1 / 29

Student Conduct

Andy, Ashleigh, Laura, and Leslie. Student Conduct. The Beginning – 1700s. Some of the earliest forms of misconduct were dealing with students who had issues with the institution Corporal punishment was viewed as acceptable, but gave way to rustication and degradation ( Thelin , 2004)

ziazan
Télécharger la présentation

Student Conduct

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Andy, Ashleigh, Laura, and Leslie Student Conduct

  2. The Beginning – 1700s • Some of the earliest forms of misconduct were dealing with students who had issues with the institution • Corporal punishment was viewed as acceptable, but gave way to rustication and degradation (Thelin, 2004) • College presidents and administrators were at the will of donors and enforced what they wanted (as cited in Kapfl, 2011)

  3. Early 1800s • More colleges emerged and donor influence declined • In Loco Parentis • Strict rules were established and all aspects of student life were regulated • Humiliation and fines served as forms of discipline • Expulsions and suspensions were viewed as ways to remove unwanted behaviors (As cited in Kapfl)

  4. Mid 1800s • Less emphasis on strict discipline led to fewer rebellions on campus • Student self-discipline and self-governance began to form • students treated as young adults • Emphasis on utilitarianism and democracy • Code of conduct was more formalized (as cited in Kapfl)

  5. Late 1800s – A Glimpse to the Future • Special police forces were hired • faculty no longer served the as only disciplinarian • Student committees formed in dorms to maintain order • Vanderbilt, Pennsylvania, Chicago • Student advisors consulted with faculty on various issues and matters that arose • Princeton, Virginia, Wesleyan, Bates • Student governments eventually gained more power (as cited in Kapfl)

  6. 1900s • Early 1900s continued to focus on student driven systems with assistance of faculty and staff • 1960s brought an emphasis on the legality of student discipline • Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Education - Six black students were expelled after participating in a civil rights demonstration. They did not receive a hearing before the expulsion. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals determined it was necessary for students to have a hearing (as cited in Kapfl)

  7. What now? • Discipline moved into a legal minded direction • relationship between student and institution is viewed by the courts as contractual • Brought about the label “judicial affairs” • Disciplinarians implement more formal investigations and ask more questions • Educational opportunity to help students look at the case objectively and to help understand their actions and consequences – Not punishment, but education

  8. Purpose • To administer standards of student conduct within colleges and universities • Maintain and strengthen ethical climate • Promote academic integrity • Set behavioral expectations • Accomplish in a manner that protects the rights, health, and safety of members of the community without undue interference (http://www.theasca.org/ethicalprinciples/)

  9. Association for Student Judicial Affairs • 1986 – Don Gehring of the University of Louisville discussed plans for professional association • 1987 – interested persons met at Stetson University Law and Higher Education conference, and later gathered at Louisville to create framework of organization • 1989 – first annual conference in Clearwater Beach, FL • Today over 1700 members, representing 700 institutions (“History of the ASCA”)

  10. Student Conduct at Missouri State University

  11. Conduct History – Missouri State • July 1907 – first written rules of conduct in the Normal School Bulletin • four rules and only one was related to student conduct (Landon, 2004) • Only stated conduct rule: prohibited students from going to pool halls • Unspoken rule: no smoking or alcohol • Expectation: live morally

  12. Conduct History – Missouri State • 1920: Student Council was created; student leaders (Landon, 2004) • Oversaw Student Conduct • No record of how this was accomplished • The Red Book • Guide to student life • Small section of policies: not detailed • President had most influence on conduct

  13. Conduct History – Missouri State • 30s: Key and Dagger Club hazing incident (Landon, 2004) • 40s: WWII veterans; more mature • 50s: More alcohol-related incidents • 60s: Student activism; streakers • 70s: Panty raids by males

  14. Conduct History – Missouri State • Pre-1956: Dean of Men and Dean of Women took care of all conduct matters (Landon, 2004) • 1957: Bear Facts!; created to include a code of conduct • 1962: Long-term plan; code of conduct, judicial office, system for academic dishonesty • 1969-70: John Ashcroft asked to create the code • 1971-72: First code of conduct included in Bear Facts!

  15. Conduct Today – Missouri State • Office of Student Conduct • Plaster Student Union • Part of the Dean of Students office • Coordinator: Kim Sahr • Administrative Assistant • Graduate Assistant • Main Purpose • “to educate, protect, and hold students accountable” (K. R. Sahr, personal communication, November 3, 2011, para. 2)

  16. Conduct Today – Missouri State • Future goals • Develop more campus initiatives for education • Developing informational handouts on the hearing board process • Revise the Code of Conduct • Evaluation of the adjudication process • Revise the current mission statement

  17. Conduct Today – Missouri State • Budgeting • Fairly small budget • Main portion is from fines for drug and alcohol violations; goes back into paying for drug and alcohol education • Extra money goes into more campus programming from the office and other on campus organizations • Money can be requested by other organizations if the program is related to conduct education

  18. Analysis of Student Conduct

  19. Analysis of MSU’s Office of Student Conduct • Mission: “to educate students concerning their rights, privileges, and corresponding duties and responsibilities.” • The office is responsible for “adjudicating alleged violations of the code, safeguarding student rights, and dealing with emergency situations which involve students” (Office of Student Conduct, 2009)

  20. Proactive vs Reactive • Proactive side of the office consists of upholding the student conduct code, educating, and referring students • Reactive side of the office involves disciplinary and sanctioning in regards to violations. • Also provides resources for sexual assault victims, drug abuse, alcoholism, and family violence

  21. Accessibility for Students • A small percentage of students will ever use the services provided • Information can be found online or at the administrative office • Rights and responsibilities of students • Confidentiality • Emergency contacts • Code of Conduct

  22. Addressing diverse and non-traditional populations • The Code of Student Rights and Responsibilities explains that all students are afforded the same basic rights • Free expression • Representation in student government • Equal use of facilities

  23. Strategic Direction of Student Conduct

  24. Issues and Trends within Student Conduct • Issues • Funding with struggling economy • Ever changing legislation and policy • Trends • Dangerous behaviors • Technological advancements • Academic integrity

  25. Learning Imperatives • “Mission complements the institution's mission, with the enhancement of student learning and personal development.” • “Includes staff who are experts on students, their environments and teaching and learning processes.”

  26. Opportunities • Office continuously tries to provide education not just discipline • Seek students, faculty, and staff that are committed to educating students • Provide opportunities to the university community through the Campus Hearing Board

  27. Overall Strategic Direction • Provide meaningful interactions with student through more engagement • Educate students that the office is there to help, as this may deter negative behavior • Enhance communication and collaboration with other departments on campus • Further expand assessment of program area

  28. Questions? The End.

  29. References • American College Personnel Association. (1996). Student learning imperative. Washington D.C. • Kotler, P., & Murphy E. P., (1981). Strategic planning for higher education. The Journal of Higher Education. 470-489. • Ethical Principles and Standards of Conduct (1993, January). In Serving Higher Education Student Conduct Administrators. Retrieved October 26, 2011, from http://www.theasca.org/ethicalprinciples/ • History of ASCA (n.d.). In Serving Higher Education Student Conduct Administrators. • Retrieved October 26, 2011, from http://www.theasca.org/history/ • Krapfl, K.A. (2011). Judicial affairs: history, moral development, and the critical role of students (Master’s thesis). Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/2097/8446 • Landon, D. D. (2004). Daring to excel: The first 100 years of Southwest Missouri State • University. Marceline, MO: Walsworth Publishing Company. • Missouri State University Office of Student Conduct. (2008) Code of student rights and responsibilities. Retrieved from: http://www.missouristate.edu/StudentConduct/12331.htm

More Related