From Bystander to Facilitator University: Improving Community Relationships and Safety by Addressing Off-Campus Student Conduct

Transcription

1 From Bystander to Facilitator University: Improving Community Relationships and Safety by Addressing Off-Campus Student Conduct Appalachian State University Presenter: Kendal McDevitt, MA Office of Off-Campus Community Relations ITGA Conference - June 2, 2011

2 Presentation Overview I. History of Appalachian State University s Off-Campus Authority Policy II. Re-Evaluating and Refining the Policy III. Implementation IV. Reactions/Responses, Creative Problem Solving, and Successes V. Questions

3 History of Appalachian s Off-Campus Authority Policy Pre Always addressed on-campus behavior Addressed off-campus if: local newspaper or others brought it to our attention (mostly drug violations) Off-campus jurisdiction was in the Code ( 1969 Mountaineer Reflections) Post Off-campus jurisdiction reviewed Began to more systematically address behavior off campus

4 1969 Off-Campus Code of Student Conduct Policy

5 Concerns about the Policy Implementation: Consistency and Fairness High-Risk Drinking Among Students Student Preparation for the Real World Local Court System: Adjudication Delays Strained Town Gown Relationships Off-Campus Murders

6 Policy Revision Rationale Study to Prevent Alcohol-Related Consequences Student Development Theory Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois Shootings University of North Carolina Task Force Recommendation Liability and Duty to Care as a Facilitator University

7 Study to Prevent Alcohol-Related Consequences (SPARC) Research SPARC Alcohol/Other Drug Data SPARC Student Support for Stricter Sanctions Majority support for repeat violators Court Research Majority: alcohol/other drug violations Violence linked to alcohol/other drugs Over 1/3: repeat violators Adjudication Delays (especially with DWI s)

8 Policy Revision Rationale Study to Prevent Alcohol-Related Consequences Student Development Theory and Standards Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois Shootings University of North Carolina Task Force Recommendation Liability and Duty to Care as a Facilitator University

9 Kohlberg: Moral Development Level I: Preconventional Stage 1: Obey rules to avoid trouble Stage 2: ( Individualistic ) Obey rules if it is in their interest to do so Level II Conventional: Stage 3: Good Person Right is living up to the expectations of those to whom one is close (son/friend) Stage 4: Consistent set of rules and procedures that apply equally to all people. One does what is right to maintain the system and fulfill one s obligations. ( We enter freely in order to protect rights and welfare of all people.) Level III: Post-Conventional or Principled: Stage 5: The rightness of laws and social systems are evaluated on the basis of the extent to which they promote fundamental human rights and values. The social system is understood as a social contract into which individuals freely enter in order to protect rights and ensure the welfare of all people. Stage 6: Decisions are based on universal generalizable principles that apply in all situations From: Student Development in College:Theory,Research and Practice by Evans, Forney and Guido DiBrito.1998

10 Chickering s Seven Vectors of Human Development (1993) CHICKERING S (1993) SEVEN Age 18 Age 24 VECTORS OF HUMAN COMPETENCE EMOTIONS DEVELOPMENT INTERDEPENDENCE INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS IDENTITY PURPOSE INTEGRITY Necessary Conditions for Framework for

11 Student Conduct: Professional Standards CAS: Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education ASCA: Association for Student Conduct Administration

12 Policy Revision Rationale Study to Prevent Alcohol-Related Consequences Student Development Theory Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois Shootings University of North Carolina Task Force Recommendation Liability and Duty to Care as a Facilitator University

13 VA Tech Findings Alcohol/Other Drug Abuse: Greatest daily health/safety concern for students and communities

14 Policy Revision Rationale Study to Prevent Alcohol-Related Consequences Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois Shootings University of North Carolina Task Force Recommendation Liability and Duty to Care as a Facilitator University

15 UNC Safety Task Force Recommendation I-11: Every campus shall develop a comprehensive program to reduce harm associated with alcohol and drug abuse among students. These programs shall be grounded in research and reflect attempts to change the culture of alcohol and substance abuse on campus and in the community.

16 Policy Revision Rationale Study to Prevent Alcohol-Related Consequences Student Development Theory Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois Shootings University of North Carolina Task Force Recommendation Liability and Duty to Care as a Facilitator University

17 Higher Education Eras Defined The Rights and Responsibilities of the Modern University (1999) by Robert Bickel and Peter Lake

18 In Loco Parentis (until the 1960 s) The time has come for someone to put his foot down. And that foot is me. - Dean Wormer, Animal House

19 The Bystander University (1970 s and 1980 s) Post 1960 s Revolution No Legal Duty to Care

20 The Facilitator University: Underlying Beliefs Unguided student freedom: too dangerous for communities Wide grants of freedom or heavy doses of authority disempower colleges and/or students Focus on high-risk behavior, eliminate extremes and define an appropriately wide center

21 The Facilitator University Now we have freedom AND responsibility. It s quite a groovy combination. Austin Powers

22 Implementation Violation Types Identified, Code Language Revised Staff, Time, Cost Process and Essential Partnerships Communication to Faculty, Staff, and Students

23 ASU Code of Student Conduct, Off-Campus Authority ARTICLE III AUTHORITY 3.01 Jurisdiction of the University The University has jurisdiction over all conduct violations that occur in University facilities and/ or on property owned, controlled, or used by the University. It reserves the right to consider the behavior of students off campus when it is determined that the off-campus behavior interferes with the University and its educational mission.

24 Off-Campus Authority (cont.) The purpose of this policy is: (1) to prevent and reduce behavior that undermines student academic success and that negatively detracts from the educational mission of the university; (2) to improve the health and safety of students and other community members; (3) to provide timely support and resources for those who may be struggling with substance abuse/addiction, and (4) to prevent violence in and around Appalachian s campus. Appalachian's decision to address both on-campus and offcampus behavior in the Code of Student Conduct is in fulfillment of its educational mission.

25 Off-Campus Authority (cont.) The primary types of off-campus violations referred to the Office of Student Conduct include (but are not limited to): a. Felony charges; b. Assault charges; c. Driving While Impaired (DWI) charges or charges of driving by persons less than 21 years old after consuming alcohol or drugs; d. Repeated Alcohol Misdemeanor charges; e. Repeated Other Drug Misdemeanor charges; f. Activities of a student or group of students that clearly conflict with the University s interests and mission, including, but not limited to patterns of behavior that put the health and safety of oneself or others at risk or show disregard for the policies of the University.

26 Off-Campus Authority (cont.) ARTICLE III AUTHORITY (continued) 3.03 Violation of Law and University Disciplinary Policies University disciplinary proceedings may be instituted against a student charged with a violation of law that is also a violation of the Code of Student Conduct. The University reserves the right to proceed under the Code of Student Conduct with a hearing and the possible imposition of a sanction prior to, concurrent with, or subsequent to, civil litigation, criminal arrest, and/or criminal prosecution. The University cooperates fully with outside law enforcement agencies to the extent permitted by law.

27 Implementation (cont.) Violation Types Identified, Code Language Revised Staff, Time, Cost Process and Essential Partnerships Communication to Faculty, Staff, and Students

28 Staff, Time, Cost Fulltime staff member salary, part-time student worker hours/week; hours fulltime staff, hours/week part-time student $100/semester for copies, $3,000/year student worker, minimal cost for additional office supplies

29 Implementation (cont.) Violation Types Identified, Code Language Revised Staff, Time, Cost Process and Essential Partnerships Communication to Faculty, Staff, and Students

30 Off-Campus Violation Disciplinary Flow Chart Court Case Listings Received The Office of Off-Campus Community Relations (OCCR) receives court case listings from ASU police and noise violations from Boone Police. Listings Sorted, ViolationsRetrieved Current students identified and previous conduct history reviewed. Violations are copied retrieved from the court house. Sent to OCCR A Letter of Concern is ed to student with attachments: Alc/Marij and Town Ordinance Info. Case Created/Violations Routed A case is created electronically in ASU s Maxient System. All files are routed to the Office of Student Conduct (OSC) except for 1 st time alcohol/marijuana misdemeanor offenses & noise violations. Sent to OSC Standard procedure followed. Investigations conducted as necessary.

31 Implementation (cont.) Violation Types Identified, Code Language Revised Staff, Time, Cost Process and Essential Partnerships Communication to Faculty, Staff, and Students

32 Communication to Faculty, Staff and Students Messages of Care/Concern for Individuals and the Community Health and Safety Academic Support Job Market Competition No Artificial Boundaries Between Personal/Professional Impact of Student Body Reputation on the Value of an ASU Degrees Outreach Programs and Materials to Faculty, Staff, and Students: Know the Code!

33 Community and Law Enforcement Response Town-Gown Tensions Eased Law Enforcement Morale Increased Trust Established Cooperative, Civil Dialogue Increased

34 Negative Student Responses Double Jeopardy Not Appalachian s Business Violation of Individual Rights Moved Off-Campus for Privacy Refusal to Discuss the Violation

35 Positive Student Responses Thank-you and I am sorry about what I did and I fully agree with the letter. Yes, I do want to be able to help in order to prevent this from happening, I know that what I did was wrong and I was unable to stop from succumbing to peer pressure and do not want to be involved with that crowd any longer. -From Appalachian students who received a Letter of Care and Concern.

36 Positive Student Response Involvement with policy revision and outreach Letters of thanks Grades improve Resistance dissipates

37 Legal Community Response Reverting Back to In Loco Parentis Double Jeopardy Practicing Law Without a License Injunction Imposed, NC State Bar Involved

38 Findings Student conduct proceedings are not court proceedings, and the university has the authority under North Carolina law to prescribe appropriate disciplinary measures. Student conduct boards are not courts, and the disciplinary process is not equivalent to the criminal law processes of federal and state criminal law. Imposition of both student discipline and criminal punishment does not give rise to double jeopardy, and the fact that a disciplinary sanction may have a punitive component will not invoke double jeopardy protection where the university's remedial interests are tightly intertwined with its punitive interests. The Appalachian State University Code of Student Conduct provides due process and protects a charged student's constitutional rights, including the right to have counsel present. An educational institution's disciplinary proceedings need not be held in abeyance pending the resolution of related criminal charges.

39 Response to the Legal Community Developed a Continuing Legal Education (CLE) Program - Higher Education Law in Student Conduct: Changes, Challenges and Opportunities Topics: Appalachian s Code of Conduct Procedure Student Conduct Hearings vs. Criminal Procedure Off-Campus Jurisdiction Double Jeopardy and Due Process FERPA Student Development Theory

40 CLE Program Results Do you have questions or concerns about the way in which Appalachian is implementing or enforcing the Code of Student Conduct? Pre-Survey: 100% Yes Post-Survey: 99% No Do you have a better understanding of Appalachian's rationale for addressing some types of off-campus student conduct? Post-Survey: 100% Yes

41 CLE Program Comments Much better understanding of why and what goes on at the University. It had been somewhat murky before. It was interesting to learn the educational aspect of punishment and rehab of students. Nicely done with background and current rationale explanation. Thank you for such an informative program.

42 Suggestions for Future CLE s Student and parent rights and transitioning from high school to college and graduate school with child who has ADD or ADHD Cross section of various and common legal issues facing Higher Education- overview Substance abuse and ethics type of CLE programs always welcome! Real estate Employment issues of state employees Ethics or substance abuse CLE Perhaps more on FERPA. It d be great to have more of these. Legal aspects of academic freedom, perhaps using Ward Churchill as a case study.

43 2008, 2009 Off-Campus Violations (1/1/ /31/2009) Total # of Off-Campus Violations (approximately 5.5%) 2008: : 884 Total # Referred to the Office of Off-Campus Community Relations (app. 3%) 2008: : 478 Total # Referred to Student Conduct (approximately 2.5%) 2008: : 406 Total # of Level 1* Student Conduct Off-Campus Student Violations 2008: : 91 Total # of Level 2** Student Conduct Off-Campus Student Violations 2008: : 305

44 ITGA Handouts: Today s Powerpoint Presentation ASU s Code of Student Conduct Letters of Care and Concern (for alcohol/drugs and noise violations) Alcohol/Marijuana Information Sheet Off-Campus Incident Report Form CLE Powerpoint Presentation to Local Attorneys CLE Handout: The Differences Between Student Conduct Hearings and NC Criminal Procedures

45 Conclusions Some types of off-campus student misconduct can pose a threat to the safety of the campus community as well as the surrounding community. Off-campus student misconduct can undermine positive working relationships between a university and its surrounding community, especially when universities choose to be bystanders versus facilitators. (See book recommendation: The Rights and Responsibilities of the Modern University.) Determining what type of off-campus misconduct to address and how to address it - can be a challenge. It takes time to develop the right system for your school and community, but it can and does mitigate risk, which in time improves relationships with the community. Understanding the process, trials, and tribulations that one university has experienced while refining their off-campus jurisdiction policy may provide insight and support for other schools choosing to address off-campus student violations. Focusing primarily on high-risk off-campus violations, approaching students with care and concern, and creatively viewing obstacles as opportunities can enable universities to successfully craft and implement the right kind of off-campus jurisdiction policy for their campus and community.

46 Questions? Kendal McDevitt, MA Office of Off-Campus Community Relations ,