2023 Student Code of Conduct Proposed Changes
Please review the proposals submitted by the University/surrounding community on both Academic and Non-Academic Misconduct, and provide your own feedback on it via the form below. New proposals and feedback on these will be uploaded on the Friday after they are submitted.
- Proposed Change: Student Code of Conduct
- Rationale: UC enjoys a growing population of online students who will never set foot on any campus, Ohio, or even in Ohio. To support those students fairly the SCOC should address what is meant by 'illegal drugs.' UC should also address possible conflicts involving other required or prohibited behaviors in various jurisdictions.
- Proposed Change: On p. 3, (3)(a)(ii), revise last sentence as follows "All other colleges with licensure, professional codes, or accreditation standards governing conduct are subject to the procedural requirements of the SCOC.
- Rationale: Some student conduct subject to the SCOC may be in accreditation standards and applicable to student but not present in the licensure or professional codes designed for working professionals. One example might be failure to be properly supervised in a clinical setting.
- Proposed Change: On p. 10, (3)(d)(ii) Submitting as one's own original work, material obtained from an individual, agency, artificial intelligence, or the internet without reference to the person, agency, or webpage as the source of the material.
- Rationale: The addition of artificial intelligence (AI) to the plagiarism section of the SCOC is essential now that AI like ChatGPT and other ChatBots can compose a paper with just a prompt. While it may fall under internet, it's important to single it out to make sure students understand that it is unacceptable to submit an AI paper as their own.
- Proposed Change: The Composition Program in the Department of English already has a plagiarism policy that is more thorough than the Student Code of Conduct; I would like this change for the whole university. It reads: The UC English Composition Program and its teachers assume that all work submitted by students– process work, drafts, low-stakes writing, final versions of assignments, and other submissions–will be generated by the students themselves, working individually or in groups. Plagiarism is using the words or ideas of another without appropriately acknowledging and citing the source. The UC Student Code of Conduct defines plagiarism as follows: -Submitting another’s published or unpublished work in whole, in part or in paraphrase, as one’s own without fully and properly crediting the author with footnotes, quotation marks, citations, or bibliographic references. -Submitting as one’s own original work, material obtained from an individual, agency, or the internet without reference to the person, agency or webpage as the source of the material -Submitting as one’s own original work material that has been produced through unacknowledged collaboration with others without release in writing from collaborators -Submitting one’s own previously written or oral work without modification and instructor permission The English Composition Program also considers using artificial intelligence tools like Chat GPT a form of plagiarism (unless explicitly allowed by your instructor). Plagiarism can be purposeful, as in the examples above, or accidental. These examples, though perhaps accidental, are also considered plagiarism: -Failure to cite (with both in-text notations and works cited entries) quotations, paraphrases, summaries, or borrowed ideas. -Failure to enclose borrowed language in quotation marks. -Failure to paraphrase appropriately. The English Composition Program takes plagiarism very seriously and holds students accountable for their actions. Adhering to the parameters set forth in the UC Student Code of Conduct, possible consequences may include: -Failing an assignment -Failing a course -Disciplinary reprimand, probation, suspension or dismissal Therefore, if you are unsure about whether or not you have integrated and cited all of your sources properly, ask your teacher BEFORE you submit your essay.
- Rationale: The UC Composition Program has a more thorough explanation of AI-based plagiarism, so we are already have a policy in place; faculty in other departments may be eager to use this as well.
- Proposed Change: Please consider including summer semester as "in session" instead of a term break. [A.4.a. Timelines: Listed timelines exclude weekends, holidays, term breaks, and anytime when the university is closed or classes are not in session. Timelines may also be extended for other extenuating circumstances. https://www.uc.edu/campus-life/conduct/academic-integrity/FAQ.html].
- Rationale: With virtual/remote meeting options being more widely used now, students, staff, and faculty can participate from just about anywhere. Rather than having an academic misconduct matter loom for a semester, it seems reasonable to make every effort to continue the process. For students in a co-op program, summer is not a break. Likewise, not all faculty have a traditional fall/spring schedule, so why treat summer different? If there is an extenuating circumstance, either party could request an extension as currently stated in the SCOC.
- Proposed Change: We must strenghten the portion on discipline for students who harass faculty or staff.
- Rationale: There have been a number of incidents of student harassment of faculty and staff and the incidents are increasing in frequency. The current process is too slow and does not provide adequate protections for faculty and staff.
- Proposed Change: Global feedback from the Graduate College Leadership Team.
- Rationale: 1. Missing from the document are student protections or resources for students when they are treated unfairly 2. Missing from the document and global policies is a process for graduate students to submit a grievance for unfair grading or academic mistreatment (other than dismissal from a program) 3. The document needs to be updated to include Artificial Intelligence written documents in academic misconduct 4. Additional information needed regarding protections for retaliation for reporting grievance against faculty and staff 5. Missing bereavement policies 6. Missing parental leave or caregiving responsibilities 7. Guidance for students posting about university activities on social media We realize that some of this might be outside of the scope of the SCOC. We are willing to partner on these aspects.
- Proposed Change: The Clermont College Faculty recommends that the following sections be revised to read as follows: Section C) Nonacademic misconduct 1. Nonacademic misconduct definitions (c) Bullying is conduct (whether written, verbal, electronic, or physical act) that is unwelcome and so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it effectively denies an individual equal access to the individual’s education program or activity or creates an environment that a reasonable person would consider intimidating, hostile, or offensive. This applies to bullying of any member of the campus community, including faculty, staff, and students. Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, bullying does not include participating in constitutionally protected activities. Section C) Nonacademic misconduct 2. Hearing procedures for nonacademic misconduct a. Complaint and notice (i) Complaint Any person, department, organization, or entity may file a complaint alleging a violation of the S.C.O.C. by a student or student organization. Both the complainant, and the respondent shall receive concurrent notice of the complaint. The director of S.C.C.S. may assign a complaint to an appropriate university office to conduct an investigation prior to the initiation of the S.C.C.S. adjudication process. Risk assessment will be performed at the time of complaint receipt and appropriate safety precautions implemented to protect students, faculty, and staff. Complainants will be notified of the initiation of each applicable step in the following procedure. Any member of the campus community that feels in immediate danger should call 9-1-1. (ii) Notice After reviewing a complaint, if the director of S.C.C.S. (or designee) determines there is jurisdiction under the S.C.O.C. to adjudicate the complaint, the director of S.C.C.S. (or designee) will initiate the disciplinary process by giving the student or student organization written notice of the alleged violations. The written notice describes the date, time, and location of the alleged violation(s) and inform the student or student organization about the reported circumstances underlying the alleged violation(s). The notice will state the date, time, and location of the procedural review and the name of the review administrator. (iii) Procedural review (a) The purpose of the procedural review is to review the alleged violations, give the complainant and respondent an opportunity to be heard and provide a statement, provide an explanation of the disciplinary process, discuss the student’s or student organization’s options for resolution, receive the range of sanctions if responsible, determine responsibility if further investigation is not necessary, and advise the student or student organization of recommended sanctions for the alleged violations if found responsible. (b) Students, student organizations, faculty or staff may elect to have an adviser present who may consult in writing or verbally in a quiet, non-disruptive manner but the adviser may not actively participate as a spokesperson or vocal advocate in the proceeding. Participants are required to notify the S.C.C.S. seventy-two hours prior to the procedural review if the adviser is an attorney. (c) Procedural reviews may be rescheduled at the discretion of S.C.C.S. (d) If a student or student organization fails to attend a procedural review, S.C.C.S. may schedule an administrative review committee (A.R.C.) hearing.
- Rationale: Due to a recent incident involving a faculty member being stalked and threatened online, the Faculty Affairs Committee and Student Affairs Committee of Clermont College formed a subcommittee to investigate policies and procedures related to these situations. Faculty members face mounting difficulties when trying to navigate several different campus entities while the stress of the harassment continues without resolution. The creation and clarification of existing policies and procedures for faculty will hopefully produce a pathway to protect faculty and staff members and put a stop to harassment. We recognize that the Student Code of Conduct is intended for students, but it affects and governs faculty and staff too. The language of this vital community document should be broadened to offer protections to our entire university community. Our recommendations are intended to specifically: (1) add clarity to the existing policies and procedures on student non-academic misconduct from the faculty and staff perspective so that faculty and staff know what procedures to follow when these incidents occur; (2) add to existing policies and procedures a clear assessment of threat level to engage when reviewing non-academic misconduct complaints. Higher threat levels to the faculty or staff member will get higher priority in the complaint resolution queue. Instances of immediate danger will immediately be referred to campus police; and (3) clarify that follow-up in these situations will be continued for faculty, staff and students. Student Code of Conduct policies and agreements will be enforced by the administration and the enforcing agency's actions and process clearly communicated to faculty, staff and students.
- Proposed Change: Students should be able to select from multiple hearing options after their initial procedural review. For instance, a student who elects a hearing should be able to select a hearing with a single decision maker or the full ARC. Additionally, the OSCSS staff should have the option to convene a smaller hearing (perhaps the chair, a single student, and a single staff member) to hear low level cases, such as first time alcohol violations or pet policy violations.
- Rationale: This would move the process much more quickly for both students and staff. Additionally, adjusting the hearing options would allow for students to exert more control over the process and ensure they are the most comfortable during a time when their stress levels are much higher.
- Proposed Change: The Dean of Students should not serve as the appeals officer for the Student Conduct Process. The DoS supervises the Director of Student Conduct and has an obvious conflict of interest as those roles meet regularly to provide updates and reviews of cases and the inner-workings of the office. A third party appeals officer should be appointed by the VPSA to serve in that role to ensure appropriate review.
- Rationale: The DoS is too involved in the inner workings of OSCCS to serve as an impartial voice in the appeal process. To avoid the optics of potential bias, the appeals officer for suspensions should not serve in the direct supervision line of the office who first adjudicates the alleged violation.
- Proposed Change: Section C, 2, a, iii - Procedural Reviews I propose that SCCS and it's hearing officers have the ability to resolve cases in absentia. If a student fails to appear for a procedural review, hearing officers may make a determination in the case based on the available information. Students would then be issued a CRF and have the standard three days to accept or appeal the decision. Failure to return the signed CRF means the outcome and any sanction automatically go into effect.
- Rationale: Consider the example of a multi-party case with 4 involved students. Students A, B, & C, attend their procedural review, engage in the process, and are found responsible. Students A, B, & C all confirm that student D was also present and participated in the alleged violation. However, student D does not attend their PR and does not engage in the process. The hearing officer in this case has enough information based on the original report and the input of other involved parties to find the student responsible based on a preponderance of the evidence standard. The hearing officer ought to be able to resolve the case in absentia, issue appropriate sanctions to Student D and keep the conduct process moving. - As another example, there are dozens of cases every year of residence hall violations where a prohibited item such a an electric scooter is found in the common area of a unit. RAs document every student that lives in that unit bc the RA does not know who owns the prohibited item. Students A, B, C, and D, are all charged with the same violation and asked to attend PRs. As the hearing officer works through the case and gets to student B, student B claims sole responsibility for the violation and says they are the owner of the scooter. Hearing officers should at that point be able to resolve the case for students A, C, and D whether or not the hearing officer has met with those students since the source of the violation has been identified.
- Proposed Change: Alter Disturbing the Peace to Disorderly Conduct, defined as: Behavior that is disorderly, indecent, or that breaches the peace. Disruptive behavior that unreasonably interferes with university activities or with the legitimate activities of another.
- Rationale: The label of disorderly conduct more directly associates with instances in which Disturbing the Peace is charged.
- Proposed Change: Section C3: Sanctions and interim measure for non academic misconduct Subsection e: Disciplinary sanctions for nonacademic misconduct I propose adding a new disciplinary sanction of Warning Status. Warning Status is for a defined period of time (in month increments) and helps to determine the severity of sanctions for additional violations that occur while a student is one warning status.
- Rationale: Currently, SCCS operates mostly on a "strike" system in which a first time violation results in a reprimand, second time violation results in probation, third violation results in extended probation or escalates to suspension/expulsion. This leaves out some nuance, but essentially this is a progressive and short discipline model. - What Warning Status allows for is a slower progression model: - For example, as of now, a student found responsible for a first-time violation of possessing a candle in-residence will be given a reprimand and an educational sanction. If two months later, the student is found responsible for a noise violation, the student then would end up on a 3-month disciplinary probation. - By adding in Warning Status, for the first candle violation, the student could receive a reprimand and an educational sanction. When the noise violation occurs, the student could then be placed on warning status for 1-3 months and given an educational sanction. Then if the student were to have another violation in that three month period, then we could move to probation. Or, if the warning status expires with no further issue, then the next violation could result in another active warning status OR move to probation (depending on severity). - The need for this now is that if you look at SCCS's current sanction guide, many violations result directly in University probation for a first-time violation. Once a student is on probation, they are no longer in good standing and could be barred from student org positions, scholarship opportunities, or campus employment opportunities. - Adding in Warning Status is a way to de-escalate the conduct process, refocus on the efficacy of educational interventions, and keep more students in good standing.