Transcript Campus Safety vs. Student Development: : Who Wins the Battle When Student Organizations Misbehave Kim Novak Pi Kappa Alpha Fraternity @NovakTalks Brent Paterson Illinois State University @BGPater Larry.

Campus Safety vs. Student Development: :
Who Wins the Battle When Student Organizations Misbehave
Kim Novak
Pi Kappa Alpha Fraternity
@NovakTalks
Brent Paterson
Illinois State University
@BGPater
Larry Wiese
Kappa Alpha Order Fraternity
@lswiese
The Core Principles
Educational Endeavor
Protect Rights, Health & Safety
Administered Impartially & Fairly
“[W]henever an institution has
established procedures that apply to the
imposition of sanctions, the law will
usually require that these procedures be
followed” (Kaplin & Lee, 2007, p. 458).
Stoner & Lowery (2004) – best
practice dictates that the
adjudication process should always
be documented
What is the Process?
Why is the process so
IMPORTANT?

48. A student group or organization may be charged
with violations of this Code as outlined in Article II,
Sections 8 and 9, whether the alleged violations
occurred on or off University property.

49. The officers or leaders or any identifiable
spokesperson for a student group or organization may
be directed by the Dean of Students or authorized
representative to take appropriate action designed to
prevent or end violations of this Code by the group or
organization. Failure to make reasonable efforts to
comply with such directive shall be considered a
violation of this Code, both by the officers, leaders or
spokesperson for the group or organization and by the
group or organization itself.

50. No specific procedures for adjudicating the
commission of violations by a student group or
organization are established other than the Dean of
Students may impose sanctions for group or
organization misconduct up to and including
revocation or denial of registration, as well as other
appropriate sanctions. A student group or organization
may appeal the denial or revocation of registration to
the UAB as outlined in Section 42 of this Code.
No Process Defined
Guidelines for the Greek Community Standards Board

The Greek Community Standards Board (GCSB) was established in order to protect the rights of chapters and
individual members in order to promote responsible self-governance of the Greek community at the College. The
GCSB allows Greek students the opportunity to become actively involved in the accountability processes at the
College. Also, those students who are selected to serve on the board will assume leadership and service positions
which will aid the College Student Accountability System.

The GCSB is designed to assist the College in fostering and promoting appropriate behavior in the conduct of
the Greek Community. The purpose of the GCSB is to establish a level of acceptable behavior for all fraternities
and sororities.

Another purpose of the GCSB is to complement the educational mission of the College. This is accomplished by
fostering a sense of community with established standards of behavior that are appropriate to the character
and purpose of Greek Chapters and the College.
The GCSB hears cases related to chapter events, not those related to individual Greek members.
Examples of cases may include:







Social event violations
Alcohol violations
Minor vandalism (paint on sidewalks, etc.)—if the damage is minor
Hazing (if recommended to the GCSB instead of the Student Accountability Committee)
Educational opportunities (risk management, attitude towards other chapters, academics, etc.)
Incident reports may be referred to the GCSB by either the Director or the Assistant Director of Community Living.
In conjunction with the Director and/or Assistant Director of Student Involvement, cases may be deferred to the
Student Accountability process at the discretion of the Office of Student Development.
FSL Specific Process

All student organizations are governed by rules developed by one of six administratively
designated University judicial systems, each of which is separate and distinct from the
others. These are the Student Government Association (all registered and some recognized
organizations), Interfraternity Council, Multicultural Greek Council, National Pan-Hellenic
Council, Panhellenic Council, and Residence Halls Association. In most non-living group
situations cases would be investigated by the Committee on Student Organizations to
determine just cause for disciplinary action. The Residence Halls Association, the
Interfraternity Council, the Multicultural Greek Council, the National Pan-Hellenic Council,
the Panhellenic Council, and the Off-Campus Student Association (OCSA) will be held
responsible to maintain appropriate conduct by the University administrative units assigned
to oversee their activities. The OCSA is supervised by the Department of Campus Life. All
sororities and fraternities are supervised by the Office of Fraternity & Sorority Affairs.
Discipline cases involving any fraternity or sorority will be processed jointly by the Office of
Fraternity & Sorority Affairs and Student Conduct Education and Administration. In cases
where suspension or expulsion of a fraternity or sorority is a possibility, the case will be
referred directly to the Student Conduct Committee for a Level Three hearing.
 Procedural rights and obligations for all student organizations are customarily
similar to those afforded individual students: Cross reference section 5.04 -5.09 of
the Student Code
Individual = Organization
You Need to Decide
What is your process?
Will you collaborate?
What will collaboration look like?
Who will be the voice of the Institution ?
Jurisdictional Considerations: Policy
 Student Code of Conduct
 Student organization recognition requirements
 University housing policies (if applicable)
 Governing Council or Organization
 Inter/National organization policies
 Federal, state, local laws
Possible Entities with Jurisdiction:
Office of Student Conduct
Title IX Officer
Housing & Residence Life Office
Governing council (IFC, PHA, MGC, etc.)
Office of Fraternity/Sorority Life
Student Government Association
Inter/National headquarters
Criminal Court System
Delegated authority vs. assumed authority
Who Should be Making Decisions?
Gorman v. University of Rhode Island, 837
F.2d 7 (1st Cir. 1998) – “an impartial and
independent adjudicator ‘is a
fundamental ingredient of procedural
due process.’
Jurisdictional Considerations: Geography
 “As long as the college can articulate a
reasonable relationship between the offcampus misconduct and the well-being of the
college community, reviewing courts will not
overturn a disciplinary action unless they find
that the action was arbitrary, an abuse of
discretion, or a violation of a student’s
constitutional rights” (Kaplin & Lee, 2007, p.
412).
AN INCIDENT
 University receives a report that a 19 year-old student was
transported to a local hospital with alcohol poisoning –
Critical Incident Response Team (CIRT) was called and
early verbal reports indicate student was at a party
hosted off campus by a fraternity known to have a
significant number of club soccer members in their ranks.
 Written report from Police and CIRT Team comes in and
indicates that a 19 year-old had been drinking with
roommate in her residence hall room prior to going to the
party
Interim Suspension
 Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (1975) – “Students
whose presence poses a continuing danger to
persons or property or an ongoing threat of
disrupting the academic process may be
immediately removed from school…[and
notice and hearing] should follow as soon as
practicable.”
 Documentation for the incident includes a city police report
submitted through campus police and provides address for offcampus party –identified as a known “off-campus party house” for
a fraternity. Estimated that approximately 120 people were at the
event and several verbal warnings were issued for underage
drinking and a warning for a noise violation was issued.
Additionally, the report indicates the student that appeared to be
in charge (Bob Martin, President of Tri-Zippo Fraternity) was
cooperative.
 Student that was transported was found throwing up on front porch
and after doing a welfare check a determination was made to
take her to the hospital. At the hospital police asked the young
woman what she had drank and she indicated that she did 5 shots
of something bitter in her room with her roommate who was going
out with another group of friends.
The Investigation
Best Practices for Conducting an Investigation (Paterson, 2012)
More Information
 Even held at off-campus location hosted at a site that is considered a
“unofficial house” for Tri- Zippo, and fraternity President confirmed it was
a chapter event.
 The fraternity and a sorority were co-hosting an event to celebrate
seniors. Alcohol was purchased by individuals and brought to the event
some in the form of gifts for seniors.
 Guest list was in place as considered a VIP event and not open to the
“un -cool” people from chapters.
 There was no effort to check IDs and the fraternity indicated that
probably 30 people at the event were underage.
 Student transported showed up as a date of one of the invited
members and was showing signs of intoxication at the door. Server
behind bar (a new member of the fraternity) was told not to give her
any more alcohol and her date said he would keep an eye on her.
 Police responded to noise violation at 11:47PM –issued several warnings
for underage possession, a noise violation against renters, and asked that
the party start to close down and be closed out by 12:30 AM.
 Upon exiting front door, Police saw the student puking over porch rail and
do welfare check – then determine she needed to be transported to
hospital. When asking her what she drank the young women indicate
“shots of something harsh” that her roommate had given her at 9:30 PM –
about 5 shots….
 Roommate was not at the event and is not a member of either group
hosting the party
 Student transported indicated she did not recall drinking anything at the
party.
 Fraternity man that brought student transported as his date indicated he
took her outside for air about 5 minutes before police arrived and he did
not realize how drunk she was.
 Fraternity Sorority Life professional was assigned as one of the investigators
and in concluding comments mentioned that she has had concerns
about rumors regarding ragging parties at this address and feels that the
chapter should minimally lose social privileges for a year, including
Homecoming and Greek Week privileges.

Individual –vs- Organization
 “Developing and enforcing a group
misconduct policy does not necessarily
eliminate the need for individual students to be
held accountable. Individuals can be held
accountable for their own actions as well as
their actions as part of a recognized
organizational entity under the code”
(Lancaster & Waryold, 2008, p. 246).
Does your process allow?
Is this even a student org Issue?
The institution must clearly state…the guidelines
used to determine if actions of individual
members or small groups within an organization
constitute action by the organization.
What Constitutes Student Organizational Misconduct? (Lancaster & Waryold,
2008, p. 247) – The following criteria, taken individually or as a whole, suggest
grounds on which to proceed with an organizational conduct case:
 Would a reasonable personal understand the behavior to fall
within the scope of the organization’s activity?
 The behavior is committed by one or more members of a student
group and is sanctioned by the organization and/or its officers.
 The behavior is committed by one or more members of a student
group during the course of an activity financed by the
organization and/or on property owned by the organization.
 The behavior is committed by one or more members of a student
group and is supported by its members.
 The officers of the organization had prior knowledge that the
incident would take place.
 Members of the organization lied about the incident.
CHARGES:
 Organization Charged letter sent on Friday via
email) with: Alleged violation of University
Student Rules regarding alcohol. Hearing set for
following Tuesday at 3:15 PM in VP Conference
room.
Process Due:
“Notice should be given of both the conduct
with which the student is charged and the
rule or policy that allegedly proscribes the
conduct” (Kaplin & Lee, 2007, p. 463).
 Jenkins v. Louisiana State Board of
Education, 506 F.2d 992 (5th Cir. 1975) –
charges should be given “in sufficient
detail to fairly enable…[the student] to
present a defense.”
Procedural Rights
 In re: Rensselaer Society of Engineers v. Rensselaer
Polytechnic Institute, 689 N.Y.S.2d 292 (N.Y. App. Div.
1999) – “[J]udicial scrutiny of the determination of
disciplinary matters between a university and its students,
or student organizations, is limited to determining whether
the university substantially adhered to its own published
rules and guidelines for disciplinary proceedings so as to
ascertain whether its actions were arbitrary or
capricious.”
So you are private…..
 “Reviewing courts have held private institutions to a
requirement of fairness” (Kaplin & Lee, 2007, p. 470).
 Kwiatkowski v. Ithaca College, 368 N.Y.S.2d 973 (N.Y.
Sup. Ct. 1975) – “[T]he college or university’s decision
to discipline that student [must] be predicated on
procedures which are fair and reasonable and which
lend themselves to a reliable determination.”
 Best practice: “As a matter of practice, private
institutions provide due process rights to students in
conduct proceedings that mirror those found at public
institutions” (Paterson, 2012, pp. 21-22).
The Reality….
Gorman v. University of Rhode Island, 837 F.2d 7
(1st Cir. 1998) – “Due process, which may be said
to mean fair procedure, is not a fixed or rigid
concept, but, rather, is a flexible standard which
varies depending upon the nature of the interest
affected, and the circumstances of the
deprivation.”
Sanctioning Equation:
1. What do we know about the problem – how does
this inform where we need to focus our efforts
2. What contributed to this problem? What needs to
change
3. Which factors can be modified? What can we
influence?
4. What will make this happen?
5. What should the outcome of the inquiry process
look like?
6. Beyond the organization, who else needs to take
action to change?
EVIDENCE:
In the hearing the fraternity president and sorority president accept responsibility for hosting the
event with alcohol and allowing minors to consume alcohol.
The students indicated they did not register the event because it was off campus and policies
indicate only on campus events or formal events are to be registered.
The students indicate they did not serve the young woman transported but did allow her stay as a
brother’s date.
Sanctions assigned only to the fraternity as event was hosted at their
live-out.
Fraternity was placed on social restriction for one academic year – and will not be allowed to
participate in Homecoming or Greek Week.
Fraternity must have a membership review and minimally remove the president from office as well
as the new member educator that told new members they had to work the party.
Limited recruitment restrictions – fraternity cannot extend bids to freshman for next round of
recruitment because they let underage people drink at the event.
Coordinate a program with local police about alcohol laws – to be offered to entire FSL
community as part of annual risk management program.
It was NOT over…
 Chapter appealed sanction-citing severity of sanction and due
process violation. Indicating in appeal that the campus traditionally
does not address off-campus incidents and provided statements
from three other fraternities and police blogs that indicate they had
parties shut down by local police and citations issued for underage drinking but were never charged by campus but did have
call-in meetings and conversations with FSL advisor about safe
party management.
 Additionally, the President requested that hearing be moved as he
an internship on Tuesday and also wanted his Chapter Advisor to
be present and was told by FSL advisor that if he did not show up
then a decision would be made in his absence. Chapter Advisor
was not allowed to attend the hearing as he is a city police official
and the board thought he would have a conflict of interest.
The Appeal
Q&A