Over-Reliance on the Student Conduct Hearing: A Call for Alternative Conflict Resolutions in Practice

Allow me to preface this entry by stating that there are certainly instances and behaviors where formalized student conduct processes and hearings are both appropriate and necessary.  However, there are times in our practice when we receive notice of an incident or behavior that does not explicitly constitute a policy violation (or represents complicity with a policy violation), but still presents a concern to the campus community.  In that moment, much of our next steps as practitioners depend on our institutional processes.  Typically, there are two options in this situation:  1.) Dismiss the case because it likely will not meet the standard of “preponderance of evidence” or 2.) Force this incident through a student conduct hearing process.  I am here to say that it does not have to be this way!   

Student Conduct as a functional area has an addiction to formalized student conduct hearings.  It is not hard to see why.  Since the landmark Dixon v. Alabama decision, student conduct administrators discovered we had to provide students with due process rights and, naturally, our collective thinking landed on legalistic processes that mirrored the justice system.  This interpretation of the law often takes one tool (formalized hearings) in our toolbox and renders it as our only tool.  This can result in an outcome similar to trying to utilize a hammer on a screw.  With this application, the outcome focuses too much on the development that comes from the sanction and not enough on facilitating developmental dialogues with our students throughout the process.

With this over-reliance on the student conduct hearing in mind, it is time that we think outside of the box for alternative conflict resolution mechanisms.  There have already been great strides made with the emergence of Restorative Justice (RJ) in practice.  However, RJ can often be difficult to implement because of time constraints and/or lack of student buy-in. 

Consequently, a step back to basics might be in order for incidents such as complicity and other minor policy violations.  That is, we should focus on the educational opportunities available in our discussions (I personally enjoy the term “carefrontation”) with our students.  These informal discussions have started to emerge through the implementation of Community Standards Concern Meetings and the use of Conflict Coaching in practice.  Interactive educational workshops where students must discuss their choices and learn about the impact they have on the community have also proved successful.  If our true end goal is to alter student behavior and increase respect for the community, we can arguably do this more effectively by utilizing developmentally centered processes than by bogging formalized student conduct processes down with these minor incidents.     

Michael La Torre is an Area Coordinator in Residence Life at Tiffin University.  Additionally, he has a collateral responsibility in Student Conduct and Community Standards and serves as a Title IX Investigator for Tiffin University.  He earned a Bachelor’s Degree in Political Science, Communications Studies, and English from Ohio University and a Master’s Degree in Student Affairs in Higher Education from Wright State University.