|
October 30, 2000
To: James Larimore, Dean of the College
From: Dan Nelson, Senior Associate Dean of the College, Group Adjudication Committee Chair
The Group Adjudication Committee was convened at your request during the 2000 summer term in response to a directive by the Board of Trustees, as part of the Student Life Initiative. In its April 15, 2000 statement on the SLI, the Board directed that "All students and student organizations should be treated under the same set of guiding principles and rules," and that the administration should "establish a single judicial system embracing all student organizations..."
We understand that the directive was informed by a recognition that our current highly decentralized systems for responding to violations of College standards by recognized student organizations, groups and teams suffers from actual and perceived inconsistencies in how cases are reported, investigated, and adjudicated. While most student organizations serve the interests and needs of the College and their members well, some do not. Dartmouth can and should do a better job of holding all organizations accountable to a higher standard of behavior consistent with the educational mission of the College. In order to address these issues, our committee was convened to accomplish the task of proposing a description of a new group adjudication process. We met seven times over the summer and fall terms, and we shared and discussed draft copies of this report with a variety of colleagues and student groups. Our committee was comprised of the following members:
Dan Nelson (Chair), Senior Associate Dean of the College; Joe Cassidy, Director of Student Activities; Deb Carney, Assistant Dean of Residential Life; Cassie Barnhardt, Acting Assistant Dean of Residential Life; JoAnn Nester, Associate Director of Athletics; Linda Kennedy, Associate Director of Student Activities; Marcia Kelly, UJAO; Brian Kunz, Assistant Director of Outdoor Programs; Sean Gorman, Associate General Counsel, Legal Affairs; Kate Burke, Director of Student Programs, Hopkins Center; Carolynne Krusi, Dean of the Class of 2002; Kendra Quincy Kemp '02; Megan Steven '02; C. Regina Lee '02; Margaret Kuecker '01. Julie Bell, Administrative Assistant, Dean of the College Office, provided administrative support.
Part of this report takes the form of proposed language for the Student Handbook describing a new group adjudication process, and that document is attached.
To meet the Trustee objective of setting and more consistently implementing a higher behavioral standard for accountability by recognized student organizations, groups and teams, a new committee should be established, similar in stature, procedure and purpose to the Committee on Standards (which investigates and adjudicates major violations of College policy by individual undergraduate students). The proposed name for this new committee is the Organizational Adjudication Committee (OAC). The new committee would adjudicate all organizational violations of the College's standards of conduct, which apply to all students and organizations, and it would be chaired by the Dean of the College or a designated member of the Dean's senior staff. Hearing panels would include three students, two faculty members and two administrative members. (The proposed language for the Student Handbook describes the appointment/election process, which is similar to that of the COS.) To promote institutional consistency and effective and efficient administration, the existing Undergraduate Judicial Affairs Officer position should administer the group adjudication process, provided that sufficient resources are provided to carry out the Trustee directive. We estimate that the necessary staffing, in addition to the UJAO, would include one full-time assistant judicial affairs officer, a full-time administrative assistant, and an additional full-time investigative officer in the Department of Safety and Security.
The current caseload of student organization cases handled by individual departments is difficult to assess. Some departments, notably ORL, regularly handle organizational violations of a serious nature and have internal investigatory and hearing processes clearly delineated. ORL estimates that 25% of an FTE is involved in work of this type. Most other departments with responsibility for supervising teams and student organizations vary widely in the amount of staff time spent on these issues. Athletics and Student Activities devote staff time to investigation and resolution of cases as needed but the amount of time isn't quantifiable as a percentage of an FTE. Other departments probably spend even less time on such work.
Our estimate for additional staffing assumes that a second full-time position working with the UJAO will enable that office to provide significantly expanded education and training efforts. These efforts will be in part targeted at teams and student organizations and may focus on the prevention of hazing, risk management, design and implementation of effective team-building programs, etc. Also, the existence of a new committee (OAC) will require time for recruitment, selection and training.
Support for the expanded effort should include a full-time administrative assistant. It is not possible to expand education efforts and organize programs without the appropriate support staff. (The current assistant in this area is part-time, 25 hrs/week, and is barely able to keep up with the existing workload.)
Finally, our proposal includes the addition of a full-time investigative officer in the Department of Safety and Security. There is currently one full-time investigator in DSS who works a 4-day/week schedule. The anticipated increase in investigative work and the current lag time involved in some case follow-up suggests that there is a very real need for at least a second investigator.
The new committee would not adjudicate violations of departmental regulations, which would continue to be the purview of administrative departments responsible for student organizations, unless there was a reason to refer those cases to the committee. (One reason for referral might be in cases of repeated violations of departmental regulations, where some significant organizational sanction might be warranted.) For example, a case involving an athletic team that violates Athletic Department rules for hosting recruited athletes but otherwise does not violate one of the Standards of Conduct would be handled by the Athletic Department. A CFS organization that violates a CFS policy regarding the management of a social function but does not otherwise violate the College's Alcohol and Other Drugs policy, or violate another Standard of Conduct, would have its case handled by the existing CFS judicial board or other process under the purview of the Office of Residential Life. On the other hand, a CFS organization or team or other group that was alleged to have participated in behaviors in violation of College Standards of Conduct, such as hazing, damage to property, harm or threats of harm, provision of alcohol to underage individuals, etc., would have its case referred to the committee.
Department heads responsible for recognized student organizations, groups, or teams will be expected to contact the UJAO regarding any report of possible organizational misconduct, and to provide full disclosure of any information that has come to their attention regarding the behavior in question. That will enable the UJAO to determine which cases must be referred to the OAC, and to insure appropriate institution-wide consistency in the management of similar cases at both the OAC and the departmental levels. That will also enable more support for those offices which only encounter organizational violations infrequently. Additionally, the UJAO is in a good position to coordinate the disposition of related individual and organizational cases. In order to carry out the responsibility for coordinating the investigation and disposition of complaints regarding organizations, the UJAO will need to call upon the investigative services and expertise of the Department of Safety and Security and the full cooperation of College employees and volunteers responsible for working with the organization in question (advisors, coaches, etc.).
It is important to note that we do not recommend the specification of anything like a "statute of limitations." While individual students are held accountable for their conduct at the College for only as long as they are students here, organizations have an institutional life that precedes the tenure of their current student members and that continues after those students graduate. It needs to be a matter of committee judgement whether an organization will be held accountable, and to what extent, for violations that occurred before current members or officers were enrolled as students or affiliated with the organization. It also needs to be a matter of committee judgement and deliberation as to how long and to what extent a previous organizational violation and sanction will be deemed relevant to the determination of an appropriate sanction for a current violation. In general, the more significant or serious the violation, the longer the period of time in which it is relevant.
Although this proposed new committee may impose sanctions that would include suspension or revocation of an organization's recognition in response to violations of College standards, we don't believe the committee should be charged with the responsibility of determining the future of organizations apart from alleged violations of College standards. In other words, the question may sometimes arise whether a particular organization is sufficiently undermining the educational mission of the College, or is insufficiently responsible or active in carrying out its organizational purposes, as to warrant temporary or permanent loss of recognition. We believe those decisions are more appropriately the purview of the administrative offices responsible for those organizations. We recommend, however, that all offices responsible for student organizations develop criteria and standards for resolving those issues. We also recommend that all student organizations be periodically reviewed by their respective departments so that excellent organizations can be recognized and rewarded, so that organizations operating at a merely satisfactory level can be improved, and so that organizations whose activities and contributions are persistently unsatisfactory can be discontinued.
Similarly, we don't believe that organizational violations of the Principle of Community should be adjudicated by this new committee. The College has previously determined that individual violations of the Principle of Community, per se, are not adjudicable. The committee that deals with organizational violations of College Standards of Conduct should have responsibilities regarding the same standards that are the purview of the COS, the committee that deals with individual violations of the College Standards. The Principle of Community articulates some of the highest standards, values and aspirations of this community. We know all too well that organizations that violate those values do great damage to individuals, the community in general, and the good name of the College. Nonetheless, we believe that the wide variety of responses to organizations that appear to have violated the Principle of Community should not include a referral to this committee, although there may indeed be significant consequences for such an organization through the departmental-review or other processes.
In order to support student organizations, especially in light of the discontinuities associated with the D-plan, it is critically important that departments develop and implement appropriate or enhanced leader- and member-training programs. Those programs should certainly address the responsibilities of the groups and their leaders regarding issues such as the College's hazing and group-accountability policies, but they should also aim to provide leaders with the skills and support they need in order to further their groups' purposes.
Implementation of the proposals and recommendations described in these materials will also require the assumption of some new responsibilities on the part of various administrative officers and the leadership/membership of student organizations. For example, offices and departments responsible for student groups, organizations, and teams will need to communicate regularly with the UJAO and share information promptly about all apparent violations of departmental as well as College regulations. They will also need to maintain records about alleged violations at both levels and about departmental responses. Leaders and members of organizations will need to exercise a heightened level of responsibility for working to make sure that their organizations meet a higher standard of accountability and for assisting the organizational adjudication process in the resolution of cases.
We also wish to emphasize the importance of increased and improved enforcement if the College is to expect any meaningful change in the behavior of organizations and in their accountability for that behavior. It is this committee's strongly held view that the work that went into our recommendations for improvements in the adjudicatory process will have been wasted effort if there is not a serious institutional commitment to not only educating and supporting organizations, but also to finding, charging, and sanctioning organizational violations of College rules with greater frequency, consistency, and severity than is currently the case. By way of example, alcohol violations by various College-recognized organizations are routine, systematic, and widely known. If there is a serious institutional interest in reducing such violations, it is our view that there must be a correspondingly serious commitment of resources, effort, and will aimed at such reduction through increased enforcement, as well as through a comprehensive educational effort.
Finally, in order to establish a committee and process similar to what we have proposed here and described in more detail in the attached document, we recommend consultation with the Dean of Faculty Office so that the new group adjudication process and committee function on a par with COS, which exists as a standing committee of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Although it may not be necessary for this committee to be established as a standing faculty committee, it should have a similar stature to that of the COS. A possible advantage of creating this as something other than a standing faculty committee is that it could have a different appointment process that might allow for more consistency in membership.
We would be happy to meet with you to discuss our report and proposal in more detail.
|
