Student Conduct Administration

EDU 719: Student Affairs: Theory, Research, and Practice

Salem State University
Kevin Parker
 2

When a high school student sits in my office to discuss minor infractions of school

policy, I have a wide latitude of disciplinary options. I’m expected to implement a punishment

based on the student’s need for structure and demonstration of remorse. Because the students I

work with are minors and often not directly in the care of their parents, the expectation is that

they need a firm set of rules and structure, even as they develop independence in small ways.

The reach of higher education institutions’ control over student conduct is different, as it

involves adults controlling the actions of other legal, independent adults. Student conduct

administration in higher education is in many ways more complex than at other educational

levels. As in all functional areas of student affairs, it is important for student conduct to be

approached as a matter of student development. Student development involves an individual

being “increasingly able to integrate and act on many different experiences and influences”

(Evans, Forney, Guido, Patton, & Renn, 2010, p. 6). In this exploration of student conduct

administration in higher education, I sought to understand how professionals in this functional

area put development at the forefront of their practice.

This paper will examine the primary responsibilities of student conduct administrators. It

will explore their interactions with other segments of the university and how values and ethics

influence their work. The paper will then dissect current issues through the lens of the three main

directives of the Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education (CAS)

standards for conduct programs: “procedurally sound, learning focused, and community based”

(CAS, 2015, p. 421). In evaluating these three directives, I will explore challenges and current

issues faced by offices in their achievement. I interviewed two student conduct administration

professionals to provide context for this paper. briana Sevigny, Associate Director of the Office

of Student Conduct and Conflict Resolution (OSCCR) at Northeastern University, provided

 3

perspective from a large, private research university. With more than 17,000 undergraduate

students, Northeastern University is located in the heart of the city of Boston, with expansive

resources supporting the area of student conduct (www.northeastern.edu). Jaclyn Calovine,

Associate Director of the Office of Community Standards (OCS) at Babson College, related to

me the resource challenges of a small private institution and the effect on student conduct.

Babson College is in a suburb of Boston and has around 3,000 students (www.babson.edu).

Evaluating two institutions with remarkable difference in number of students and, therefore,

institutional resources, showed differences in the ways student conduct professionals pursued the

missions of their offices. However, the focus on student development as the function of student

conduct was a goal both offices shared.

Essential Programs, Mission, Roles, and Responsibilities

Through programming, outreach, meeting with students, and adjudicating hearings,

student conduct programs work toward the goal of student development. CAS (2015) standards

for student conduct programs require educators to not only address violations with students, but

manage each violation case and assess continuing developmental outcomes. Providing clear

policies and procedures in sanctions and learning outcomes managed by the office and providing

clear outlines of the student conduct code are other essential services (CAS, 2015). In addition,

some student conduct programs provide outreach to the student community through

programming and information distribution (b. Sevigny, personal communication, July 13, 2016).

briana Sevigny (personal communication, July 13, 2016) started our recent conversation

by saying that Northeastern University’s goal is to be intentional about learning in the student

conduct process. While the official mission of OSCCR does not cite learning specifically, it

outlines providing a space for self-reflection as a component of helping students understand

 4

community standards (www.northeastern.edu). In this way, OSCCR’s mission aligns with the

CAS outline of the mission of a student conduct program (CAS, 2015, p.421). Sevigny’s

comment that learning is a core goal of the process further aligns with the prescribed CAS

standard for mission. Moreover, putting learning at the center of the conduct process means that

development is also central. King and Baxter Magolda (2011) show how learning is connected to

students’ self-authorship in developing their own internal voice through the Learning

Partnerships Model. Sevigny (personal communication, July 13, 2016) went on to confirm

OSCCR’s alignment with this theory in noting that student conduct administrators are walking

alongside the student, guiding them in their development, but not setting a path for them to walk

on. This bears resemblance to King and Baxter Magolda’s (2011) description of the learner as

driver, and educator as taking the back seat in their development. Jaclyn Calovine (personal

communication, July 21, 2016) indicated that Babson’s OCS takes a similar tack in handling

student conduct, using the words “transformational” and “educational” as the key aspects for any

student conduct program. By naming its student conduct program the Office of Community

Standards, Babson signals that its role is in upholding the values of the specific learning

community of Babson. The connection of conduct management to the larger learning community

highlights the focus on learning in the process.

Beyond Babson and Northeastern, learning and development are cornerstones in a

national shift in student conduct programs. In the literature of student conduct administration,

Stoner and Lowery’s (2004) model student conduct code is referenced repeatedly. It serves as a

basis for the appropriate structure for a conduct code. Stoner and Lowery (2004) provide context

and summarize the trends of a move away from judicial, fault-finding processes in higher

education. In the introduction of their code, Stoner and Lowery (2004) write:
 5

…criminal codes are not good models for student conduct codes. Unlike society, our

institutions are voluntary associations of scholars who demand and deserve a positive –

and special – living/learning environment, as well as a special approach for enforcing the

academic community’s standards. (p. 5)

It’s clear from this attitude in the literature that institutions have tried to shift the focus of

discipline from a legal process to a development process (Shook, 2013). One of the most telling

signs of this shift is the change in name of the Association for Judicial Affairs Administrators

professional association to the Association for Student Conduct Administrators. Both Sevigny

and Calovine referenced this change as a telltale sign that the shift away from the appearance of

a courtroom or judge was important to the professionals in this functional area. While the word

judicial indicates a laying of blame, using student conduct, or like Babson College using

“community standards,” removes a punitive connotation. Quaye (2011) notes that “language

becomes a powerful tool to create symbols that one uses to fashion meaning among a group of

people in a particular society” (p. 283). To make the external perception of the functional area

mirror the shift to student development, professionals in this functional area followed through

with intentional language.

Despite the value of being intentional with language, I wondered if student conduct

programs were actually taking actions that aligned with the specified CAS domains of learning

and development. Sevigny provided an excellent example of the “practical competence” domain

in the “managing career development” and “demonstrating professionalism” dimensions (CAS,

2015, p.422). As Northeastern is a school at which students may be working on co-op while

engaged in interaction with OSCCR, Sevigny noted that conduct administrators leverage that

real-world work experience to get students to develop awareness of consequences. If a students’

 6

co-op supervisor found out about the behavior that landed them at OSCCR, would that look good

professionally? Would it affect their future prospects of getting a job at that company? By

allowing students to answer questions such as these for themselves, Sevigny and her colleagues

clearly push student growth in those dimensions without dictating the path.

Moral development of students is a primary responsibility of student conduct programs in

the domains of intrapersonal development and civic engagement (CAS, 2015). In research cited

by King (2012), “students presumed at higher levels of moral development by the [Defining

Issues Test] participated in fewer violations of university policies than the less morally

developed students (Chassey, 1999)” (p. 564-565). Therefore, the existence of a code and

violations of the code provides administrators the opportunity to intervene specifically with less

morally developed students rather than programming to the campus at large. Moral development

is one piece of the development that student conduct programs are putting at the center of their

processes.

Constituency and Collaboration

Students “conduct” themselves throughout their environment: off-campus, in classrooms,

residence halls, and student activities. As such, many individuals can observe their actions, and

all educators are responsible in some small way for providing guidance when students violate

behavioral standards in the community. While student conduct administrators are the primary

educators handling reported violations of policy, they coordinate with faculty, student affairs

educators, and other staff to provide a consistent response to violations through sanctions and

support. The CAS (2015) standards note that student conduct programs “must collaborate with

colleagues and departments across the institution to promote student learning and development,

persistence, and success” (p.422). Student affairs educators create such collaborations between

student conduct programs and other key stakeholders on campus.

 7

Calovine (personal communication, July 21, 2016) divided the offices her program

collaborates with into two tiers: frequent collaboration occurs with campus police, residence

education, Greek life, and counseling services, while less frequent collaboration occurs with

academic advising and disability services. Whether referring students to these offices or

engaging with them to assess how students are progressing on development outcomes, healthy

communication between educators is key to these goals. In discussing the value of partnerships

and collaboration, Arcelus (2011) notes that collaborations between offices are most productive

when they involve “substantive interactions that help students develop a sense of self through

increased understanding of others” (p. 61). Therefore, it is important that the interactions

between these offices have intentional goals. When student conduct refers a student to

counseling services as remedy for a violation of policy, there should be an interaction between

two educators where a clear outcome for the student is set. Otherwise, the referral lacks

substance and has no opportunity to promote any growth for the student.

Students who interact with conduct educators because of violations are generally not as

advanced in their moral judgment as their peers (Cooper & Schwartz, 2007). These are the

students for whom the student conduct educators create specific learning outcomes to remedy

this deficiency in judgment, and are the primary constituents the functional area deals with. But

other students may approach the student conduct educators of their own volition. Sevigny

(personal communication, July 13, 2016) notes that at least weekly a student reaches out to her

office for clarification on published policy or for other assistance. Regardless of the student, the

interactions with conduct educators are based in development and learning. The values and ethics

of a student affairs educator are essential in handling these interactions.

Values and Professional Development

 8

Of the values essential to the profession cited by Reason and Broido (2011), “justice or

the upholding of moral and legal principles, [and] truth, or faithfulness to fact or reality (Young,

1993a, p.1)” (p. 82) are the most relevant to student conduct educators. By observing these

values while engaging in practice, student conduct educators ensure a fair and equitable process

for all students. Students who have perpetrated major violations of conduct codes can face severe

sanctions. Sanctions can affect their long-term academic career beyond the university they attend

at the time of the violation. Therefore, student conduct educators must design and ensure just and

truthful processes in their programs, in order that such sanctions only affect students that have

committed serious violations deserving of such sanctions. The alternative is an imperfect process

that mistakenly disciplines innocent students.

Another major area of ethical concern for student conduct educators revolves around

privacy. Information concerning student behavior and sanctions applied must be treated

sensitively to protect the students’ future interactions. For example, students with mental health

diagnoses relating from a referral to counseling services should not later influence treatment of

the students by university staff, as alternate treatment could be viewed as discrimination

(Reynolds, 2011). At the same time, students with history of violent behavior or previous

incidents of violation may need to be reported to a dean of students office or threat assessment

team (ASCA, 2016). Understanding when and with whom to share student information is an

important piece of student conduct educators’ work. If guided by the values and ethical

foundations of the student affairs profession, they will act appropriately. A combination of self-

regarding virtues, to ensure integrity, and other-regarding virtues, like respectfulness, are

necessary to complete the student conduct educators’ work professionally and to ensure positive

student development (Fried, 2011).

 9

To perpetuate the focus on student development, student conduct educators can engage

resources for professional development. The Association for Student Conduct Administrators

(ASCA) is a national professional organization offering research materials, webinars, and

conferences to its members (www.theasca.org). The ASCA attends to the current issues facing

student affairs, this year offering a new Title IX Institute, focusing on the investigation and

adjudication of sexual misconduct investigations. It also lists on its website that student growth

and development are the goals of student conduct. Both Sevigny and Calovine have backgrounds

in residential life and noted this is common among their peers. A background in education or

clinical health is more common in their peers than a background in law or criminal justice (J.

Calovine, personal communication, July 26, 2016). This fact reiterates that the student conduct

educator is more educator than judge or police officer.

Learning Focused: from in loco parentis to Motivational Interviewing

Student development was not always the focus of student conduct and discipline. The

“strict religion-based code of social behavior that was crude and direct” (Smith, 1994, pg. 78) of

the original colleges’ in the colonial period of American history has long gone by the wayside.

The remaining piece of this original charge to the academy to provide discipline lied in the

concept referred to as in loco parentis. Though the 1960s showed a shift from in loco parentis to

a contractual relationship between institution and student, the student conduct process is the area

that retains the most vestige of the in loco parentis idea, and courts rarely overturn decisions

surrounding student conduct by universities, save for a breach of due process (Stoner & Lowery,

2004). Even as democratization of discipline and the development of dean positions occurred in

the late 19th-century, still an institutional responsibility to look after the student persisted, and

was reinforced by an emphasis on developing the student as a whole person, not merely in the
 10

intellectual domain (Smith, 1994). Though students are trained and placed on hearing boards to

pass judgment on fellow students, professional staff members lead these processes and determine

their structure. There is not total peer control of student conduct management, and a

responsibility remains in the academy’s commitment to managing student conduct and educating

students in appropriate conduct in a forum distinct from criminal law.

CAS standards specify that a good conduct program should focus on student learning and

growth. Just as effective parenting offers children opportunities to prove their responsibility and

independence (Thompson, 2012), administrators have discipline codes that exist to “allow

students to demonstrate their capacities for accountability, responsibility, and respect for others

(Healy & Liddell, 1998)” (King, 2012, p. 563). Students will carry their experiences with the

conduct system into the future, and so the experiences must be curated carefully as learning

moments. Indeed, the CAS standards require that conduct programs “provide learning

experiences for students whose conduct may not be consistent with institutional expectations”

(CAS,2015 p.421).

King (2012) concludes from her study that students perceive that they gain more

educational benefit from a process they perceive as fair. Student perception is an important

consideration in the design of processes and procedures of discipline systems. As Sevigny

(personal communication, July 16, 2016) noted in our conversation, Northeastern recently re-

classified how it labeled its sanctions. In the past, sanctions were separated into levels I-IV,

based on severity of infraction. However, OSCCR came to realize students found this system

confusing, and students believed their sanctioning was inconsistent with their defined violation.

It created a constricting system for administrators to adjudicate and a process that students found

unfair. Considering King’s (2012) research, it is easy to deduce that students confused by
 11

Northeastern’s process were perceiving less educational benefit from the process than if it was

clearer. King (2012) also notes follow up meetings between sanctioned students and hearing

officers to assess the effect of sanctions is valuable. Sevigny, Associate Director of OSCCR,

continues the learning experiences of a conduct process through follow-up meetings, utilizing the

technique of motivational interviewing. As one of the administrative hearing officers of the

university, Sevigny’s one-on-one meetings with students rely on the philosophy of reminding

students that their choices are their own and those choices are going to create the person that they

are. Sevigny (personal communication, July 13, 2016) does not dictate future choices to students,

but places the power in their hands to elect to change behavior or not. Motivational interviewing

recognizes that not all students are ready to make behavioral changes at the time of the meeting,

but attempts to create that readiness and willingness to change on their own (Labrie, Lamb,

Pedersen, & Quinlan, 2006). Students move toward development of learning outcomes through

the process of being engaged in motivational interviewing. In this method of interviewing, an

educator can approach the student’s perception of responsibility and impact in a number of ways.

Brining up impact on the community is one way Sevigny (personal communication, July 13,

2016) effectively reaches students.

Community Centered
When calling into question the impact of a student’s actions on others, educators can

force the student to look at their actions in relation to their peers. In King’s (2012) study of

student perception of conduct processes, she concludes that students rate community service as a

sanction more positive than negative. This gives credence to the idea that student discipline

should focus on repaying impact to the community. As the CAS (2015) standards indicate “the

outcomes and/or sanctions imposed as a result of institutional action must…attend to any

impacts and harms of the behavior on the community or others” (p. 423). By involving
 12

community stakeholders, from the affected students to faculty and staff, the conduct process can

make a difference on campus.

Restorative Justice Models

Restorative justice models, developed for use in the criminal justice system, are gaining

more attention in the world of student conduct in higher education. Karp & Sacks’ (2014)

research through surveys of student offenders, conduct officers, and other participants in the

judicial process observed differences between restorative justice influenced hearings and model

code hearings. The research concluded that using the restorative justice model in the hearing

process had a stronger positive effect on achievement levels of student learning outcomes. To

describe restorative justice, the Karp and Sacks (2014) identify:

…a collaborative decision-making process that includes victims, offenders, and others

seeking to hold offenders accountable by having them: (a) accept and acknowledge

responsibility for their offenses, (b) to the best of their ability repair the harm they caused

to victims and communities, and (c) work to reduce the risk of re-offense by building

positive social ties to the community (Karp, 2013). (p. 156)

Essentially, a model code system delivers external judgement of punishment on the offender,

whereas a restorative justice model includes the offender in the decision of what action they need

to take to make amends. The assigned action is then repairing harm and creating a development

opportunity for the offending student. Karp and Sacks (2014) indicate that affected parties

hearing offenders’ remorse in the restorative justice model is a good step toward reassuring all

that the offender should be a part of the community. Sevigny (personal communication, July 13,

2016) notes that Northeastern’s student conduct process is influenced by the restorative justice

model. When she arrived at Northeastern, some staff had attended trainings around restorative
 13

justice, but Sevigny brought the use of integrating restorative justice circles and other techniques

to student conduct boards. Restorative justice requires specific training, and therefore a devotion

of human and financial resources to implement effectively. For that reason, Calovine (personal

communication, July 21, 2016) notes that Babson’s OCS does not use restorative justice

techniques specifically, though its principles of addressing harm in the community guide the

office’s actions. Babson, as a smaller institution than Northeastern, would struggle to support the

training required for restorative justice circles, and lacks the students and personnel numbers to

achieve its desired outcomes.

Student Hearing Boards and Residential Life

Student hearing boards exist as a method of perpetuating Dewey’s ideal of a democratic

education (Reason & Broido, 2011). The participation of students in the business of hearing

discipline violation cases furthers the student body’s involvement in governing the university and

setting standards. When students are engaged in the hearing and adjudication part of the conduct

process, there are learning opportunities for those students to engage as responsible, just

individuals evaluating charges against their peers (CAS, 2015). Many hearing boards are made

up of a combination of staff and students, hearing only cases involving serious violations of

conduct codes, such as those involving sanctions like expulsion and suspension. The presence of

students is important, as being heard by a body of peers can create peer influence to change

behavior, arguably more effective than other disciplinary methods (Dannells, 1997). However, to

achieve appropriate peer review and fair process for accused students, those serving on student

hearing boards require advanced training (CAS, 2015). Calovine (personal communication, July

21, 2016) notes that the additional cost and time to train students on hearing boards presents a

challenge to an institution like Babson with limited resources. Additionally, the small size of the
 14

student body, described by Calovine as “not particularly activist” creates the challenge of finding

students who want to participate. If every conduct case needed to be heard by a student hearing

board, Babson would be hard-pressed to meet such a requirement, despite the valuable learning

opportunities and peer influence noted earlier.

To lighten the load of administrative hearings for smaller violations, many institutions

engage residential life staff as hearing officers. Both Northeastern and Babson utilize this

method. Sevigny (personal communication, July 13, 2016) argues that a student meeting with

their residence director will have more of a connection with that individual than they would with

an OSCCR staff they may see more rarely. The added level of engaging with the staff member in

a residential setting may produce better outcomes and more consistent follow-up (b. Sevigny,

personal communication, July 13, 2016). This is a prime example of a substantive, purposeful

collaboration between a conduct program and residential life.

Procedurally Sound: Title IX and Legal Challenges

Changes in the involvement of students in the conduct administration process as outlined

above highlight a continuing battle between student self-governance and administrative control

(Shook, 2013). In many universities, the limitation of faculty from handling disciplinary issues

led to the creation of Deans of Men/Women in early 1900s. Shook (2013) points out that during

the 1960s, peer-review hearings became common. Institutions continued down this path,

believing that a court-oriented process would protect them from students suing for lack of due

process in discipline. Yet still today, some colleges are facing court challenges in how they have

mishandled due process in conduct hearings (New, 2016). The CAS (2015) standards make it

clear that a conduct process “must be fair, equitable, and procedurally sound, and must be

administered in compliance with appropriate institutional, regulatory, and legal standards” (p.

422). While training of students on hearing boards is an important piece of creating an equitable
 15

environment, there are other obstacles to this end. In cases of student sexual assault, Title IX of

the Education Amendments of 1972 creates unique procedural requirements. Many emotional

cases are heard in regards to sexual assault, and the prevailing narrative is that colleges act too

quickly to protect sexual assault victims and therefore do not provide due process to the accused

(New, 2016). Investigating and following through on Title IX sexual assault cases is certainly the

challenging procedural hurdle of the current time in higher education.

At a university the size of Northeastern, Sevigny and her staff have many resources at

their disposal to investigate sexual assault cases and comply with the extensive requirements of

the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights’ directives in regard to Title IX. At a

smaller institution like Babson, Calovine may spend a full month investigating a sexual assault

case, putting other conduct cases on hold in order to comply with regulations. Calovine (personal

communication, July 21, 2016) relayed a story of a faculty member who wondered why for six

weeks her case of academic dishonesty against a student hadn’t been touched; Calovine had not

been able to attend to it because of a sexual assault investigation. When an institution fails to hire

sufficient personnel to handle student conduct, such consequences may occur.

It is immensely important to the student conduct educator that there is a focus on the

minutiae of how the hearing process, evidence, charges, and sanctions are handled. If a process is

not fair and equitable, both affected and accused students will distrust the process. Yet, an article

from the Florida Bar Journal argues rules around attorney presence and formal procedure need

to become standardized across universities (Jansen, 2016). The challenge of such regulations will

be whether the college conduct process and student hearing boards turn into mock courtrooms,

with lawyers involved throughout. Such an environment could diminish the focus on learning

outcomes of the student conduct process, and lead to a return to a judicial, litigious environment
 16

of laying blame. The line between creating procedurally sound and learning centered conduct

programs is a fine one. As more universities are challenged by lawsuits, it will be important for

student conduct educators to maintain balance.

Conclusion

Development is the easy buzz word to use in student affairs to cover all of the positive

effects that educators can have on a student’s non-academic life in higher education. In this

paper, I attempted to pinpoint how development is positively affected in what is commonly

perceived as a negative process. Discipline is associated with getting in trouble, facing

consequences, and being the bad student. It was enlightening to review literature and speak with

professionals to see theory and practice that shows positive outcomes for learning-centered

student conduct programs. Evaluating each of the three CAS tenets for student conduct programs

was helpful to frame the way programs accomplish these outcomes. The actions of student

conduct educators are the key to these processes; Calovine (personal communication, July 26,

2016) said that personnel resources, not financial resources, are what a conduct program really

needs, because interaction and communication are the lynchpin of the disciplinary process. I

used the term student conduct educators intentionally in this paper. Although the ASCA uses

administrators or officers in much of its terminology, I find it important to choose language that

reinforces the educational impact of these staff members. Moving forward in my practice, I

intend to place development and learning at the center of disciplinary interactions with students.
 17

References
Arcelus, V. J. (2011). Transforming our approach to educations: cultivating partnerships and

dialogue. In P. M. Magolda & M. B. Baxter Magolda (Eds.), Contested issues in student

affairs. (pp. 61-73) Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.

Association of Student Conduct Administrators. (2016). Student Conduct Administration &

Transcript Notation: Issues and Practices. Retrieved from

http://www.theasca.org/files/Best%20Practices/Transcript%20Notation%20-

%20Final%20Report.pdf

Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education. (2015). Student conduct

programs. In Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education (Ed.), CAS

professional standards for higher education (9th ed.). Washington, DC.

Cooper, M. & Schwartz, R. (2007). Moral judgment and student discipline: what are institutions

teaching? What are students learning? Journal of College Student Development, 48(5),

595-607. doi: 10.1353/csd.2007.0049

Dannells, M. (1997). From discipline to development: rethinking student conduct in higher

education. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, 25(2), Washington, DC: The George

Washington University.

Evans, N. J., Forney, D. S., Guido, F. M., Patton, L. D., & Renn, K. A. (2011). Student

development in college: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-

Bass.
 18

Fried, J. (2011). Ethical standards and principles. In J. H. Schuh, S.R. Jones, S.R. Harper, & Co.

(Eds.), Student services: a handbook for the profession. (pp. 80-95) San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.

Jansen, R. T. (2016). Student conduct hearings in a university setting: Just or unjust? The Florida

Bar Journal, 92-95.

Karp, D. R., & Sacks, C. (2014). Student conduct, restorative justice, and student development:

Findings from the STARR project: A student accountability and restorative research

project. Contemporary Justice Review, 17(2), 154-172.

doi:10.1080/10282580.2014.915140

King, P. M. & Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2011). Student learning. In J. H. Schuh, S.R. Jones, S.R.

Harper, & Co. (Eds.), Student services: a handbook for the profession. (pp. 207-225) San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

King, R. H. (2012). Student conduct administration: How students perceive the educational value

and procedural fairness of their disciplinary experiences. Journal of College Student

Development, 53, 563-580. doi:10.1353/csd.2012.0058

Labrie, J. W., Lamb, T. F., Pedersen, E. R., & Quinlan, T. (2006). A group motivational

interviewing intervention reduces drinking and alcohol-related consequences in

adjudicated college students. Journal of College Student Development, 47(3), 267-280.

doi:10.1353/csd.2006.0031

New, J. (2016, April 14). Out of balance: colleges lose series of rulings in suits brought by male

students accused of sex assault. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from

http://www.insidehighered.com
 19

Quaye, S. J. (2011). The power of language. In P. M. Magolda & M. B. Baxter Magolda (Eds.),

Contested issues in student affairs. (pp. 280-290) Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.

Reynolds A. L. (2011). Counseling and helping skills. In J. H. Schuh, S.R. Jones, S.R. Harper, &

Co. (Eds.), Student services: a handbook for the profession. (pp. 399-412) San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.

Reason, R. D. & Broido, E. M. (2011). Philosophies and values. In J. H. Schuh, S.R. Jones, S.R.

Harper, & Co. (Eds.), Student services: a handbook for the profession. (pp. 80-95) San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Shook, M.H. (2013). History of student involvement in adjudication. Journal of the Association

of Student Conduct Administrators, 5, 37-57.

Smith, D. (1994). Student discipline in American colleges & universities: a historical overview.

Educational Horizons, 72(2), 78-85.

Stoner, E. N. & Lowery, J. W. (2004). Navigating past the spirit of insubordination: a twenty-

first century model student conduct code with a model hearing script. Journal of College

and University Law, 31(1), 1-78.

Thompson, M. (2012). Homesick and happy: How time away from parents can help a child

grow. New York: Ballantine Books Trade Paperbacks.