Case Western Reserve University (CWRU), a private 4-year research institution, is home for many high-achieving science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) students. I spoke with Director George O’Connell at the Office of Student Conduct and Community Standards at CWRU to find out more about what all is involved with student conduct at the institution.
O’Connell attributes his interest in handling student conduct when he was a Residential Assistant during his undergraduate years at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. As a Residential Assistant, he said he did not like getting involved in the student conduct process; however, the discussions he had with those troubled residents “lead to some good conversation,” such as recommending they consider getting involved with an extracurricular activity on campus than making “bonehead choices” that might negatively affect their lives. These meaningful conversations with students are just one of the many reasons that lead him to pursue a Master’s degree in Student Affairs Administration at Indiana State University and take on a graduate assistantship as a Residence Hall Director at the University of New Hampshire. He later accepted an Assistant Director position in the Office of Conduct and Mediation at the University of New Hampshire following graduation as a way to break from his longtime residence life experience and utilize what he has learned in a different, though similar, higher education function. About seven years later, O’Connell decided to pursue his Ph.D. in Higher Education Administration at Kent State University, and was soon hired for the Director position in the Office of Student Conduct and Community Standards at CWRU.
At CWRU, O’Connell said the structure is no different than most universities as it is tied with the Student Affairs office. As the Director, O’Connell’s main responsibility is to oversee student conduct and academic integrity process. This and his other responsibilities include, but are not limited to, providing oversight of investigation and adjudication of all student code of conduct violations, overseeing investigation and hearing process for undergraduate academic integrity violations, serving as administrative hearing officer and board chair for sexual misconduct policy violations, and creating and implementing new university student code of conduct. O’Connell’s direct line of contact is with the Dean of Students, Dean Patterson; who reports to the Vice President of Student Affairs, Lou Stark; who then reports to the Provost, William “Bud” Baeslack III. Within the Office of Student Conduct and Community Standards, other than O’Connell, includes the Assistant Director, Kaleena Rolitsky; and Department Assistant, Angela Wynn. Although it appears to be a team of three, O’Connell added that the office oversees “only about 4,000 undergraduate students,” and that is aside from the graduate student misconducts the office rarely receives issues on. To some degree, Rolitsky also assists with many of O’Connell’s responsibilities; however, her role works closely with the Office of Undergraduate Studies on coordinating the academic integrity initiatives. He said this small sized staff is typical for a small, private institution, as “freshmen tend to be in the majority of conduct” cases.
According to O’Connell, student conduct at CWRU was historically run through the Office of Student Affairs and handled by a graduate assistant. As the university grew over time, the Office of Student Affairs acknowledged there were needs to develop an actual student conduct office to serve the growing student body, thus its inception as the Office of Student Conduct and Community Standards in 2012-13. With the help of O’Connell’s leadership and an established team, the university finally rolled out, in August 2016, an official Code of Conduct. According to O’Connell, CWRU previously followed best practice guidelines that were not formally written anywhere prior to his arrival to the university, so he made it his responsibility to take a look at other similar institutions’ standards, and work with relevant campus partners and the rest of the Office of Student Affairs to create a set of standards of conduct expected of students within the CWRU community.
The budget in the Office of Student Conduct and Community Standards is roughly estimated to be about $20,000, funded through the Office of Student Affairs, according to O’Connell. He said this budget is primarily for administrative purposes, not including each employee's’ salary. Portions of this budget may be used to update technology and/or software for the office, send staff to professional development opportunities or external conduct trainings, or provide funding for the student leaders on the Academic Integrity Board that organize educational programs for students and faculty throughout the academic year. O’Connell added that his office recently transitioned from using binders, that were typically given to the formal hearing board members to review for upcoming cases, and purchased Google Chromebooks to keep those confidential files in an online database.
Additionally, staff of the Office of Residence Life and the Greek Life Office act as an extension to the Office of Student Conduct and Community Standards adjudicating student misconduct cases that initially comes from their grounds. O’Connell said that each of the said offices meet together once a week to look at all student misconduct cases since the last meeting and determine what level of severity each of them are to determine next steps, if not yet resolved. However if a student made an alcohol violation in his or her residence hall, for example; but had no prior misconduct, then the Office of Residence Life will adjudicate it internally without the Office of Student Conduct and Community Standards’ oversight. Though, more serious issues — on the inference that they may “impact the CWRU community or could go on disciplinary action” (G. O’Connell, personal interview, October 3, 2017) — will be brought to the Office of Student Conduct and Community Standards’ attention.
Separately, the Office of Student Conduct and Community Standards also works with the Office of Undergraduate Studies to support the Academic Integrity process. O’Connell said that breach in academic integrity are the most student misconduct cases the office receives. This may include students misrepresenting their own work or obstructing another classmate's work. When it comes to these type of situations, CWRU follows a three-step formal hearing process: (1) The alleged violator will initially meet with an administrator in the Office of Student Conduct and Community Standards to discuss the incident. If the alleged individual does not agree that a violation has occurred, this case will move onto a “formal conduct hearing to determine responsibility and possible sanctions” (Case Western Reserve University, 2017b). (2) At the formal conduct hearing, the alleged individual will have the “opportunity to discuss their perspective on the incident in question” (Case Western Reserve University, 2017b). This hearing board, which consists of two faculty members, three students and two administrators – all of whom are selected and trained to hear cases, as well as ask questions to better understand the situation, may ultimately determine whether the alleged individual is found responsible of the violations based on the information given to them, then appropriate sanctions will be determined. Results will be sent in the form of a decision letter at a time after the formal hearing. (3) Should that individual disagree with the outcome and wishes to appeal the hearing decision, he or she must file an appeal petition within five business days. According to the Office of Student Conduct and Community Standards’ website, an appeal board of just three administrators from the Office of Student Affairs will review all information from the case and make a decision of whether or not there are grounds for an appeal.
O’Connell noted that, in some cases, students are sent to his office not understanding how they may have made a student conduct violation. As a continued learning opportunity for all students, the Office of Student Conduct and Community Standards instills mandatory educational sessions during fall and spring orientation each year to bring awareness of CWRU’s academic integrity policy and how might one identify a breach in such manner. As such, Rolitsky and Denise Butler, Associate Dean of the Office of Undergraduate Studies, joined forces to speak in front of more than 1,300 new first-year students at the 2017 fall orientation, as well as trained nearly 135 orientation leaders to encourage them to have open conversations with each of their small new first-year student groups regarding takeaways from that particular session.
The Title IX office at CWRU is another entity that may jurisdictionally overlap some cases, specifically those involved with sexual misconduct, which may initially come through the Office of Student Conduct and Community Standards. The Title IX office also has just three full-time employees, two of which are investigators that will “review cases together and meet with complainants, respondents and witnesses as a team” (Case Western Reserve University, 2017a). During those meetings with each involved party, investigators’ responsibilities include, but are not limited to, “giving individuals the opportunity to submit a written statement and evidence and the opportunity to list any witnesses who may have information pertaining to the complaint,” conducting follow-up meetings with them to discuss the case and status, ensuring individuals’ safety; and discussing accommodations and interim measures as necessary” (Case Western Reserve University, 2017a).
Additionally, the investigators will collect evidence that may be relevant to the case at hand. These may include “screenshots, phone records, text messages, recordings, journal entries, emails and social media” (Case Western Reserve University, 2017a). Similar to the Office of Student Conduct and Community Standards’ formal conduct hearing process, the case will move onto a hearing with a Sexual Misconduct Board, in which O’Connell also sits on and is designated as one of the members who trains the students, faculty and staff who are also selected to hear.
On a humorous note, O’Connell mentioned three unusual cases that he has ever dealt with in his office: students bringing non-registered pets in their residence halls, students stealing letters from the CWRU welcome sign, and students peeing on the CWRU welcome sign. Of the ones he mentioned, the “students bringing non-registered pets in their residence halls” is the most common violation. According to the university’s pet policy, animals are “not permitted in any university-controlled building or on campus grounds, except for those animals that specifically exempted by this policy” (Case Western Reserve University, 2017c). Service animals, while performing duties, as well as research and teaching animals, are the only ones permitted on university-controlled property, and “only approved small, caged, non-poisonous animals, or fish are permitted in the residence halls” (Case Western Reserve University, 2017c). A completed Pet Registration form, which should include signatures from the resident’s room/suitemates and their Coordinator or Assistant Director, must be given to University Housing to determine grounds of approval. O’Connell said if a resident fails to comply with university pet policies, disciplinary action will be brought against the owner or keeper of the pet, as well as removal of the animal from campus.
Overall, O’Connell finds his position very rewarding despite the difficulty it can sometimes bring. One of the most difficult aspects of his position is dealing with attorneys. Much of O’Connell’s time spent with the CWRU students are purposely approached in a way that is more educational based than punitive. The Office of Student Conduct and Community Standards’ role is to be neutral between all parties involved and provide fair and consistent due process for alleged violators (Case Western Reserve University, 2017d). Though this is a small case example, O’Connell shared a time when he met with a CWRU student who purposely covered their smoke alarm in their residence hall so they can smoke. Being that CWRU is a smoke-free campus and the said actions are considered a fire safety violation, he said that he had to have an educational conversation, as part of the formal investigation process, on the situation, talked through some considerations and impose the appropriate sanctions — all of which the student took full responsibility for and followed through with.
Though, for cases that are considered higher level and faced with a student’s attorney, O’Connell mentioned that he understands their “role is to advocate for the student, so they will find anything under the sun to make sure their student is not held accountable,” and that they “do their clients as a disservice, questioning every step of the [formal conduct hearing] process” treating them “more adversarial or as a prosecution” (G. O’Connell, personal interview, October 3, 2017). He said there were “only a handful of times” where he had to separate a student from the university. On the lighter side of his position, O’Connell said the most rewarding aspect of his position is the conversations he has with the students he meets. He referred back to his time as an Assistant Director at the University of New Hampshire and said some of the students he met let go of their troubled ways and became volunteers at the Office of Conduct and Mediation, or later set a better example of the university and among their peers. As previously mentioned, those meaningful conversations that he has with students drives him to continue bringing success to the university and ensure overall satisfaction with the student conduct process.