Conduct Process

During a conduct meeting, students can expect the following:

1. Reading of the incident report
2. Student(s) will be asked for their perspective on what happened
3. Review of the charges and why these policies are in place
4. Student(s) will be asked if they accept responsibility for the violation of the charges above
5. Review of potential sanctions
6. Review of the Conduct Review Process (aka appeals)

After the alternate resolution, the hearing officer will evaluate the information gathered via the report and the meeting to determine if the student is responsible for alleged violations. Using the “preponderance of the evidence” criteria simply means to prove that something is more likely than not; if the student is found responsible for the allegations, the staff member may, when appropriate, impose appropriate sanction(s). This decision will be emailed to the student. Students may appeal the decision; for further information, please see page 15. Alternate resolution meetings are set up to allow the students to discuss and share their own stories of the incident. After the meeting is concluded and the sanction has been assigned, students will accept or deny responsibility.

Preliminary meetings are set up to inform students where their case is being referred to be heard — either an administrative hearing or the University Conduct Board.

Cases are referred to these meetings/hearings/boards for a number of reasons:

• If the severity of the alleged violation and/or the student’s prior conduct history requires a board/hearing/meeting.
• If, during a Conduct Process Review, it is determined by the appeals officer that the case should be reheard via a board/hearing/meeting.

Due to confidentiality, OCS will not share any incident report physically or electronically with any student. However, all students have the right to read the incident report and review evidence before their meeting. Please email the Office of Community Standards to schedule a time to come read your report.

Each preliminary meeting will include the following:

1. Reading of the incident report
2. Review of the charges and why these policies are in place
3. Informing the student which process the case is being referred to
4. Information about the structure of the meeting/hearing/board
5. The date, time, and location for the meeting/hearing/board
6. Review of the Conduct Review (aka appeals) Process

Most of the time, cases do not rise to the level of a student potentially being put on probation and/or dismissed from the University. We call these cases lower-level cases. At the discretion of Office of Community Standards staff, lower-level cases may be referred to one of two options: alternate resolution or the Peer Accountability Board.

Students who breach University policies may be subject to the Peer Accountability Board (PAB), which consists of a group of students specially trained to facilitate dialogues. PAB members assist fellow students who have violated the Student Code of Conduct in reflecting on their actions. They engage in meaningful conversations with their peers regarding the violation and its repercussions on themselves and the community.

The Peer Accountability Board (PAB) comprises three students and a non-voting advisor, usually a professional staff member or Community Standards specialist trained to facilitate dialogues. Like the initial meeting, the PCB involves a thorough review of the report and evidence, allowing the responded student an opportunity to present their version of events. During the PCB, board members are permitted to ask the accused questions. At the conclusion of the board meeting, a majority vote is required to hold the student accountable. If the student is found responsible, the Board will impose appropriate sanctions, and the decision will be communicated to the student via email. Students can appeal the decision; additional information can be found on the Conduct Review Process page 15.

Typically, the Peer Accountability Board hears cases involving violations that affect the broader community where students reside. These violations may include, but are not limited to, issues such as quiet hours, roommate conflicts, disorderly gatherings, alcohol violations, and visitation.

The Administrative Hearing comprises 2 members who may be either faculty or staff. This option is provided to students who have already accepted responsibility, or where there is clear evidence of conduct violation by a student that may lead to probation, suspension, and/or dismissal from the University. The hearing officers will determine if sufficient information is available to find the student responsible for the violation(s), regardless of the denial. If so, the hearing officers will decide and impose appropriate sanction(s). Under these circumstances, the student can appeal the decision to the Dean or their designee via the Conduct Review Process. To learn more, visit the Conduct Review Process (also known as Appeals).

The UCB comprises three members, including faculty, staff, and/or students (note: the preliminary meeting officer is allowed to serve on the UCB).

UCB Procedures

• Both the complainant and the respondent will have a preliminary meeting with the preliminary meeting officer, usually the UCB Chair. During this meeting, the Chair will review the Board procedure, and both parties can read the written complaint. In the UCB cases, the respondent can accept responsibility and have sanctions imposed by the preliminary meeting officer.
• Both parties will have access to review the entire case file before the hearing. OCS reserves the right to redact portions of the case file if it is deemed necessary in the interest of health and safety or where private information is in the file (e.g., personal medical records). The UCB Chair will schedule a time in advance, and the students will be notified during the prehearing of their scheduled time.
• Both the complainant and the respondent may request the assistance of an advisor, an individual of the student’s choosing from within the Clark community. If the advisor attends the hearing, their name must be shared with the Chair at least 24 hours before the hearing. During the hearing, the advisor’s role will be limited to consultation with the advisee.
• During the hearing, only the complainant, the respondent, Board members, approved witnesses, and advisors will be present. Witnesses shall only be present when sharing information with the Board, except at the discretion of the UCB Chair. Once witnesses have presented their information to the Board, they must leave the vicinity of the hearing.
• The UCB may require cooperation of any Clark community member in providing information during the hearing. However, no University staff member with whom the respondent has a legally cognizable privileged/confidential relationship (e.g., therapist, clergy, etc.) can be required to give information arising from that role without the respondent’s permission.
• During a hearing, the Board will allow the complainant and the respondent to share information and to ask questions of each other directly or through the UCB Chair, at the discretion of the Chair. The complainant and the respondent may also ask witnesses questions, directly or through the Chair, at the Chair’s discretion. Names of witnesses being requested by either party must be shared with the Chair at least 72 business hours before the hearing.
• All witnesses must provide the Chair with their written statements 48 business hours before the hearing. The Chair will call witnesses to the hearing at their discretion.
• The UCB Chair may remove any individual who impedes the conduct process. The Chair will act to promote a civil and respectful proceeding.
• At any point in time, either the respondent, complainant, or members of the Board may request a short recess. The UCB Chair will determine whether to grant that request and for how long. If a leave is granted, the hearing will begin at the announced time without delay.
• Following the completion of the board, the Board members shall decide by majority vote whether the respondent was responsible for the violations(s) of the Student Code of Conduct. If the decision is affirmative, the Board members will, by a separate vote, determine the sanction if one is deemed appropriate.
• If, in the course of a hearing, information arises indicating a possible violation of another provision of the Student Code of Conduct, the University reserves the right to pursue that in a separate hearing process.
• After the conduct proceeding, the UCB Chair shall share the final decision with the respondent, delivered by email to the respondent’s Clark email account.
• The UCB Chair will notify the complainant of the decision and any portion of a sanction that limits contact between the complainant and the respondent.