 |
 |
 |
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
AN EXAMINATION OF STUDENT JUDICIAL PROCESS AND PRACTICES Report from Academic Council Student Affairs Committee (ACSAC) NOTE: A printable pdf version of this report can be downloaded here.
1.1 Charge to the Committee On April 4, 2006, the Academic Council Student Affairs Committee (ACSAC) was charged by Executive Committee of the Academic Council of Duke University to examine the student judicial process and practices. As stated in President Richard Brodhead's letter to the Duke community on April 5, 2006, the review was commissioned to address questions raised within the Duke and Durham communities about the way Duke deals with problems of student behavior and the applicability of the Duke Community Standard to social life. The charge specifically instructed ACSAC to answer the following questions:
1.2 The Review Process This review focuses on the judicial process as applicable to undergraduate students. ACSAC began its process of review by obtaining relevant information on Duke's official regulations and policies pertaining to the student judicial process from the Office of Student Affairs. The Committee also sought written input from various individuals on campus with some connection to the student judicial process. These include the heads/chairs of Office of Institutional Equity (OIE), Undergraduate Judicial Board (UJB), University Judicial Board, the Greek Judicial Board (GJB), Appellate Board, Academic Integrity Council (AIC), and Honor Council. Written input was also received from a subgroup of Trinity College Academic Deans, Stephen Bryan (Associate Dean of Students and Director of Judicial Affairs), and Brad Berndt (Assistant Athletic Director). Written input was also received from a number of Duke faculty members in response to a request directed to the members of the Academic Council through the Executive Committee of the Academic Council. In addition, phone interviews were conducted with Ms. Polly Weiss (Office of Institutional Equity), and Dr. Donna Lisker and Dr. Jean Leonard (Women's Center). Input was also received from the Board of the Duke University Black Alumni Connection (DUBAC), by the Concerned Citizens at Duke, 2 Duke parents, and 1 Duke alumnus. The Committee also considered the views expressed by the community outside Duke. Letters were sent to Mr. John Dagenhart (President, Trinity Park Neighborhood Association), Ms. Risa Foster (ex-President, Trinity Heights Neighborhood Association), and Dr. Nancy Hill ( President, Trinity Heights Neighborhood Association) requesting information specifically on unresolved issues relating to the process by which Duke deals with complaints about student misconduct from the residents of the respective neighborhoods. In response, the committee received letters from 2 residents of Trinity Heights and 7 residents of Trinity Park. Two of the Committee members also personally interviewed Ms. Risa Foster, who followed up by forwarding to the Committee several past email exchanges involving student misconduct in the Trinity Heights neighborhood. Finally, the Committee received input from Durham city officials. The City Manager, Mr. Patrick Baker, and City Councilman Mr. Thomas Stith III and City Councilman Mr. Eugene Brown attended separate Committee meetings. In addition, the chair of the Committee participated in an interview with Captain Ed Sarvis of the Durham Police Department conducted by the committee exploring the lacrosse culture at Duke. The information gathered during this process was examined and analyzed by the Committee. In particular, the following 8 committee members were involved substantially in the deliberations:
We present below background information relevant to the charge to the Committee and a summary of the key themes that emerged during our deliberations. We follow with a presentation of key findings that are the considered judgment of the Committee, and conclude with a list of recommendations that flow from these findings.
2.1 The Duke Community Standard (DCS) The DCS is the University's honor code, and articulates the core values and principles of the institution. The DCS was adopted in the fall of 2003, following a review of the existing Honor Code by the Academic Integrity Council (AIC). It is important to note that, while the DCS is a statement of broad principles, the AIC was formed with the narrower goal of improving the climate of academic integrity on campus. The DCS states: Duke University is a community of scholars and learners, committed to the principles of honesty, trustworthiness, fairness, and respect for others. Students share with faculty and staff the responsibility for promoting a climate of integrity. As citizens of this community, students are expected to adhere to these fundamental values at all times, in both their academic and non-academic endeavors. First-year students commit to the principles of the DCS at the start of their studies at Duke by participate in a ceremonial signing of a pledge immediately following convocation. The pledge states: Students affirm their commitment to uphold the values of the Duke University community by signing a pledge that states:
All students reaffirm their commitment to the principles of the DCS by signing a statement to that effect upon the completion of every academic assignment. The reaffirmation statement states: "I have adhered to the Duke Community Standard in completing this assignment." [Student Signature] The Bulletin of Information and Regulations emphasizes academic integrity in the context of the DCS. Specifically, the bulletin affirms that the DCS not only requires students to uphold the highest standards of academic integrity in their own endeavors, but also obligates students to not accept violations of academic integrity by others. It is the view of the Committee that the DCS, in and of itself, articulates the core values of the University. However, the focus on academic endeavors in the presentation and affirmation of the DCS during the course of student life, combined with its historical basis, has resulted in the standard being perceived as primarily applicable to integrity in academic endeavors only. To the extent that the DCS is viewed as expressing general standards of behavior, it is perceived as applying principally to interactions within the University community only. It is worth noting that there is widespread agreement with regards to this assessment among the various University constituencies that provided input to the Committee. 2.2 University Judicial Policies and Judicial Process The specific rules and regulations pertaining to student conduct are codified in the University judicial policies which are published in the Bulletin of Information and Regulations. The policies cover a comprehensive range of academic and non-academic endeavors, including but not limited to: Academic Dishonesty, Alcohol, Disorderly Conduct, Noise, and Sexual Misconduct. The Bulletin of Information and Regulations also details the judicial process involved in adjudicating allegations of student misconduct. In terms of the Duke judicial process, all cases involving violations of University policy are within the jurisdiction of the Office of Judicial Affairs, which falls within the Division of Student Affairs. The Director of the Office of Judicial Affairs reports to the Dean of Students, who in turn reports to the Vice President for Student Affairs. It is worth noting that a significant fraction of disciplinary cases are resolved informally by Residence Coordinators. During the 2003-2005 period, approximately 70% of disciplinary cases were adjudicated in this manner. The formal disciplinary process is described in detail in the Bulletin of Information and Regulations and can involve an administrative hearing, an Undergraduate Judicial Board hearing, or a Greek Judicial Board hearing. In practice, most cases involve administrative hearings in which a hearing officer determines responsibility and imposes sanctions if appropriate. Faculty involvement in the judicial process is in the form of participation in Undergraduate Judicial Board hearing panels. When students are charged criminally, the Office of Judicial Affairs launches an investigation, typically upon receipt of a police report describing the arrest or citation. As stipulated in the Bulletin of Information and Regulations, the judicial process may run concurrent with criminal action. However, if a student requests that the university process be placed on hold until the criminal case is resolved, this request is usually granted. If an allegation is serious and represents a threat to the university community, interim actions may be taken, such as an interim suspension. A challenge to waiting is that the criminal case is often postponed (continued) in the courts, creating an indefinite delay for the University's disciplinary process. Request for postponement have been occasionally granted when the charges have been relatively minor and deferred prosecution has seemed likely. The Committee's assessment is that the judicial policies are quite comprehensive in scope, and clearly identify conduct that is not in keeping with the core values articulated in the DCS. Nevertheless, there is a disconnect in the sense that the judicial policies are not viewed as being grounded in the DCS. Rather, the judicial policies are perceived as a list of prohibited behaviors which can result in University disciplinary actions. In addition, the Bulletin of Information and Regulations does not highlight and prioritize judicial polices in terms of their importance in relation to the behavioral values expressed in the DCS. The Committee also notes that there is little faculty engagement in the judicial process, and inadequate reporting of disciplinary actions to faculty governance bodies such as Academic Council and advisory bodies such as Athletic Council. These deficiencies are symbolic of the pervasive disconnect between student academic and non-academic life. 2.3 Alcohol and Student Misconduct A major issue in the context of this review is Duke's judicial philosophy related to the use and abuse of alcohol. Specifically, the Committee examined the role of alcohol in student misconduct as well as Duke's policies and approach to adjudicating alcohol-related misconduct. We provide below our perspective of the role of alcohol in student misconduct, and follow with a discussion of the extent to which Duke's judicial policies and practices are addressing these issues. An initial perspective on the role of alcohol in student misconduct can be gained by examining the official disciplinary statistics published by the University. Comprehensive disciplinary statistics for 2003-2005 period are available on the Office of Judicial Affairs website. During this time period, of the 150-170 formal charges filed per year for non-academic judicial violations, 40-50% were specifically for violations of the alcohol policy. In addition, 350-400 student misconduct cases were handled by the Residence Coordinators each year, and a significant fraction of these involved alcohol use and abuse. Examination of the separate alcohol statistics summaries shows that roughly 300-350 violations of the alcohol policy come to the attention of the Office of Judicial Affairs every year. An examination of the judicial statistics related to off-campus misconduct during Fall 2005 is also revealing. Of the 126 violations, 107 were specifically for violation of the alcohol policy. It is worth noting that a majority of these violations arose from charges stemming from a special law enforcement campaign carried out by the North Carolina Alcohol Law Enforcement agency during the first weekend of the Fall 2005 semester. This strongly suggests that the actual number of alcohol policy violations is significantly higher than what is reflected in the official statistics. Finally, there are roughly 30-50 alcohol-related medical calls to DUPD/EMS every year; in general these numbers are not reflected in the disciplinary statistics due the health and safety amnesty clause in the alcohol policy. Furthermore, a perusal of the narrative record related to these calls reveals the severity of alcohol abuse, with a large fraction of cases involving repeated episodes of vomiting and loss of consciousness. It is also clear that alcohol use and abuse is the major underlying factor in both off-campus and on-campus student misconduct. Conversations with the staff of the Women's Center reveal that alcohol is involved in 70-80% of the roughly 60 cases of sexual assault complaints that are received by the center per year. From an off-campus perspective, neighborhood residents and police are in broad agreement that alcohol abuse underlies most of the 'public nuisance' complaints against students. The same is true for misconduct in on-campus residences. Dean Bryan is categorical in his assessment that alcohol use and abuse is the major underlying factor in terms of student misconduct. This view is endorsed by the review Committee. The review Committee also finds that there is inconsistent enforcement of the University alcohol policy. This inconsistency is most acutely manifested in the University's tolerance of large-scale violations of its alcohol policy at events such as Tailgate and Last Day of Classes. It is our understanding that these events, which are essentially 'sponsored' by the University, involve egregious violations of the alcohol policy that exceed in severity the violations that are generally adjudicated by the Office of Judicial Affairs. In effect, the University is violating its own written alcohol policies regarding group-sponsored social functions, which state in part 'A group is responsible for reasonable monitoring of underage drinking and may be sanctioned if the lack of monitoring leads, or could lead, to unsafe/irresponsible behavior and/or community expectations violations. Additionally, groups are expected to ensure that unsafe/irresponsible behavior and/or violations of community expectations do not occur'. The Committee concludes that inconsistent enforcement of the University alcohol policy severely undermines its effectiveness. 2.4. Duke-Durham Issues Related to Student Misconduct The Committee devoted a significant portion of its time to examining issues related to off-campus student misconduct, and Duke's role in dealing with such misconduct. We provide below our assessment of the defining characteristics of these issues and the extent to which Duke is addressing the concerns of the Durham community, and identify issues that remain to be addressed. We begin by noting that the problem of off-campus student misconduct can generally be viewed as one that is geographically restricted in the sense that most complaints seem to involve the Trinity Height and Trinity Park neighborhoods off East Campus. The complaints typically involve misconduct that can be classified as 'nuisance' associated with large parties involving up to 150-200 students at so-called 'party-houses' in the residential neighborhoods. The typical 'nuisance' behaviors include noise, public urination, and general disorderly conduct. In addition, it is important to note that residents and city officials are uniformly of the opinion that the problem is generally confined to only a small percentage of the off-campus student community. City Councilman Eugene Brown characterized this as the 90/10 problem - 90 % of the problems caused by 10% of the students. Furthermore, the City Manager and City Councilmen expressed the Durham community's appreciation of the educational, economic, and cultural contributions of Duke to the city. To place the problem of off-campus student misconduct in context, it is worth noting that Duke has a 3-year on-campus residency requirement for its undergraduate students, and has well developed policies related to on-campus residence life. Students who reside on campus must sign a Housing License prior to occupying an on-campus residence. The Bulletin of Information and Regulation states: 'Any conduct that reflects a serious disregard for the rights, health, safety, and security of other occupants of university housing will be reason for revocation of this license and/or disciplinary action' In contrast, the Bulletin of Information and Regulations does not explicitly discuss behavioral expectations in relation to off-campus student life. The philosophical approach that has been adopted is that students living off-campus have the same rights and responsibilities, and are subject to the same law enforcement sanctions, as other adults in the broader community. Duke's current approach is to give students living off-campus greater freedom in terms of behavioral choices, and intervene judicially only in cases involving arrests/citations and repeated misconduct. In light of the differences in off-campus and on-campus housing policies, there is a clear perception among the residents who contacted the Committee that Duke has not taken sufficient ownership the problem of off-campus student misconduct. Neighborhood residents complained about the lack of adequate response from the Duke administration to their complaints. One specific suggestion was that a hotline be established for residents to report student misconduct. City officials also indicated that the law enforcement actions that had been undertaken by the city had not acted as an adequate deterrent to such misconduct. The City Manager and City Councilmen we met with were unanimous in their view that it was time for Duke to take bold new steps to address neighborhood concerns about student behaviors. It was suggested that Duke consider the approach taken by Wake Forest University, where off-campus living privileges can be revoked as a disciplinary measure. There is some, but not uniform, recognition by the community of the steps that Duke has already taken to address off-campus student misconduct. It is generally well known that Duke recently purchased a number of houses off East Campus, and it is believed that this will ameliorate the problem of 'party houses' to some extent. There seems little awareness of the fact that the Office of Student Affairs has recently hired a full-time staff person specifically devoted to off-campus student life. There is almost no recognition of Duke's change in judicial policy whereby all students receiving citations by the Durham Police are subject to Duke's formal disciplinary procedures. It is the Committee's view that the University has taken noteworthy steps to address neighborhood concerns regarding off-campus student behaviors. However, the full impacts of these measures remain to be determined. The Committee did not find a compelling argument in support of a hotline to report student misconduct. Nevertheless, the Committee notes that behavioral expectations related to off-campus living have not been effectively articulated in the context of Duke's core values embodied in the DCS.
The Committee makes its recommendations regarding Duke University's judicial code, policies, and process in the wake of an acute event of student misconduct in an off-campus setting. However, we considered the event in the context of broader educational issues in designing our recommendations, and addressed the adequacy of the statement of values and expectations, the consistency of application of policies in on- and off-campus situations, limitations in the effectiveness of policies and judicial process, and the relationship between the judicial process and that of the legal system and between the University community and the Durham community at large. We endorse the University's efforts in recent years to articulate institutional values and expectations through the design of the Duke Community Standard, to build community relationships through the Duke-Durham Neighborhood Partnership and Office of Community Affairs, to partner with the Durham Police by increasing the role of Duke Police in the communities that surround campus, to gain more oversight of off-campus housing by acquiring properties that house students, and to clarify and more effectively enforce the University alcohol policy. We applaud the more recent Campus Culture Initiative as a means to involve more of the Duke community in conversation and deliberation about values and expectations. Our recommendations are aimed at systemic issues that we believe would extend and lend context to the changes already taking place to ensure that students graduate from Duke University fully prepared to be citizens of an increasingly global community. We regard the Duke Community Standard (DCS) as a cornerstone of the identity of the University community, and as a critical, overarching statement of institutional values and intentions and a basis for judicial policies. We believe that the central tenet of the DCS should be good citizenship, and that the concept of community should be expanded to include the broader communities in which students interact, reside, or represent the University. Statements of expectations in academic and non-academic matters should flow from this broad tenet, rather than be affirmed separately. We are concerned that the current separate affirmation within the pledge suggests that academic matters are the primary focus of the DCS. In keeping with this more integrated approach under the broad concept of citizenship, we recommend that the ways in which the tenets of the DCS are communicated also be integrated, and that a single Bulletin (perhaps a Bulletin of Undergraduate Education, or BLUE) should incorporate both information on instruction and information on the critical policies that flow from the DCS. The dichotomy between academic and non-academic endeavors is also reflected in the University administration, with distinct academic and student life administrative structures. We recommend examination of the extent and consequences of this divide and consideration of a revised structure and ways to better emphasize an integrated educational experience governed by principles of good citizenship. While changes in the statement of values and policies are important, we also believe that simply stating or pledging a set of values is only an initial step in internalizing and living them. We also recognize that, given the wonderful and growing diversity of the University community, the words used to state institutional values may not have the same meaning for everyone. Therefore, we recommend that the DCS be a highlight of ongoing activities after orientation, including activities that challenge the students to grapple with the limits and tensions implied by the DCS and the differences in how others interpret the DCS. Faculty development around explicit modeling and reinforcement of the DCS will be important in this effort as will integration of these activities into academic and non-academic settings. In order for students to remain aware of the DCS in all their activities, internalization of the standard must be deliberately and consistently promoted through the application and enforcement of policies that derive from the DCS. Inconsistency in the application of policies creates confusion, ambivalence, or cynicism about the validity of and commitment to the DCS. In this regard, we are especially concerned about the inconsistency of application of the alcohol policy. We recognize the complexity of developing and applying a policy that allows students to have 'formative experiences' in the responsible use of alcohol, encourages students to get help if they endanger themselves through using alcohol, and is consistent with the law. We also recognize that students who will go on to have serious problems with alcohol later in life are having 'formative experiences' on college campuses, and that most of the behaviors that cause students to come to the attention of the police, Durham community, and judicial process are alcohol-related. We therefore recommend a broad-based, Presidential-level initiative as part of the Campus Culture Initiative to explore ways to develop policies, educational programming, and a campus culture that consistently discourages the inappropriate use of alcohol. With a DCS that broadens the definition of 'community', we believe that it would be appropriate to develop an explicit off-campus housing code that reflects the values stated in the DCS, to communicate that clearly at a mandatory meeting to students who register to live off-campus or to study away from Duke, and to implement systematic mechanisms for tracking and reporting disciplinary actions and legal actions against Duke students irrespective of their living circumstances. We recommend that information about such actions be communicated regularly with as much detail as FERPA allows to faculty governance bodies such as the Academic Council, advisory bodies such as the Athletic Council and ACSAC, and to appropriate bodies within the local community. Accurate information about trends in the frequency and magnitude of disciplinary issues and efficacy of current educational and enforcement efforts is key in designing strategies to improve and in engaging the local community in a reality-based partnership. It is clear that the recent incident of off-campus misconduct by students, irrespective of the outcome of the sexual misconduct allegations, has damaged a still-fragile relationship between the University community and its neighbors, and has overshadowed the less often reported but no less dramatic positive activities of Duke students in Durham. While we recognize efforts by the Office of Judicial Affairs to be responsive to community concerns, we believe a more proactive initiative is needed to display the University's commitment to engage the community in helping to educate students about citizenship. In order to forge a more resilient relationship between the University and local community, we recommend the development of activities intended to introduce Duke students to their neighbors, their neighbors' concerns, and the expectations of the community regarding citizenship. The disciplinary process for students engaging in misconduct in the community could include options for direct contact and negotiation with neighbors or community service. Regular meetings of stakeholders in this relationship could be convened to discuss problems and design proactive approaches to helping students living off-campus continue to internalize and exemplify the values of the DCS in the greater community. In summary, we believe that the University needs to refine the Duke Community Standard and pledge to reflect the core principles of good citizenship as guiding activities in all settings, and then follow that refinement with ongoing, intentional activities to promote internalization of the DCS and policies that are consistent with the DCS and consistently applied. The dichotomy between academic and non-academic activities that is currently reflected in the structure of the DCS, bulletins, and the administrative structure should be diminished through integration of those structures in order to reflect that a Duke education encompasses academic and non-academic endeavors that prepare students to be exemplary citizens of the global community. Education in citizenship should continue as students live off-campus or study elsewhere, and the University needs to proactively engage the community in partnering with us to provide and reinforce this education. The specific recommendations of the Committee are:
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
| © 2006 Office of News & Communications 615 Chapel Drive, Box 90563, Durham, NC 27708-0563 (919) 684-2823 Send questions or comments about this web site to webmaster. |
||||
