Jeffrey Powell is a candidate for the Senior Associate Dean of Students. He currently works at the University of North Dakota. He brings today two decades of student affairs experience, experience that is focused heavily in student crisis response, student discipline response, and residence life and housing. He has held appointments as an academic advisor, worked in academic deans’ offices, he holds an appointment as an Adjunct Faculty member, and is a member of the graduate faculty at UND. Finally, he was a part of the University’s accreditation central committee. There is a chance of rain at home in Grand Forks, and the

projected high is 46°today. This is better. He cares greatly about

students and their success, and he is excited about the

possibility of working at UNT.

As the Senior Associate Dean, your primary responsibility will

be overseeing the Code of Student Conduct. What do you see

as the top five critical issues and challenges regarding Conduct

on a college campus, in particular, a public institution, and in

this role how you would address them? Additionally, what are

a University’s obligations when it has notice of a Title IX

related incident?

* Please address each issue and challenge in your presentation

keeping in mind the UNT campus demographics

So, a week ago, I got an email from Dr. McKinney with the topic for my presentation. “Five things,” read the email. “Five critical issues and challenges regarding Conduct on a college campus, in particular, a public institution.”

Most of us have a process – the way we act or think through the question, and when I have the time, thinking is my go-to response. I grabbed some books off my shelf, and I remembered that NASPA had just produced a report that included a list of critical issues, as compiled from surveys completed by CSAOs. I used what I know, what I’ve learned, and what I gleaned from these sources, and started to compile a list. I also came to understand that with respect to some of this items, the Universe was already speaking to me. Two of the items that are on my list have been in the news in the last ten days, certainly the last month. On March 30, an Open Letter to Harvard in the Daily Crimson indicated that a victim of sexual assault, who reports that she attempted to get services, assistance, and accommodations from the institution. She claims in the letter that she is done asking. She has given up. A student at Brown and 23 students at Columbia and Barnard

in New York City have made complaints, the latter with the Office of Civil Rights. On Tuesday, a new report from the Department of Education and with a preface from President Obama and Vice President Biden announces a push to address the epidemic of sexual assault on our nation’s campuses. In no particular order, the second of the five critical issues I identified is diversity advocacy, education, and action. Current events again informs us of this issue. If you are a sports fan – and maybe, if you’re not – you are aware that the owner of the NBA team, the LA Clippers, was recorded during a conversation with his mistress, and in this conversation he was chastising her for so publicly fraternizing with black men. His remarks were inflammatory, and he has been publicly excoriated for it. There are commentators who suggest that the level, the certainty, of the outrage demonstrates just how surely the tide

of racism has changed. I think it is promising, but racism let us recognize, exists and persists. Despite the promise of this weeks commendatory action, just a week or two ago, supporters of anti-government, anti-law-enforcement militiamen appeared in Nevada. These activists were there in support of a rancher over his decision to refuse to pay the US government for access to federal lands. This rancher would inject into the national dialogue comments having the upshot of suggesting black Americans as a group are struggling in new economy. This economy, in which they lack market skills and must then struggle on government assistance programs, should make black Americans wistful for the days of slavery, where they weren’t forced to make impossible decisions. Yes – being a slave was, for him, “the good ol’ days.” With regards to the NBA story, Chris Matthews asks whether the team’s owners have moved American into a place where there is zero-tolerance for overt, racist behavior. I reject the idea – let’s

recall we’re still on the heels of the ranchers comments. Though the rebuke has been promising, there can be no doubt racism exists and persists in our society. Two giants in Student Affairs work, Art Sandeen and Peggy Barr, assert students affairs professionals must always be on vigil to embrace, endorse, and encourage diversity education on our campuses. Their “tips for action” include:

1. “Student affairs professionals should continue to strive

to treat students as individuals (emphasis in original).

…Thinking about students as ‘categories’ and treating them

as members of these so-called groups can distort understands

about individuals and, worse, reinforce societal myths about

the characteristics of these ‘groups’” (p. 63).

2. “Student affairs professionals should become strong and

visible leaders on their campuses and in their communities

on diversity issues. …become outspoken advocates for social

justice of inclusion of students in all campus programs. …be

the most visible and effective advocates for diversity on their

campuses” (p. 64).

3. “Student affairs leaders should take the lead in

collaborating with their colleagues in academic affairs in

established educational programs that will help students

become effective citizens and leaders in a multicultural

society. …become more familiar with what undergraduates

are currently studying in their classes… Collaborat[e] with

faculty in developing new courses and academic experience

for students … assume responsibility for acquiring the

knowledge and skills necessary to ensure that they are

valuable partners in cooperative efforts with faculty” (p. 65).

4. “Student affairs professionals should assume

responsibility for their own continuing education about

diversity issues. …[have too] often relied on their own

observations and personal contacts with students to

education themselves about diversity. …[Consume] useful

research being conducted about identify development in

various cultures” (p. 65).

5. “Student affairs professionals have many campus and

community colleagues in their efforts to help students learn

about diversity. …Student affairs staff should never permit

themselves to engage in self-congratulation by thinking they

are the lone oasis of understanding and tolerance on their

campuses (p. 65).

6. “Student affairs professionals should recognize that they

need the support and participation of many others outside

student affairs to accomplish their goals in diversity

education” (p. 66). A student affairs staff that trains on

diversity in isolation from faculty members is less effective,

and perhaps counterproductive, to an inclusive campus

community.

7. “Student affairs leaders should insist that helping

students learn about diversity remains a core value of the

profession. It represents the fundamental beliefs of student

affairs: tolerance, openness, acceptance, and respect for

others. It provides student affairs leaders with perhaps their

most important and challenging opportunity to influence the

lives of students. Student affairs professional should be

ideally suited to this challenge” (p. 66).

The NBA situation and the resulting outcry resulted in an NBA response that is clear. The owner is banned from participation, banned from the property, separated as surely as we will expel a student in violation of our Code. A strike of sorts had been planned by the team’s players, and had the NBA’s response been any less than separation, according to MSNBC, this strike might have been executed. The fifteen

players for the team, and ostensibly the players on the three other teams who remain in the playoffs, were willing to join in on the strike. The plan, as I understand it, is the players would start the game, and once the ball is tipped, would walk off the court. National cameras would have been on the protest. The fans with very expensive tickets would have no game to watch. The effect would have been spectacular. It turns out, though, the players were sufficiently satisfied and the planned strike was not enacted. I have met with students and conducted investigations into matters involving my first two concerns, those of sexual assault and of discrimination. Students suffer from these two types of events. Third, I have also seen the despair of students who are struggling academically, those who are struggling with the pain, heartache, reality of leaving the University. Sometimes this could have gone differently if the student had worked harder, or if the student had sought help earlier. It’s been my experience

that frequently a hearing involving a small infraction will be a meeting about so many things other than that infraction. Some students will want to limit their exposure and will not engage, and that is disappointing. Others will see that the person discussing with them a Minor in Possession ticket is really someone who wants them to be successful, and will open up. Those are among the best moments. There is no way to do this work other than to have the hope that even as hearing officers, as judicial officers, we can have the chance daily to help students attain their life goals. We can always have a role in helping students to attain their life goals. In a career, I have met with thousands – that is not hyperbole – thousands of students. In recent years, those meetings have been because they are alleged to have violated the student code, they wish to file a complaint about someone else in our community, or we’re following up after a crisis or a critical situation to which the student has been exposed. In nearly every

meeting with students related to alleged violations or other concerns – in nearly every meeting, I will describe to a student that my agenda for today has three elements – we’re going to discuss “safety, your success as a student, and your growth as a person.” Like UNT, at UND we keep our eye on certain statistics. On two of those metrics, “my” institution and this one are a lot alike. Among the publicly available and required-by-the-feds numbers is a 6-year graduate rate. There is a formula for this metric. Incidentally, there is no one who works in education who thinks the formula properly assesses the situation. In calculating the ratio, you collect a full-time, first-time freshmen cohort, and then query the matriculating and graduating students in the numerator, against the original cohort in the denominator, at the (three, four, five, and) six-year mark(s). If a student transfers away and still succeeds, more likely than not it still “counts against” their first school. If a student transfers here

and graduates, we don’t get credit for their success. If a student takes seven years to graduate, they either “don’t count” or count against us in the ratio. It’s a tragically flawed ratio, but the fact that all schools use the same flawed formulate nonetheless provides a common way for us to look at schools. At UND that number is 54%. Counting students who graduate from other four-year Texas schools, your institutional rate is 57%. On the second metric, both institutions have a freshman-to-sophomore conversion rates of approximately 75%. A few years ago, I worked with someone in Institutional Research to explore our numbers with a new dependent variable – did the student have “a discipline record?” (vamp here) The graduation rate for this group was 42%.

Why a 12-point drop? Should we believe this group is 25% less likely than the gen pop to graduate?

(vamp): beer/sigma nu? minor/sports event? or it is a student “showing up on our door step” and we have the chance to throw more attention upon them.

A look at a second set of data provided to Institutional Research revealed the freshman-to-sophomore conversion rate had a 14-point gap, again based on a student’s discipline record. There is no causality suggested, but it affirms what I have been saying to my colleagues for some time – we have the at risk students! They are walking in our door!

As agents of the university, helping the flow of students toward their productivity and their matriculation is important. While meeting with a colleague yesterday, one with whom I would potentially spend much of my day, I understand that here the office devotes significant attention

to helping students to persist. I will advise you I have done the same thing in my work. A fourth area of critical involvement for conduct work involves working with students with mental health issues. Suicide is the third leading cause of death for youths between 15 and 24, and the lead cause of death for LGBT people in that age range. I was asked to pay attention to the demographics of UNT in preparation for today. Your average undergraduate age is 22.7 – right within the range of danger from self-harm and suicide. Peter Lake asks if the push by guns rights groups and the adoption of new permissive attitudes injecting more guns into our society will ultimately increase the rate of completed suicides. A 2004 study concluded that despite its availability and a reduced social stigma, 4-in-5 americans in that age group who suicide had not used counseling services prior to their deaths.

Students come to school with a fragility, often, that I do not remember from my days in college. Various commentators discuss generational differences between recent and longer-ago childhoods. This generation of traditional age college students had access to private, rather than group based, entertainment, such as video games and portable electronic entertainment. I am unsurprised when I meet a student who lacks, let’s say, resiliency. The law has been slow to find a cause of action for not preventing a student’s suicide, and we must always balance a student’s medical rights against the concern we have for the student. We must acknowledge “mental health and wellness issues push the limits of what the law can do to facilitate safer and more responsible campuses” (Lake, p. 208). I have been a part of situations where the student needed drastic help, help that exceeded that available from the university counseling center. These cases are difficult, must be worked one-at-a-

time, require honest dialogue and reasonable people on each side, and are best when there is a family member who views the University as a partner. I have no answer, but I willing to engage in the dialogue, can overcome my fear to seem invasive to the student or her or his family member, can acknowledge that my content area knowledge of the mental health concern needed be high to know our some resources that will help the student succeed, and demonstrate my willingness to offer that help. Suicide is not the only concerning behavior linked to mental health. Self-injury, cutting, disordered eating, learning disabilities, personality disorders, and difficulty recognizing or adjusting to social stimuli effect our students. Our colleagues in the faculty need to see us a resource, if not for answers, then at least for consistent efforts to maximize the likelihood of success for the student while requiring accommodations that do not erode the learning environment or the integrity of the grade that will ultimately be earned. I have been such a partner.

My fifth area of concern is alcohol and other substance use

Development of SCARP

Routinized the assignment of sanctions and the tracking of sanctions

Relationships, trusting the content experts, providing non-judgmental but firm evaluations of students’ situations.

__________________

1. Mental health & disturbed students (students of concern)

BIT – (a) Self harm/threat of self harm (protocols) o ADA concerns

(b) - harm to others/threat of

(c) – no credible threat hard self/others, but disturbed/disturbing - Refer to Campus resources / mandated attendance - partner, faculty and colleague/staff involvement.

2. Title lX procedures

a. process, including questions such as to whom should reports be

made? Are there entry gatekeeper who expose us in ways hard to control?

b. Investigation model: (a) police lead, (b) student affairs leads, (c) concurrent investigations with information sharing as permitted. (reminder: the practice of permitting or referring responsibility enmasse to p.d. explicitly not permitted per E.D.)

c. Investigator training concerns – what qualifies one as “an investigator?” is there a credentialing process?

d. What do you do in the meantime – interim steps, interim measures?

Accommodations/residence halls/class rooms/class schedules, etc.

Comply with magistrate/orders of protection

Nuance between negotiating what needs to occur, deciding what needs to occur

e. What do you do … if?

Complainant “doesn’t remember”

Complainant “doesn’t want to go forward”

There a discrepancies in the information provided by the complainant.

Fact case suggest a pattern of behavior by respondent

Respondent will not cooperate

Hearing board dismisses the case or provides a “less than appropriate” sanction.

f. How do you allow the complainant to indicate “how much/how little” (s) wants done, while (a) doing enough to feel like we have done what we need re: “keeping our community safe,” and (b) being about to demonstrate (if needed, later) that we did what we needed (we obligated) to do?

3. Legal issue (risk; groups; issues of “consumer,” “contract,” “duty,”

and “invitee” conditions arising from our relationships with students and others).

3. Diversity Ed/Advocacy

4. Retention / “how are we educators?” questions

5. Substance use/abuse (education/response/boundaries/protocols)