems; if administrators were able to eliminate or overhaul academe’s governance structures, then postsecondary institutions might become more strategic and efficient. In doing so, administrators would be better able to deal with the myriad of problems that currently exist for colleges and universities. (p. 85) A student conduct administrator would be wise to understand and appreciate the history and justifications surrounding the tension involved with the use of students in disciplinary adjudication.

51

HISTORY OF STUDENT INVOLVEMENT IN ADJUDICATION

References American Association of University Professors. (2001). Statement on government of colleges and universities. In AAUP policy documents and reports (9th ed.).

Washington, DC: Author.

American College Personnel Association. (1993). Model judicial board selection and training manual. Washington, DC: Author.

American Council on Education, Committee on Student Personnel Work. (1937). The student personnel point of view. Washington, DC: Author.

Appleton, J. R., Briggs, C. M., & Rhatigan, J. J. (1978). Pieces of eight. Portland, OR: National Association of Student Personnel Administrators.

Ardaiolo, F. P., & Walker, S. J. (1987). Models of practice. In R. Caruso & W. W. Travelstead (Eds.), Enhancing campus judicial systems: New directions for student services (No. 39, pp. 43–62). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Baldizan, E. M. (1998). Development, due process, and reduction: Student conduct in the 1990s. In D. L. Cooper & J. M. Lancaster (Eds.), Beyond law and policy: Reaffirming the role of student affairs: New directions for student services (No. 82, pp. 29–38). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bambenek, J. J., Enderle, A., Wagner, P. D., & Weaver, D. L. (2000). The structure, objectives, and benefits of a citizenship-centered, community-building student judicial system. College Student Journal, 34(3), 383–390.

Bickel, R. D., & Lake, P. F. (1999). The rights and responsibilities of the modern

52

HISTORY OF STUDENT INVOLVEMENT IN ADJUDICATION university: Who assumes the risk of college life? Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.

Boots, C. (1987). Human development theory applied to judicial affairs work. In R. Caruso & W. W. Travelstead (Eds.), Enhancing campus judicial systems: New directions for student services (No. 39, pp. 63–72). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bostic, D., & Gonzalez, G. (1999). Practices, opinions, knowledge, and recommendations from judicial officers in public higher education. NASPA Journal, 36(3), 166–183.

Boyer, E. (1987). College: The undergraduate experience in America. New York: Harper & Row. Boyer, E. (1990). Campus life: In search of community. Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

Brubacher, J. S., & Rudy, W. R. (1976). Higher education transition (3rd ed.). New York: Harper and Row. Caruso, R. G. (1977). Characteristics of student judicial board members: Their relationship to disciplinary board decision making. Journal of College Student Personnel, 18(5), 339–344.

Caruso, R. G. (1978). The professional approach to student discipline in years to come. In E. H. Hammond & R. H. Shaffer (Eds.), The legal foundations of student personnel services in higher education (pp. 116–127). Washington, DC: American College Personnel Association.

Cooper, D. L., & Lancaster, J. M. (1995). The legal and developmental perspectives: A question of balance. College Student Affairs Journal, 15(1), 5–15.

Cooper, M., & Schwartz, R. (2007). Moral judgment and student discipline: What are

53

HISTORY OF STUDENT INVOLVEMENT IN ADJUDICATION institutions teaching? What are students learning? Journal of College Student Development, 48(5), 595–607.

Cordner, P., & Brooks, T. F. (1987). Training techniques for judicial systems. In R. Caruso & W. W. Travelstead (Eds.), Enhancing Campus Judicial Systems: New directions for student services (No. 39, pp. 31–42). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Dalton, J. C., & Healy, M. A. (1984). Using values education activities to confront student conduct issues. NASPA Journal, 22(2), 19–25.

Dannells, M. (1988). Discipline. In A. L. Rentz & G. L. Saddlemire (Eds.), Student affairs function in higher education (pp. 127–154). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

Dannells, M. (1990). Changes in disciplinary policies and practices over the past 10 years. Journal of College Student Development, 31, 408–414.

Dannells, M. (1997). From discipline to development: Rethinking student conduct in higher education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. (ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, 25(2)).

Dannells, M., & Lowery, J. W. (2004). Discipline and judicial affairs. In F. J. D. MacKinnon & Associates (Eds.), Rentz’s student affairs practice in higher education (3rd ed., pp. 178–217). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

Dean, L. A. (Ed.). (2006). CAS professional standards for higher education (6th ed.).

Washington, DC: Council for the Advancement of Standards.

Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Education, 294 F.2d 150 (5th Cir. 1961).

Freidson, E. (Ed.). (1955). Student government, student leaders, and the American college. Philadelphia, PA: United States National Student Association.

54

HISTORY OF STUDENT INVOLVEMENT IN ADJUDICATION Gehring, D. D. (2001). The objectives of student discipline and the process that’s due: Are they compatible? NASPA Journal, 38(4), 466–481.

Gibbs, A. (1992). Reconciling the rights and responsibilities of colleges and students: Offensive speech, assembly, drug testing, and safety. Washington, DC: George Washington University, School of Education and Human Development. (ASHEERIC Higher Education Report, 5).

Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565, 95 S.Ct. 729 (1975).

Gray, F. (2002). Bus ride to justice: Changing the system by the system. Montgomery, AL: NewSouth Books.

Greenleaf, E. A. (1978). The relationship of legal issues and procedures to student development. In E. H. Hammond & R. H. Shaffer (Eds.), The legal foundations of student personnel services in higher education (pp. 34–46). Washington, DC: American College Personnel Association.

Hayes, J. A., & Balogh, C. P. (1990). Mediation: An emerging form of dispute resolution on college campuses. NASPA Journal, 27, 236–240.

Healy, M. A., & Liddell, D. L. (1998). The developmental conversation: Facilitating moral and intellectual growth in our students. In D. L. Cooper & J. M. Lancaster (Eds.), Beyond law and policy: Reaffirming the role of student affairs: New directions for student services (no. 82, pp. 39–48). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hoekema, D. A. (1994). Campus rules and moral community: In place of in loco parentis. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Janosik, S. M. (2001). Expectations of faculty, parents, and students for due process in

55

HISTORY OF STUDENT INVOLVEMENT IN ADJUDICATION campus disciplinary hearings. Journal of College Student Development, 42(2), 114–121.

Kaplin, W. A., & Lee, B. A. (2006). A legal guide for student affairs professionals (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kompalla, S. L., & McCarthy, M. C. (2001). The effect of judicial sanctions on recidivism and retention. College Student Journal, 35(2), 223–231.

Lake, P. F. (2005). Private law continues to come to campus: Rights and responsibilities revisited. Journal of College and University Law, 31, 621–663.

Lancaster, J. M., & Cooper, D. L. (1998). Standing at the intersection: Reconsidering the balance in administration. In D. L. Cooper & J. M. Lancaster (Eds.), Beyond law and policy: Reaffirming the role of student affairs: New directions for student services (No. 82, pp. 95–106). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lancaster, J. M., Cooper, D. L., & Harman, A. E. (1993). Current practices in student disciplinary administration. NASPA Journal, 30(2), 108–119.

Levine, D. O. (1986). The American college and the culture of aspiration, 1914–1940.

Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Lowery, J. W. (1998a). Institutional policy and individual responsibility: Communities of justice and principle. In D. L. Cooper & J. M. Lancaster (Eds.), Beyond law and policy: Reaffirming the role of student affairs: New directions for student services (No. 82, pp. 15–28). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lowery, J. W. (1998b). The Silent Generation makes some noise: Student protest at Bowling Green State University (October 1949 and May 1957). Ohio College Student Development Journal, 1, 9–26.

56

HISTORY OF STUDENT INVOLVEMENT IN ADJUDICATION Maloney, G. W. (1998). Disciplining student organizations. In B. G. Paterson & W. L. Kibler (Eds.), The administration of campus discipline: Student, organizational, and community issues (pp. 129–148). Asheville, NC: College Administrator Publications, Inc. McCabe, D. L., & Makowski, A. L. (2001). Resolving allegations of academic dishonesty: Is there a role for students to play? About Campus, 6(1), 17–21.

McCabe, D. L., & Pavela, G. R. (2000). Some good news about academic integrity.

Change, 33(5), 32–38.

McDonald, W. M. (Ed.). (2002). Creating campus community: In search of Ernest Boyer’s legacy. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Mullane, S. P. (1999). Fairness, educational value, and moral development in the student disciplinary process. NASPA Journal, 36(2), 86–95.

Nucci, L. (Ed.). (1989). Moral development and character education: A dialogue.

Berkley, CA: McCutchan.

O’Reilly, F. L., & Evans, R. D. (2007). The effectiveness of discipline/judicial processes on Catholic campuses as measured by the rate of recidivism. College Student Journal, 41(4), 1055–1063.

Ostroth, D. D., Armstrong, M. R., & Campbell, T. J. (1978). A nationwide survey of judicial systems in large institutions of higher education. Journal of College Student Personnel, 19, 21–27.

Ostroth, D. D., & Hill, D. E. (1978). The helping relationship in student discipline.

NASPA Journal, 16(2), 33–39.

Paterson, B. G., Kibler, W. L., & Lemons, L. J. (1988). Campus discipline systems at

57

HISTORY OF STUDENT INVOLVEMENT IN ADJUDICATION colleges and universities in the Southeast. College Student Affairs Journal, 8(3), 21–32.

Pavela, G. (1985). The dismissal of students with mental disorders: Legal issues, policy considerations and alterative responses. Ashville, NC: College Administration Publishers, Inc. Pavela, G. (2002, September 11). Ten principles for members of student conduct hearing boards. ASJA Law and Policy Report, 73.

Pavela, G. (2008). Can we be good without God? Exploring applied ethics with members of student conduct hearing boards. In J. M. Lancaster & D. M. Waryold (Eds.), Student conduct practice: The complete guide for student affairs professionals (pp. 112–118). Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Rudolph, F. (1990). The American college and university: A history. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press. (Original work published 1962).

Schaer v. Brandeis University, 735 N. E. 2d 373 (Mass. 2000).

Schetlin, E. M. (1967). Disorders, deans, and discipline: A record of change. Journal of the National Association for Women Deans, Administrators, and Counselors, 30, 169–173.

Serr, R. L., & Taber, R. S. (1987). Mediation: A judicial affairs alternative. In R. Caruso & W. W. Travelstead (Eds.), Enhancing campus judicial systems: New directions for student services (No. 39, pp. 73–84). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Shook, M. H. (2011). Students disciplining peers: Student involvement when adjudicating misconduct infractions at American four-year colleges and universities.

Saarbrücken, Germany: VDM Publishing House Ltd.

58

HISTORY OF STUDENT INVOLVEMENT IN ADJUDICATION Sisson, V. S., & Todd, S. R. (1995). Using mediation in response to sexual assault on college and university campuses. NASPA Journal, 32, 262–269.

Smith, D. B. (1994). Student discipline in American colleges and universities: A historical overview. Educational Horizons, 72(2), 78–85.

Smith, G. P., & Kirk, H. P. (1971). Student discipline in transition. NASPA Journal, 8, 276–282.

Steele, R. H., Johnson, D. H., & Rickard, S. T. (1984). Managing the judicial function in student affairs. Journal of College Student Personnel, 25(4), 337-342.

Stoner, E. N. (2000). Reviewing your student discipline policy: A project worth the investment. Chevy Chase, MD: United Educators Insurance Risk Retention Group.

Stoner, E. N., & Cerminara, K. (1990). Harnessing the “spirit of insubordination”: A model student discipline code. Journal of College and University Law, 17(2), 89– 121.

Stoner, E. N., & Lowery, J. W. (2004). Navigating past the “spirit of insubordination”: A twenty-first century model student conduct code with a model hearing script.

Journal of College and University Law, 31(1), 1–77.

Tierney, W. G. (2004). A cultural analysis of shared governance: The challenges ahead.

In J. C. Smart, (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research, Vol. XIX (pp. 85–132). Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Travelstead, W. W. (1987). Introduction and historical context. In R. Caruso & W. W. Travelstead (Eds.), Enhancing campus judicial systems: New directions for student services (No. 39, pp. 3–16). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

59

HISTORY OF STUDENT INVOLVEMENT IN ADJUDICATION Wagoner, J. L. (1986). Honor and dishonor at Mr. Jefferson’s university: The antebellum years. History of Education Quarterly, 26(2), 155–179.

Wilson, J. M. (1996). Processes for resolving student disciplinary matters. In W. L. Mercer (Ed.), Critical issues in judicial affairs: Current trends in practice: New directions for student services (No. 73, pp. 35–52). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Winston, R. B., & Saunders, S. A. (1998). Professional ethics in a risky world. In D. L. Cooper & J. M. Lancaster (Eds.), Beyond law and policy: Reaffirming the role of student affairs: New directions for student services (No. 82, pp. 77–94). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Zdziarski, E. L., & Wood, N. L. (2008). Forums for resolution. In J. M. Lancaster & D. M. Waryold (Eds.), Student conduct practice: The complete guide for student affairs professionals (pp. 97–111). Sterling, VA: Stylus.

60

HISTORY OF STUDENT INVOLVEMENT IN ADJUDICATION

Author Information for Print: Marc H. Shook, PhD, JD Associate Provost & Dean of Student Engagement LaGrange College LaGrange, Georgia

www.theasca.org