1. addressing student misconduct @ lcc STUDENT LIFE DIVISION WORKSHOP Melanie Humphreys Vice President, Student Life Lithuania Christian College December 2004

2. purpose To understand the philosophy and history behind LCC discipline procedures To identify any Lithuanian legal requirements of our disciplinary process To be familiar with current practice and policies To identify shortcomings of current discipline procedures To understand role and responsibility of staff and faculty members in the discipline process

3. liberal arts tradition Inherit more than a set of classes History of student conduct and guiding philosophy for student discipline policy Shift from ‘in loco parentis’ Expectations of students Due process Rules and regulations Difference between private and public Contextualization issues Role of the university LCC - “whole person” education Higher Ed law in LT Greater separation of public and private life Public services less developed

4. distant tradition Loosely coupled (philosophy and practice) discipline based on North American traditional models Influenced by North American law – understanding of the rights of student – to due process, representation, and justice

5. not distant tradition Influence of faith, Christian world view and understanding of grace Short history already built on balancing discipline and grace Student examples of disciplinary action and restoration to community EM 1999 DJ 2002

6. strengths and limitations of traditional models Strengths: Demonstrate attentiveness to community standards and behaviours Use judicial processes that support resolution in a fair and reasonable manner Provide all parties with opportunities and procedural fairness Provide consequences for students found in violation of institutional standards Allow for participatory governance through involving faculty and students Presentation Legal Issues Conference 2004 - Tribbinsee, N., Leavitt, A.L., Jones, L.B. Facilitated by Kelly, R. “When is a Hearing Not a Hearing? Alternative Approaches to Addressing Student Misconduct”

7. Strengths (continued): A just punishment can be therapeutic Facilitate ethical dialogues in an educational setting Employ clear language Include informal as well as formal procedures Recognize that authority for student discipline is vested in delegated staff Framed by investigatory rather than more adversarial models Allow for fair evaluation of accused students’ responsibility for violating university requirements, usually without formal rules of evidence required in criminal proceedings Presentation Legal Issues Conference 2004 - Tribbinsee, N., Leavitt, A.L., Jones, L.B. Facilitated by Kelly, R. “When is a Hearing Not a Hearing? Alternative Approaches to Addressing Student Misconduct”

8. Limitations: Even when processes are not established within the strictest legal framework, legalism and proceduralism can make proceedings so adversarial that the educational purposes of judicial programs can be lost Promote a “winner and loser” scenario by setting students as antagonists with each other or with the institution Traditional models have the perspectives of an accused with a point of view, an accuser with a point of view, and a hearing officer that has to make a decision between them Do not always distinguish, in the level of formalism or process, differences among campus rule violations, Infractions against campus community standards and more serious criminal behaviours Presentation Legal Issues Conference 2004 - Tribbinsee, N., Leavitt, A.L., Jones, L.B. Facilitated by Kelly, R. “When is a Hearing Not a Hearing? Alternative Approaches to Addressing Student Misconduct”

9. Limitations (continued): Timeliness can be compromised by the adversarial nature of hearings – which encourage strategies of procedural delay Can limit opportunities to apply institutional standards to individual cases in ways that enhance ethical development by providing interventions that represent learning outcomes Presentation Legal Issues Conference 2004 - Tribbinsee, N., Leavitt, A.L., Jones, L.B. Facilitated by Kelly, R. “When is a Hearing Not a Hearing? Alternative Approaches to Addressing Student Misconduct”

10. our history 1997 – Student Life department est. 1 st Dean of Students Comprised of RL, Sports & Rec Committee, & Student Council Karklu dorm regulations Classes held at KU buildings 1999 2 nd Dean of Students (now VP, SL) Revised existing discipline policies (May 1999) Fall semester - 1 st Student Handbook published

11. our history Spring 2001 C.A.S. est. Committee on Academic Standing brought together Academic and SL discipline Fall 2001 - 1 st Director of Community Life Deal with discipline issues prior to suspension and dismissal Added to CAS committee Philosophical and language change from ‘Discipline policy’ to Good standing policy’ Spring 2002 Substance Misuse Policy Weapons Policy

12. our history Legal advice (2002) Meeting with LCC lawyer (Lideika, Petrauskas, Valiunas ir partneriai) LCC has the right to determine regulations and policies for our dorm and our student body. We need to be sure regulations are approved by a governing body (Administrative Cabinet) inform students about the regulations follow our own regulations Fall 2002 – 2 nd Dir. of CL Revision of Good Standing Policies

13. nontraditional approach Experts on restorative Justice Michael Umbreit Howard Zehr – The little Guide to Restorative Justice Principles and practices are derived from faith communities Examples – University of Oregon, University of Colorado at Boulders Zehr’s umbrella set of principles can be put to use in a variety of ways: victim/offender mediation, family group conferencing, and community circles Presentation Legal Issues Conference 2004 - Tribbinsee, N., Leavitt, A.L., Jones, L.B. Facilitated by Kelly, R. “When is a Hearing Not a Hearing? Alternative Approaches to Addressing Student Misconduct”

14. two different views Criminal Justice Crime is a violation of the law and the state Violations create guilt Justice requires the state to determine blame (guilt) and impose pain (punishment) Central focus: offenders getting what they deserve Restorative Justice Crime is a violation of people and relationships Violations create obligations Justice involves victims, offenders, and community members in an effort to put things right Central focus: victim needs and offender responsibility for repairing harm Presentation Legal Issues Conference 2004 - Tribbinsee, N., Leavitt, A.L., Jones, L.B. Facilitated by Kelly, R. “When is a Hearing Not a Hearing? Alternative Approaches to Addressing Student Misconduct”

15. three different questions Criminal Justice What laws have been broken? Who did it? What do they deserve? Restorative Justice Who has been hurt? What are their needs? Whose obligations are these? Presentation Legal Issues Conference 2004 - Tribbinsee, N., Leavitt, A.L., Jones, L.B. Facilitated by Kelly, R. “When is a Hearing Not a Hearing? Alternative Approaches to Addressing Student Misconduct”

16. towards a philosophy of restoration Discipline Policy 1999 Balance individual and community needs 3 rd person Other? Good Standing Policy 2004 Good standing definition Value based 1 st person Academic & SL policies brought together Other?

17. revision needed? Further definition for student misconduct On campus Athletics/Recreation Class Other?