STANDARDS AND
PROCEDURES FOR REGULATING
CONDUCT
The following statement by the president of Wesleyan
University and the Joint
Statement on the Rights and Freedoms of Students
(available online at www.wesleyan.edu/student handbook/appendix.ctt) outline the standards,
structures, and procedures
for holding members of Wesleyan University accountable in
matters of community
standards and conduct.
A STRUCTURE FOR ACCOUNTABILITY
I. THE RATIONALE
In order to understand what the University community can reasonably
expect from the system for handling complaints filed under the Honor Code,
the Code of Non-Academic Conduct or the Joint Statement on the Rights and
Freedoms of Students, it is important to have in mind some underlying
assumptions about the nature of the University itself.
A university is an elaborate and in some ways fragile institution that
exists to provide a free and favorable environment for teaching and
learning. The university community, therefore, has a need to be able to
hold its members accountable for actions that damage the environment,
infringe upon the rights of other individuals, or otherwise hinder the
community in achieving its purpose. It is essential to a sense of fairness
that this principle of accountability be applied to each of the diverse
constituencies of the institution: students, faculty, administrators, and
staff. Although the ideal of promoting maximum individual freedom implies
that these codes or restrictions should be no more elaborate or extensive
than absolutely necessary for the university to protect its fundamental
interests, it follows that each member of the university not only has
rights, but also certain responsibilities for which he/she may be held
accountable. The rights and responsibilities of individuals in one group
differ from those in another because of the differing ways in which
various constituencies relate to the institution. The duties of salaried
workers, for example, are generally quite specifically defined, and the
terms of their employment are conditioned in part by state and federal
legislation. Employees’ "rights" are essentially those set
forth in Wesleyan employment policy, and these employees are accountable
to the head of the department in which they work.
An administrator, on the other hand, generally has a broader and less
specific set of responsibilities and a different set of rights. He/She is
expected to meet whatever professional standards may apply and also to
observe the policies of the institution. Administrators work without
contracts and are accountable through their supervisors to the president.
Faculty members at Wesleyan compose still another category. They hold
contracts—in fact, after achieving tenure, lifetime contracts—and are
accountable to the University and their peers for upholding a special set
of professional responsibilities. One characteristic of these
responsibilities is that there is no clear distinction between
responsibilities in the classroom and outside of it—teachers are
accountable for their professional comportment in toto. If they become
subject to disciplinary proceedings, they may request highly formalized
hearing procedures. Even in the absence of formal dismissal proceedings, a
serious question about the ethical conduct of a teacher may cast a shadow
over his/her career.
The situation of students is different yet again. Students are at
Wesleyan to learn from the faculty, from each other, and from the many
experiences and sources of information available to them. Their primary
responsibility—a debt owed mainly to themselves—is to learn to think
critically and well. Their secondary responsibility is to put their
intellectual faculties and their knowledge to good use. Students are held
accountable to the first responsibility by the Honor Code. They are held
accountable to the second under a Code of Non-Academic Conduct that is
intended to curb those behaviors that pose substantial harm to the
University and to members of the University community. A student
disregarding his or her responsibilities under the Honor Code and the Code
of Non-Academic Conduct may be found in violation of the regulations of
the Codes and may be sanctioned. Sanctions for violating the Honor Code
and the Code of Non-Academic Conduct range from community service to
expulsion.
Many of the disputes on a university campus involve differences that
can be resolved to the satisfaction of both parties through rational
discussion and mediation. Formal proceedings resulting in the imposition
of a sanction are, of course, necessary from time to time, but are surely
not to be preferred when the complaint does not involve an explicit
violation of a code or when the complaining party can be satisfied by
mediation.
We have noted that the responsibilities that members of various groups
owe to the institution differ, and that the consequences that they face if
they disregard their University Standards and Regulations responsibilities
inevitably differ as well. Perfect symmetry is neither achievable nor
necessarily desirable. But the general principles of accountability and of
seeking reasoned, mediated settlement in preference to formal proceedings
must apply to all, and the standards and procedures must be reasonably
designed, given the special character of each constituency, and fairly
implemented.
We turn now to the various components of the Wesleyan system for
accountability.
Student Accountability—
The trustees have lodged specific authority and responsibility in the
president "in consultation with the faculty" for establishing
and implementing policies governing student conduct. Accordingly, the
president’s authority to change standards, structures, and procedures,
acting, when appropriate, in consultation with the Educational Policy
Committee and the Student Life Committee, stems directly from the board.
Both Wesleyan tradition and contemporary theories of University governance
support the contention that students should play a substantial, though not
exclusive, role in the development of standards of academic and
nonacademic conduct and in the enforcement of those standards. It appears
that the interests of the whole university will best be served by the
presence of faculty and administrative representatives in the adjudication
process, with full voice but without vote. For this reason, the Honor
System provides for an Honor Board consisting of four students, with the
vice president for student affairs as an ex officio member, and the Code of Non-Academic
Conduct establishes a Student Judicial Board with a voting membership of
seven students and a nonvoting advisory representation of faculty members
and administrators.
Staff and Administrative Accountability—
Staff and administrators are accountable, through their supervisors,
to the president. When a student, faculty member, or member of the staff
believes that a staff member or administrator has acted in an arbitrary,
unfair, or capricious way, he/she may lodge a complaint with the staff
member or administrator’s supervisor. When unable to resolve
disagreements at this level, the complaint may be brought to the next
reporting level and so on up until it reaches the president.
If the complaint against the staff or administrator is related to
issues protected under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as
amended; Title IX of the Education Amendment of 1972 (nondiscrimination on
the basis of sex); the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act; Section
504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (nondiscrimination on the basis of
handicap); or the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, it should be
brought to the University’s Affirmative Action Officer.
Faculty Accountability—
Academic or nonacademic complaints concerning faculty members,
including complaints listed in the preceding paragraph, may be made to any
of several university officials (e.g., department chair, academic dean of
the faculty member’s division, or dean of the college) who will in all
cases inform the vice president for academic affairs. The VPAA will insure
that appropriate action is taken and, in the most serious breaches of
ethics or infringement of academic freedom, that the matter reaches the
Faculty Committee on Rights and Responsibilities (FCRR). Normally this
committee deals only with the most serious cases.
The foregoing introduction to the system of accountability is merely an
overview, and a fuller understanding of the way each component will
operate in relation to the others will require a close examination of the
standards and procedures regarding the Honor Board, the Student Judicial
Board, the Graduate Judicial Board, the Faculty Committee on Rights and Responsibilities,
and policies governing the use of the Information Technology Services.
This statement, revised in academic year 2002–03, is based on a
statement developed during the academic year 1973–74 by the president in
consultation with members of the academic community.
|
