A new Student Conduct Process Revision Committee has been formed to review the processes surrounding the student conduct code. The committee will be led by Residential Life Director Jodie Castanza and will consist of five faculty and staff members and five students. The work group will review the different processes of student conduct on campus, a task which may take anywhere from a month to a year.
“The Committee came about because Dean Davis and Dean Banks both had some questions about current processes related to student conduct at Mount Holyoke,” Castanza said.
Dean of Students Rene Davis elaborated on these concerns. She said that students have questioned the campus judicial process for several years. “Areas of confusion often highlighted included transparency, role and use of the Honor Code Council, and differences in the way in which the alcohol policy is charted versus other outcomes. Students also ask why academic dishonesty cases are handled separately. As I map that against a growing concern on the effectiveness of the Honor Code, I began to ponder the effectiveness of our conduct systems,” Davis said.
The work group will look into these various procedures in order to first “ask questions,” according to Castanza and Davis. Davis said that some of these questions will include: “What do students know and understand about the adjudication of conduct violation? How much of that understanding comes from handbook and policy versus anecdotal sources? Does and should the conduct process impact the environment and culture of inclusion? How does our process compare to best practices within higher education? Is our practice effective?”
There has been a lot of con-fusion concerning the nature of change and the policy revision committee,” said Davis. “That is not correct,” she continued. “This is a committee set to review our process to determine what works well and the effectiveness of our model.”
Castanza agreed. “We are not looking at revisions to the student code per se,” she said. “Should the committee feel that is important we would make that recommendation to Dean Banks and Dean Davis, but the student code isn’t in the scope of this work group. We are looking at process, not policy.” She gave the example of the policy that candles are not allowed inside residence halls. “There is a process that happens if you are found to have a candle burning in your room. That process is the student conduct process, which is what this group is looking at,” she said.
Allie Berger ’13, hall president of Porter Hall and one of the Residential Life representatives on the committee, agreed with the intentions of the work group. “Personally, I think that the conduct review process (and even that wording is confusing) isn’t well coordinated or understood on campus,” she said.
Berger explained that it was not clear what consequences existed for specific infractions, whether social or academic. “I think the process as a whole needs to be looked at so that there can be more consistent and cohesive decisions made by students, staff and faculty together,” she said.
The work group will focus on “policies and protocols surrounding the Honor Code and violations of social conduct that are referred to the Honor Code Council, Residential Life policy violations and violations and inappropriate behaviors referred to the dean of students,” said Davis. “There is also an important intersection with the manner in which we respond to bias related incidents, reports of discrimination, and sexual assault/sexual harassment. Each of the later categories has a separate and distinct process for reporting and follow up.”
Davis also said that as the dean of students, it was her responsibility to address gender discrimination, sexual assault and disability. “It is my role to make the campus grievance process accessible to students so the College can proactively address these issues. I am concerned that students may not understand in intersections between the judicial process and the grievance process,” she said, citing this concern as a motivating factor in the decision to launch a review of the current conduct systems under the Residential Life director. “I asked the director of Residential Life to lead this review committee based on her experience with a variety of conduct systems and her fresh perspective to campus,” said Davis.
There is no specific outline for what this means for the Honor Code council. “The committee hasn’t yet met so we haven’t talked about existing processes and structures on campus,” said Castanza. “The current chair of the Honor Code Council is a member of the committee and I am confident she will bring that voice to the work of this group.”
However, there has been some concern about the effectiveness of the Honor Code Council. The recent billboard in Blanchard, asking students to write out their opinions on it suggests that there is interest in understanding the varying concerns regarding the Honor Code and the HCC.
“There have been issues with the Honor Code in the past few years, and I’m hoping that a part of what this committee can address will help to bring new ideas on how to revamp our Honor Code to make it effective again,” said Berger.
Berger said that she had some insight into the inconsistency of social and academic Honor Code violations, and therefore wanted to be involved in the conversation. She felt that joining the committee meant that she could participate in a forum to address the way student violations were dealt with on campus, an issue she cared about.
This does not necessarily translate to major changes. Berger added, “Personally, I value the Honor Code very highly and think that it needs to be addressed and potentially revamped so that it can work more effectively for students’ needs, but most definitely not done away with entirely.”
She continued, “The committee will be doing further outreach to gather information and opinions from the students and rest of campus community, but I also want to stress that any students who have opinions on this process should feel free to get in touch with me.”
The chair of the HCC, Kristen Koepsell ’12, and other Residential Life staff will also be a part of the committee. Davis emphasized that “student feedback sits at the core of this committee.”
Davis also said that the workgroup will include staff from Athletics, Student Programs, the Dean of Students office and the Academic Deans office. However, the final list of the committee’s members has yet to be made. Banks and Davis will not be on the committee, but will will rather serve as the sponsors who have oversight of the group. “I have no set agenda for change or plan to steer the questions of the committee,” said Davis, “My goal with this review is to receive feedback on what we currently have in place.”
“I hope the workgroup will continue to receive direction from Dean Banks and Dean Davis as we proceed,” said Castanza.
According to Davis, the process will look something like this: once the committee is finalized, it will work on developing a list of questions and focus areas to gather feedback. After coming up with a list of recommended changes as a result of thoroughly examining current policies, the committee will present and discuss these recommendations to the community before a final summary of their review.
“We will be developing a project plan which outlines our timeline and deadlines for the various tasks we see associated with this work,” added Castanza. Although there is no contingent deadline, Castanza said that she hoped to have the commmittee’s work completed by the end of the academic year so that any changes to the student conduct process can be implemented for Fall 2012.
Although a project plan has yet to be developed, Castanza said that it will include several opportunities for input and feedback.
Berger expressed an appreciation for the committee. “I think that when a new president comes in, and new staff come with her, that it’s a natural time to address policies and procedures,” said Berger. “We can get very stuck in tradition here, and ‘the way things have always been,’ and forget to critically analyze if we are going about things as well as we could be.”
Castanza continued the discussion. “We are starting from a place of asking questions,” she said. “What is working now, and what do people want us to consider as we engage in learning about other ways student conduct might be considered on our campus.”
Davis agreed. “Our work begins with a simply question, what is working with the current judicial process?” Castanza posed this question to SGA last week, and the process will continue into more discussions and focus groups.
Related posts:
- Conduct Review Committee presents at Senate
- SGA develops new commitee application process
- Residential Life poses questions for SGA
- Residential Life hosts forum for student questions
- Dean of College to leave office
