Number of disciplinary violations remains relatively constant

The number of students found responsibleand the number ofinfractions committed in violation of University policies increased marginally in the last year, according to the annual discipline reports for the 2012-13 and 2013-14 school years released on Oct. 2.

The increase in the number of students found responsible was largely due to an increase in the number of alcohol infractions and number of thefts reported. However, Associate Dean of Undergraduate Students Victoria Jueds cautioned against drawing conclusions, saying that data is only publicly available starting in 2009.

Although the reports are typically released annually, Jueds said the 2012-13 report’s release was delayed a year due to staffing issues. The reports are not required by law, Jueds said, as they deal with infractions of “Rights, Rules, Responsibilities,” the University’s main policy handbook.

The number of alcohol infractions nearly doubled from 45 in 2012-13 to 88 in 2013-14. However, Jueds noted that between 2010 and 2013, the University saw an uncharacteristic decrease in the number of alcohol reports. Jueds said she does not believe that the number of violations for alcohol necessarily decreased during that time, and that the Faculty-Student Committee on Discipline and the Residential College Disciplinary Board continues to adjudicate every report it receives from the Department of Public Safety.

Punishments for alcohol violations have regularly been either Dean’s Warnings for first-time violations, gatherings with low-proof or small amounts of alcohol, or disciplinary probation for violations that involved hard alcohol, drinking games or, in general, a higher risk to health, safety or well-being. Students with previous disciplinary history also received campus service hours.

Drug violations jumped from 22 to 52 in the last year, ending a previously declining trend, even though there were only 42 unique offenders. The majority of these cases were resolved with disciplinary probation, although one student was suspended with conditions for a year following a series of infractions involving marijuana.

Academic violations stayed nearly constant, at 43 in 2012-13 and 40 in 2013-14. Punishments in the 2012-13 school year, however, were more varied, with three students suspended with censure and three students having their degrees withheld, as they were seniors. The majority of these cases in both years were cases of plagiarism, with a few found in violation of gaining an unfair advantage or submitting the same work in two different courses without permission.

In these cases, Jueds said that the standard is whether or not the students “ought to have reasonably understood” they were in violation of “Rights, Rules, Responsibilities,” and that the punishment in that case is almost invariably a year-long suspension. If the student might not have reasonably understood — a “careless error” — he is typically awarded disciplinary probation. If a student has a prior violation, he might be suspended for two years or expelled, as was the case for one student last year.

In addition, the University has seen an over 50 percent drop over the last five years in the number of thefts reported, from 175 in 2009-10 to 83 in 2013-14, perhaps due to a change in the nature of theft in recent years. Seventy-four students were given Dean’s Warnings or short terms of probation for illegal sharing of copyrighted material, such as digital music or movies. One student was also suspended for a year for making purchases with another student’s credit card.

Jueds said the decrease in thefts is largely within the subcategory of sharing copyrighted files, but that she could not speculate as to why this is the case.

The number of assaults was halved, although Jueds said she doesn’t believe there is a specific reason for this drop. Nearly all students were given disciplinary probation, except for a minor incident that earned a Dean’s Warning.

Changes to the report in the last two years include combining the previously separate Dishonesty and Fraud categories and the previously separate Information Technology and Computer categories, which Jueds said was due to the inherently similar nature of the categories. The report also began including Unauthorized Entry under Disorderly Conduct in the 2010-11 school year.

This is also the last year in which sexual misconduct violations will be handled by the Committee of Discipline Subcommittee on Sexual Misconduct.From now on, as noted by anupdated section of“Rights, Rules, Responsibilities,”such cases will be handled by the University vice provost for institutional equity and diversity.

These changes took into account legislation from the Clery Act, the Violence Against Women Act and Title IX and, most significantly, lowered the standard for such cases from “clear and persuasive,” which is generally used by the Committee on Discipline, to a “preponderance of the evidence” standard.

Jueds said there were no other significant changes to University policies on discipline in the last few years, only in terminology and categorization. For example, she noted, dating violence recently became a new reported category, but this does not mean that incidents of dating violence were previously permitted. Instead, they were reported differently.

“We wanted to be more specific,” Jueds said. “There is no behavior that had previously been permitted that is now going to be prohibited,” she added.

Jueds said the Committee on Discipline would also continue to use the “clear and persuasive” standard when adjudicating cases. Even though not every case is sent to a hearing, Jueds said that most are, as the standard for holding a hearing is much lower than the standard for actually finding a student responsible.

“It’s not for me to make decisions about what goes forward and what doesn’t,” Jueds said. “If there is any evidence to consider, [the Committee] must be allowed to consider it.”

The Annual Discipline Report is not required by law, in contrast to the Annual Safety & Fire Report, which was released two weeks ago by the Department of Public Safety and is required under the Clery Act. The Annual Safety & Fire Report lists violations of law that take place in the University community.

The Clery Act report covers campus geographically, while the Discipline Report covers all students on or off-campus, including sporting events and University-sponsored summer programs that take place abroad.

The Clery Act report also covers all reports for students and non-students, including non-affiliated persons charged with crimes by DPS on campus, while the Discipline Report covers only undergraduate and, occasionally, graduate students.

The Clery Act report also includes all reports made, whether or not a person was found responsible, while the Discipline Report only includes students found responsible by the Committee on Discipline.

Finally, the Clery Act report covers calendar years, while the Discipline Report covers academic years.

Correction: Due to a reporting error, an earlier version of this article incorrectly described the sequence that leads up to disciplinary action in case of an alcohol violation report. The report is made by the Department of Public Safety and adjudicated by theResidential College Disciplinary Board and/or theFaculty-Student Committee on Discipline. Clarification: This article has been updated to clarify that discipline reports are publicly available starting in 2009 but earlier data is internally available to administrators.The 'Prince' regrets the errors.