Tuesday, November 25, 2014

The University Student Judiciary works to impact the student body by educating students about the consequences of violation of student codes


The impact of an organization like the University of Maryland University Student Judiciary (USJ) is difficult to measure quantitatively and qualitatively not only because of its size but also because of its impact in many areas of student life.  The main purpose of the organization is to address violations of University Codes by students by providing a “fair process” wherein students can be held responsible by a “jury” of their peers – because members of USJ are students as well. The organization works to impact students by educating students about the consequences of Student Code violations to deter students from violating codes. This is done through the use of a morality system called I-C-E: Integrity-Character-Ethics.


The USJ uses a multi-faceted process to consider all possible violations of Student Codes and has seen a decrease in cases in last two years.

 When a violation of any of the student codes occurs, it is recommended that it be reported to the Office of Student Conduct (OSC). Any member of the University of Maryland community can report a violation through an online referral. The question now arises of how cases are brought to the USJ from the OSC for processing, after the initial violation. Although the process varies depending on the type of violation (whether it be of the Code of Academic Integrity, Student Conduct or Residence Halls), the general schematic is the same.

The beginning of an Academic Integrity case is typically a referral by a professor or a student and on occasion a self-report. Once a referral is filed, the office will go through the case and decide if there is probable cause, this includes considering pieces of submitted evidence including exams, assignments, police reports etc.




If the office finds probable cause for the violation, the office then contacts the accused student for a meeting with a faculty member. In the meeting, the accused will discuss their recollection of the incident and whether they are responsible or not responsible. If the student admits responsibility and chooses to accept the standard sanction, they get a 12-month XF (X indicating failure due to academic dishonesty), provided this is their first offense, on their transcript. However, if the student pleads not responsible or wants a different sanction – they have an go to an informal conference resolution with an OSC staff member where they can be found not responsible or get a lesser sanction.

If the student would prefer to present the case to their peers, they also have the option to take their case to the Student Honor Council. This is where the USJ comes into a play. Honor Boards typically consist of five people and one presiding officer (P.O). The P.O manages the hearing and the five people consist of two faculty members and three students, at least. These participants vary based on the code in question.

The hearing itself also follows a particular format wherein students get the opportunity to present their cases in front of the panel of students and faculty in hopes of receiving a lighter sanction or being found “not responsible.” If the student is found not responsible by the board, the case is dismissed. However, if the student is found responsible, the board then convenes to decide on an appropriate sanction, prior to which students have an opportunity to explain why they should receive a “lesser” or different sanction from the standard.  


In the last year, there has been a decrease in the number of new cases processed through the USJ, from 975 in the 2012-2013 school year to 931 in the 2013-2014 school year. However, this drop can be attributed to a variety of causes. Associate Director of the Office of Student Conduct James Bond expressed that part of the reason for the drop was likely the referral of an entire class (~30 students) to the office, as well as (possibly) the impact of widespread academic integrity tutorials. Through the Academic Integrity Tutorials, the organization and the Office of Student Conduct

Sanctions Imposed on Responsible Students are varied based on violations, however the purpose of sanctions are to teach, to provide deterrence, to rehabilitate and lastly to punish.

Sanctions are not limited to the code of Academic Integrity – students found responsible of any violation of any Code are subject to sanction, which varies based on the offense and it’s severity. However, in general, it seems that the organization is pushing to teach rather than to punish.

The idea of imposing a sanction upon a student by fellow students is a unique concept – and has an interesting impact. The United States Judicial System places punishments on guilty individuals for “justice” and to punish. The USJ approaches the issue differently. When asked to elaborate, Bond shared the four main reasons for sanctions: to educate students, to deter other students from repeating this behavior, rehabilitate, and to punish.  With the primary purposes being to encourage change, the USJ promotes self-improvement in order to better prepare students for their futures.


Possible sanctions can range from educational tutorials to recommended expulsion from the University. Every violation of code has an associated standard sanction – these include 12-month XFs on transcripts, suspensions or sometimes expulsion – however Office of Student Conduct data shows that the more severe sanctions are not often given out which reaffirms the lesser emphasis on punishment.

The organization reports that in the 2013-2014 year, only 3 students were expelled and 25 were suspended – compared to the large caseloads that pass through the office (931 this year), these numbers are small. The majority of students found responsible were given lighter sanctions with opportunities for learning. Many students with academic integrity violations received Academic Integrity Seminars; and those with alcohol or drug violations received other similar programs for drug and alcohol abuse. These sanctions may have been in conjunction with others, but this data isn’t provided by the OSC.


A variety of changes in Student Codes have allowed the USJ and its members to address more aspects of student life. These include sexual assault and misconduct, off-campus violations and clearer definitions of cheating.

As the USJ goes about trying to better campus integrity and moral, there is also a consideration of new factors, which must be taken into account – including the recent rise in sexual assault cases and off-campus violations. In addition, the organization has played a role in adding to the definition of cheating to include “fraud, deceit, or dishonesty in an academic course or exercise in an attempt to gain an unfair advantage." These changes have collectively allowed the USJ to address the issues in campus community in a broader, more encompassing manner.

Just last month, University of Maryland President Wallace Loh signed the amended Sexual Misconduct Policy & Procedures into effect – hiring Catherine A. Carroll as the Title IX officer – responsible for overseeing and addressing sexual misconduct at the University. Moreover, the policy has added on a charge of sexual misconduct, which includes inappropriate touching, and stalking. Sexual assault, the act of penetration, is now considered a subset of sexual misconduct.

According to James Bond, all members of the USJ are trained to ask focused questions, objectively process information, and come to cohesive and unified decisions. This allows these students to effectively and efficiently carry out. In addition, these skills enable USJ members to go on to take part in sexual misconduct hearings. Bond shared that members are encouraged to undergo further training to take part in sexual misconduct related hearings, as well as to attend in-services regarding sexual assault and misconduct policies at the University.
Along with this alteration, in May 2013, President Loh approved the extension of the Code of Student Conduct to include, off-campus incidents. Essentially, this change holds students accountable for behavior that violates the Code of Student Conduct off-campus. This jurisdiction has no geographical limits, but must be reported to the University to be processed. However when incidents are reported, with this added accountability, cases of possible violations off-campus can be heard by the USJ after initial processing.

The reasons for this change were because “there were concerns over the limitations of the Code to address certain types of misconduct off-campus, most specifically acts of hazing and violence.” Bond added that this expansion of policy was important in maintaining student safety off-campus as well as to encourage responsible behavior in all aspects of life – not just at the University.

In addition, the change in the academic integrity code allows for inclusion of fake excuses etc. under the definition of cheating. While it has been argued that this alteration makes the code harder on students, Bond explained that this simply allows for the processing of these sorts of cases to be more straightforward to define under the code. The act of submitting fake notes or excuses was a violation of code regardless, it now just more clearly visible. Not only does this make case processing easier, but it also makes rules clearer to students so that they may avoid violations.

The effects of these widespread changes and USJ's overall impact is still unclear; however, the efforts to make an impact are very apparent.

These changes are an example of the ever-changing University environment, due to ever-changing issues and concerns, which the USJ plans to approach in a direct and hopefully effective manner. However, these changes haven’t been present for long, so the long-term adaptability and efficacy of the University Student Judiciary is yet to be seen. Although the total impact of the USJ is unknown, it is clear that the organization in conduction with the Office of Student Conduct is working to have a greater impact on student life and appears to have made some sort of impact
The website explaining Off-Campus Jurisdiction provides educational links and resources.

Since the statistics that include the expansion of policies have no yet been corroborated, all of the information known about the impact of the USJ based on new policies is based on hearsay and observation. Regardless, Bond shared that the outreach and education programs implemented by the Office to teach students about off-campus jurisdiction, known fondly as the"Code on the Road," should have a positive impact student behavior and (hopefully) reducing violations. In addition, the originally mentioned morality system called ICE is perpetuated through events on campus like the distribution of free beverages in exchange for listening to tidbits about Academic Integrity. 

In addition to the lack of information about impacts of the newer policies, the overall impact of the USJ is still very difficult to measure. The overall impact should measured by a combination of statistical data, observations by members of the Office of Student Conduct and USJ and accounts by students who have gone through the process. From just the first two factors, the organization does appear to have made a difference in recent years, through aforementioned outreach and education initiatives. However, the last factor remains to be seen. While it can be reasonably concluded that the missing last factor doesn't moot the clear impact from the first two factors, this factor is still the "missing link."




No comments:

Post a Comment