ASJA - Association of Student Judicial Affairs

2009 ASJA Annual Conference

Fri, 30 May 2008 16:54:56 GMT

2009 ASJA Annual Conference
Start Date: 4-Feb-09 9:00 AM
End Time: 8-Feb-09 0:00 AM
Location: Main Conference Site - Sheraton Sand Key Resort, Clearwater Beach, Florida
Speaker:

Event Details:

PLEASE READ BELOW

Early Bird Registration will begin on Friday, May 30 and end on Friday, August 8 at midnight. All payments for Early Bird Registration must be received by Friday, August 22. If payment is not received by this date then registration will be cancelled.

Regular Registration for the 2009 ASJA Annual Conference will begin in early September. There is no difference in cost between Early Bird Registration and Regular Registration. Fee difference will take place with Late and On-Site Registration.

Check back in early September for more conference options including pre-conference workshops, Senior Student Affairs Officer (SSAO) program, golf outing, and much more.

Refund Policy:
All cancellations and requests for refunds MUST be submitted in writing by the deadline(s) listed within this policy. Telephone requests WILL NOT be honored. Letters and/or an email to asja@tamu.edu should be received or postmarked by no later than 60 days prior to the first day of the conference – December 5^th - to receive a full refund of the registration fee (minus an administrative fee of $25.00). Refund requests postmarked less than 60 days, but prior to 14 days from the start of the conference – January 21st - will receive a 50% refund. Request for refunds received after this deadline will not be considered. Refunds for Pre-conference workshop(s) and SSAO fees will be subject to the same deadlines. Refunds will be sent within four to six weeks after the conference has concluded.

A conference attendee must be a member of ASJA in order to attend. Membership is NOT included in the conference registration fee. Currently ASJA membership fees are: Professional Staff, $95 and Students, $40. If you are not a member or need to renew your membership, please go to www.asjaonline.org to apply or renew.

Main Conference Site - Sheraton Sand Key Resort

Circuit 1: New Professionals Workshop: Essential Elements for a Successful Year

Wed, 09 Jul 2008 16:44:35 GMT

Circuit 1: New Professionals Workshop: Essential Elements for a Successful Year
Start Date: 7-Aug-08 9:00 AM
End Time: 7-Aug-08 4:30 PM
Location: Massachusetts College of Art and Design, Boston, MA 02115
Speaker:

Event Details:

Whether you are a supervisor seeking new opportunities for your staff, or a new professional looking for development in areas such as supervision, balance, adjudicating & addressing conduct hearings or campus politics; this workshop will address all of your needs.

ASJA and BACHA have joined forces to bring new professionals (primarily 0-2 years experience) a comprehensive workshop aimed at providing the foundational elements essential to starting and maintaining success in student affairs.

Become a member of BACHA, http://www.bacha.org/Site/membership.cfm

New Professionals Workshop
Tentative Schedule

9:00 – 9:30 am Registration & Breakfast (Included)

9:30 – 9:45 am Welcome

10:00 – 11:15 am Session I: Four program offerings

11:20 am – 12:35 pm Session II: Four program offerings (same offered at Session I)

12:35 – 1:35 pm Lunch (Included)

1:35 – 2:50 pm Session III: Four new program offerings

2:55 – 4:10 pm Session IV: Four program offerings
(same as Session III)

4:10 – 4:30 pm Closing & Ice Cream Social (Included)

Massachusetts College of Art and Design

621 Huntington Ave

Boston, MA 02115

Circuit 2: Honoring Our Past, Embracing Our Present, Empowering Our Future

Wed, 18 Jun 2008 19:40:20 GMT

Circuit 2: Honoring Our Past, Embracing Our Present, Empowering Our Future
Start Date: 24-Jul-08 10:30 AM
End Time: 25-Jul-08 2:30 PM
Location: University of Albany, Albany, NY 12222
Speaker: Gary Dickstein

Event Details:

Circuit 2’s summer DRIVE-IN returns to the Capital District this summer for 2 days: July 24-25, 2008 in Albany, New York. We are pleased to announce that the drive-in will continue to recognize ASJA’s 2008 annual conference theme: Honoring Our Past, Embracing Our Present, Empowering Our Future. The 2-day schedule was created to accommodate attendees traveling from near and far! We will be offering campus housing at the University for an additional fee for those who are interested, and also provided a list of local accommodations. Once established, a full program will be available on the ASJA website, and will be sent electronically to the Circuit.

Drive-in Schedule:

Wednesday, July 23, 2008

5:00-10:00pm Check into Residence Hall

Thursday, July 24, 2008

9:00am-10:00pm Check into Residence Hall

9:30-10:30am Registration

10:30am-Noon Welcome: Clarence McNeill, Co-Chair & Joe DeGearo, Circuit 2 Rep Keynote: Gary Dickstein, ASJA President

Noon-1:00pm Lunch

1:00-2:15pm Session 1

2:15-2:25pm Break

2:25-3:40pm Session 2

3:40-4:00pm Snack Break

4-5:15pm Session 3

Thursday evening Dinner, Evening Activities, Night on the Town

Friday, July 25, 2008

8:30-9:00am Continental Breakfast

9:00-10:15am Session 4

10:15-10:30am Break

10:30-11:45am Session 5

11:45am-1:00pm Lunch

1:00-2:15pm Legal Update

2:15-2:30pm Closing/Evaluations

2:30pm Check out of Residence Hall

University of Albany

1400 Washington Ave

Albany, NY 12222

Late Night Events Management 2006 Task Force Report

noemail@asjaonline.org — Thu, 22 Feb 2007 19:00:00 GMT

A “Late Night Event” is defined as an event sponsored by a student organization(s) that ends after 12 midnight on University property. Late night programming on college campuses has existed for years. In recent years, institutions are becoming increasingly interested in sponsoring late night events, or allowing students to sponsor late night events on campus. The question then becomes, what would guide an institution’s decision in allowing late night events, and what procedures and policies should govern such events on campus. (More)

22-Feb-07 1:00 PM

National Baseline Study on Campus Sexual Assault: Adjudication of Sexual Assault Cases

Tue, 11 Jul 2006 20:00:00 GMT

Executive Summary

The National Baseline Study on Campus Sexual Assault: Adjudication of Sexual Assault Cases was initiated by the Association for Student Judicial Affairs (ASJA), following passage of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (Pub. L. 103-322). ASJA decided to gather data regarding one particular section of the Act which focused on “the ability of educational institutions’ disciplinary processes to address allegations of sexual assault adequately and fairly” (Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, Pub. L.103-322, Part 40506).

ASJA invited a number of professional associations to join a Task Force which would develop and distribute a survey regarding the process used by colleges and universities to adjudicate sexual assault cases. Seven associations appointed representatives who assisted with development of an instrument which was ultimately mailed to 419 voting delegates of the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators. Following two mailings of the survey a 41% return rate was achieved.

Of respondents, 73% held the position of dean, associate or assistant dean, 46% were from private institutions and 51% from publics. Roughly half of respondents indicated that the judicial officer at their institution had not received any reports regarding incidents of sexual assault and approximately 60% of institutions did not hold a sexual assault hearing during the three-year period for which data was collected. At most institutions where sexual assault cases were adjudicated, only or two were heard per year.

The majority of institutions, 88% encourage alleged victims to report incidents to the local police. Campus police were most likely to be involved in the investigation of incidents, with the judicial or chief student affairs officer likely to be involved at about 50% of institutions. Most institutions, 79% provided for formal disciplinary hearings for sexual assault cases and 28% reported offering the option of an informal hearing. About half of responding institutions provided special training to prepare judicial board members to adjudicate cases.

Sixty percent of institutions allowed the accused to bring an attorney to the hearing, while 54% provided the accuser with the opportunity to bring counsel to the hearing. Most institutions, 87-88%, permitted the accuser and accused to bring an advocate to the hearing. Hearings were closed at 94% of institutions. Just over half of the boards adjudicating cases used the standard “preponderance of evidence” when deciding cases.

Other findings shed light on: (a) the sources of information available to students regarding the process used to adjudicate sexual assault cases, (b) the types of evidence available for use during a hearing, (c) the parties most likely to be involved in the investigation and adjudication of cases, and (d) the rights afforded the accuser and accused prior to, during, and after a hearing.

For the remainder of the study: Baseline_Study_Report_Published.doc 352.256 KB (352256 bytes)

11-Jul-06 3:00 PM

Due Process in Student Discipline Revisited: 1995-2000

noemail@asjaonline.org — Thu, 06 Jul 2006 15:00:00 GMT

Due Process in Student Discipline Revisited: 1995-2000
by Nona L. Wood and Robert A. Wood
February 2001
North Dakota State University

INTRODUCTION

To the student judicial affairs professional, there can be no topic more important than due process. As professionals, we must constantly be aware of the fundamental fairness that is due our students, and scrutinize our policies and procedures to ensure that they accomplish that goal. In addition, judicial affairs personnel often provide consultation to faculty, staff, and administrators concerning their interactions with students; therefore, recognition of the principles of due process, and the correct applications of those tenets, can benefit students, both directly and indirectly.

Preceding this article is a due process primer written by the authors and published in a 1996 issue of The Journal of College and University Student Housing (Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 11-18). For those readers unfamiliar with due process, we recommend that piece be read first to help set the stage for this effort focusing on the years 1995-2000, as well as on a limited number of cases prior to 1995 that were not discussed in our previous manuscript.

We began our current research by conducting a computer search that would identify all cases reported since 1995 that included three key terms: student, college or university, and due process. As a result, the inquiry identified over six hundred cases. To narrow the outcome, we then asked for all those cases that included these three terms found in a single paragraph. This action trimmed the list to 281 cases. The results demonstrate that many individuals are litigating in an attempt to receive that due process which they believe is owed to them. What follows is a discussion of what we believe to be some of the most important court cases concerning due process in student discipline that have been decided over the past six years. The judicial decisions presented here are not exhaustive, and as always, individuals should consult legal counsel in their local jurisdictions who are experienced in higher education law for advice concerning their own specific sets of circumstances.

John Friedl (2000) has expressed the opinion that general safety concerns, increased worry over racial tensions, and anxiety over high risk behaviors associated with college binge drinking are all reasons why colleges and universities are focusing on student behaviors both on- and off-campus that previously may or may not have been addressed by university judicial officers. In addition, as is known by any practicing student judicial affairs officer, the growth in federal legislation related to campus crime and misconduct has increased markedly since 1990. Today it is not unusual for campus crime to be the topic of newspaper articles, television magazine shows, radio programs, and other forms of media, including the Internet.

For the entire article: http://www.asjaonline.org/attachments/articles/257/Due Process Revisited.pdf

6-Jul-06 10:00 AM

Due Process in Student Discipline: A Primer

noemail@asjaonline.org — Thu, 06 Jul 2006 14:00:00 GMT

DUE PROCESS IN STUDENT DISCIPLINE: A PRIMER

Nona L. Wood and Robert A. Wood

North Dakota State University

INTRODUCTION

In residence halls there inevitably are occasions when students come into conflict with university rules and regulations. Frequently, undergraduates assist in the adjudication of rule violations as Resident Assistants or members of student judicial boards. Graduate students also may assist as Hall Directors or Complex Managers. Undergraduates, in particular, may have little or no training in student judicial affairs when they assume their duties.

Because state colleges and universities are governmental entities (Williams v. Wheeler, 1913), any residence life employee acting officially is considered an agent of the state. As a result, it is important that all housing personnel involved in the student judicial function be aware of the procedures by which individuals are afforded due process protections.

In private institutions, rights tend to be contractual rather than Constitutional and are based on the private institutions= own documents (Holert v. University of Chicago, 1990; Melvin v. Union College, 1993). If those documents do not afford contract protections similar to due process, then the private institutions need not provide them. Decisions of private institutions, in general, may be subject to review only if they are arbitrary or capricious (Ahlum v. Administrators of Tulane Educational Fund, 1993; MU Chapter of Delta Kappa Epsilon v. Colgate, 1992). The courts also may assume jurisdiction when private, as well as public, institutions fail to follow their own policies and procedures (Gruen v. Chase, 1995; Melvin v. Union College, 1993; Smith v. Denton, 1995; Weidemann v. State University of New York College, 1992). Courts also may intervene if there is a violation of statutorily imposed duty (e.g., Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act [FERPA], Title IX) on the part of the institution.

At public institutions, observing due process meticulously serves several purposes. First, the chances that an appropriate sanction will be assigned are enhanced when proper procedures are followed. Second, strict adherence helps assure the university community that an appropriate response was made. Third, observance of due process helps reduce the risks associated with unfavorable external scrutiny by the public, the media, and the courts. Fourth, it is the law of the land.

Baker (1992) identified several additional purposes of due process, all of which are expressions of fundamental fairness: (a) to reduce the risk that a student has been wrongly accused; (b) to conduct an objective investigation; c) to provide administrator accountability; and (d) to balance countervailing interests.

The purpose of this article is to provide a basic primer for residence life administrators who must teach students the fundamental elements of due process and how these components are safeguarded in their student judicial systems. This article begins with a review of the theoretical underpinnings of due process and then moves to a discussion of specific procedural protections.

For the entire article: http://www.asjaonline.org/attachments/articles/255/Due Process 1996.pdf

6-Jul-06 9:00 AM

THE STUDENT CONDUCT PROCESS: A GUIDE FOR PARENTS

noemail@asjaonline.org — Wed, 17 May 2006 16:00:00 GMT

THE STUDENT CONDUCT PROCESS: A GUIDE FOR PARENTS

A publication of the Association for Student Judicial Affairs, 2006.

Introduction

The Association for Student Judicial Affairs (ASJA) has been in existence since 1986 and is the primary professional association for administrators working with student conduct. The membership comprises 1200 members working at over 750 colleges and universities throughout the United States and Canada.

ASJA is an organization of professional educators who are responsible for administering standards of student conduct within colleges and universities. The membership of ASJA believes that the purposes for the enforcement of such standards are to maintain and strengthen the ethical climate and to promote the academic integrity of our institutions. Clearly articulated and consistently administered standards of conduct form the basis for behavioral expectations within an academic community. The enforcement of such standards should be accomplished in a manner that protects the rights, health, and safety of members of that community so that they may pursue their educational goals without undue interference (Editorial Note: adapted from ASJA Preamble on website).

ASJA created this guide in order to aid you in helping your student navigate the student conduct system at his/her college or university. Student conduct systems in higher education have been in existence for many years, and have evolved over time. Today, the main purpose of most student conduct systems is education. The goal is to have each incident of misconduct create a learning opportunity for the student. In addition, conduct officers strive to repair any harm done to the community. There likewise is a deterrent aspect of the student’s participation in the conduct process.

Staff responsible for student discipline at most institutions have very specialized training in student conduct. Most have at least a Master’s degree and some have doctoral or law degrees.

This guide will focus on general procedures of most campus discipline processes, with particular emphasis on the difference between the campus process and criminal prosecution; goals of the conduct process; and student records and confidentiality. Additionally, the guide offers a general overview of the various types of misconduct with a focus on alcohol and drug offenses. It also includes some general advice you can use in working with your student who may be involved with the campus conduct system. We hope this guide aids you in understanding what your student may be facing as they begin to navigate their way through the student conduct system.

Before delving into the content of this guide, it is important to understand its limitations. First, as stated above, institutional student conduct processes are as unique as the institutions’ themselves. Please contact the student conduct officer on your campus to obtain a copy of the student conduct code. This guide is an attempt to discuss some of the most common practices at institutions across the country.

Another limitation of this publication is that public institutions have very different guidelines that they need to follow than private institutions do. Generally, private institutions have greater flexibility in their hearing standards, consequences for misconduct, and what types of conduct they can regulate. We therefore strongly encourage you to check your institution’s own conduct code to find out what types of procedures are used.

Finally, the terminology used at various institutions is very interchangeable. For example, some campuses will call this process the student judicial process; others will call it the student conduct process. Additionally, the administrative unit that handles student conduct matters varies from institution to institution. In fact, the uniqueness begins with what the office that addresses student conduct is called and where it is situated. In general, these offices are called: the Office of Student Conduct, the Office of Student Judicial Affairs, the Office of Student Discipline, the Office of Student Development, or the Office of Citizenship and Community Standards. Many offices are located within the Dean of Students Office, the Office of Residence Life, the Division of Student Affairs, or the Office of Student Life.

This guide serves as a basic introduction to the student conduct system and as a springboard for investigating the procedures specific to your institution. With your support and understanding, you can help your student navigate the student conduct process and encourage the growth, development and accountability that we all want from our students.

For the remainder of the article click below:

http://www.asjaonline.org/attachments/articles/187/Student Conduct Process Guide for Parents 2006.pdf

17-May-06 11:00 AM

Mahoney v. Allegheny College (2005)

Mon, 10 Apr 2006 23:15:00 GMT

Pennsylvania court decision regarding a college's student suicide.

Allegheney college SJ decision.pdf 1104.455 KB (1104455 bytes)

10-Apr-06 6:15 PM

Shin v. MIT

noemail@asjaonline.org — Mon, 10 Apr 2006 20:00:00 GMT

SHIN v. MIT

Following the suicide of their daughter, Elizabeth H. Shin, a sophomore at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the Plaintiffs filed a twenty-five (25) count complaint against the Defendants Massaschusetts Institute of Technology, MIT Medical Professionals , MIT Administrators, and MIT Campus Police Officers. Some of the Defendants have filed for partial or complete summary judgement on various grounds.

Click on the pdf link below to receive the Memorandum of Decisions and Order on Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgement

Shin v. MIT.pdf 1351.451 KB (1351451 bytes)

10-Apr-06 3:00 PM