Judicial Report and Case Summary,  Fall 2004

January, 2005

To:          The University Community

From:      Student Judicial Board

Re:          Fall 2004 Judicial Report and Case Summary

This report provides summary information pertaining to judicial activity and cases adjudicated by the Student Judicial Board (SJB) during the Fall 2004 semester.  A listing of the summaries of all the cases adjudicated by the SJB may be found at the end of this report.

Judicial Violation Data

During this reporting period, there were 380 cases/incidents involving 316 students and 489 alleged violations of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  When compared with the same period last year, these data represent a 28% increase in the number of reported violations and a 25% increase in the number of students involved.  Given the University’s renewed effort to address disruptive behavior in the senior wood frame houses, an increase in reported violations was expected.  The increase may also be attributed to the increased role that the Residential Life staff has taken this year with respect to addressing policy violations.  Resident Advisors and House Managers seem to be calling Public Safety to address various policy violations more than in the past.  During the current reporting period, 10% of the student population was processed through the judicial system as a result of alleged policy violations.  Thirty four percent of the individuals involved in violations of policy during the reporting period are "repeat offenders" – having at least one prior reported violation, or at least two separate violations of policy during the reporting period.

Of the violations that occurred during this reporting period, 29% were alcohol/drug policy violations, 52% were privacy and tranquility (noise) violations, and 14% were violations of departmental regulations (usually violations of the social event policy).  The most common violations during the Fall 2004 reporting period are outlined below:

Most Common Violations (Summary) Fall 2004

Comparative Violation Data – Fall 2003, Fall 2004

After a significant increase in the number of alleged alcohol or drug violations during the Fall 2004 there was only a slight increase during the current reporting period.  During this reporting period, there were a total of 143 alcohol policy violations (90% of these were underage possession/consumption violations), and 6 drug violations.  Alcohol or drug use was a factor in 69% of the cases adjudicated by the Board.  The number of students who required medical treatment for intoxication decreased 7% (from 26 during Fall ‘03 to 24 during Fall ’04) during this reporting period.  The Residential Life staff was very active in calling for medical attention for these individuals.

The increase in Privacy & Tranquility violations began last year and continued during the current reporting period.  The increases in these violations may be attributed to the focus on student behavior in the senior wood-frame houses.  Further, the threshold for judicial referral for noise violations has been changed such that students are referred for each confirmed complaint.  There were numerous complaints about student behavior from non-Wesleyan neighbors at the beginning of the current reporting period – these issues continue to present a challenge for the University.

During this reporting period, the area coordinator staff in the Office of Residential Life began playing a larger role in the adjudication of minor judicial issues involving residents living in their areas of responsibility.  Specifically, the SJB developed a procedure permitting the area coordinators to hold judicial conferences with students.  During these conferences, the area coordinator discusses the alleged violation with the student(s) and attempts to come to resolution regarding appropriate sanctions.  The goals of implementing this procedure were to reduce the SJB’s caseload and to expedite follow up with the student.  There was a significant increase in the number of judicial conferences/administrative dispositions from 56 during the 2003-2004 academic term to 282 during the fall of 2004.  These judicial conferences were adjudicated by 5 Area Coordinators.  There was a significant increase in the number of judicial conferences due in part to the dissolution of administrative dispositions, formerly implemented by the Dean of Student Services Office.   The median of all judicial cases adjudicated by the SJB and Residence Life Team during the fall 2004 reporting period are outlined below

The area with the most judicial conferences was the Senior Housing, HiRise/LoRise, Washington Street area with 214.  The Program House area was responsible for adjudicating 34 judicial conferences.  The Nicolson/Hewitt area was responsible for 18, 200 Church, Clark, West College area 10 and the Butterfield/156 High Street area 6.  The SJB co-chairs have indicated a desire to handle cases more expeditiously during the spring term

Judicial Sanction Data

In response to the violations outlined above, the SJB has continued to employ a combination of punitive and educational sanctions.  Sanctioning tends to be progressive in nature.  That is, a minor violation by a first-time offender will typically result in a disciplinary warning; a second violation results in disciplinary probation; and so on.  The distribution of sanctions given during the reporting period is as follows: 

The number of referrals to Health Services has decreased and there were no suspensions or expulsions issued during the fall.  The number of students receiving Restitution/Fines and Community Service also decreased.   

The percentage of “repeat offenders” appearing before the SJB during this reporting period remained high (109/34%).   There were 105 (21%) students found not responsible by the SJB.  If this trend continues, the Board should seriously consider whether or not it’s sanctioning is effective in changing student behavior. 

A summary of each of the cases adjudicated by the Board during the fall 2004 semester follows this portion of the report.  These summaries are presented in an effort to share information about the types of cases, violations, findings, and sanctions issued by the SJB during the reporting period.  If you have any questions regarding this report, please contact the Office of the Dean of Student Services in North College.

Fall 2004 SJB Case Summaries (listed by Regulation)

Regulation 1 - Privacy and Tranquility The intentional infringement upon the right to privacy of any member of the community is prohibited.  The persistent interruption of a reasonable level of peace and quiet is also a violation. Students should be aware that repeated violation of this regulation could result in administrative reassignment to another residential unit or area.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulation 1 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that Student A was with a group of students making loud noises. The Board found Student A not in violation of the Code because of a lack of evidence of loud noise and cooperativeness on the part of the alleged offender to limit such noise at that time and in the future. 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulation 1 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that Student A’s house generated a noise complaint.  Student A contended that he was not present that evening.  The Board found Student A not in violation of the Code. 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that Student A had violated Section II, Regulation 1 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A had loud noises coming from his room and was disturbing his hallmates.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because of the public safety officer’s acknowledgement of the loud noises.  As a sanction the Board recommended that Student A be given disciplinary warning. 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that Student A had violated Section II, Regulations 1 and 13b of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that Student A had loud noise coming from his room and was in the possession of alcohol. The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because there was loud noise coming from Student A’s room and alcohol was found.  As a sanction the Board recommended that Student A be placed on disciplinary probation for the remainder of the semester, as well as through December 31, 2005, parental notification, and suggested alcohol assessment. 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that Students A and B had violated Section II, Regulation 1 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that Students A and B were hosts at a party that resulted in a confirmed noise complaint. The Board found that Students A and B had indeed violated the Code.  As a sanction the Board recommended that Students A and B be given disciplinary warning.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that Students A, B, C, and D had violated Section II, Regulations 1 and 14 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  The Board found Students A, B, C, and D not in violation of Regulation 1 because the Board did not feel as though there was enough evidence.  The Board found that Students A, B, C, and D had indeed violated Regulation 14 of the Code.  As a sanction the Board recommended that Students A, B, C, and D be given disciplinary warnings.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that Student A had violated Section II, Regulation 1 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Students A and B had disrupted the privacy and tranquility of the part of campus they were on.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because the student admitted to having been arguing but did deny making noise.  As a sanction the Board recommended that Student A be given disciplinary warning.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that Students A, B, C, and D had violated Section II, Regulation 1 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Students A, B, C, and D had thrown a party and failed to keep the noise down and number of people present on two occasions.  The Board found that Students A, B, C, and D had indeed violated the Code because of their admittance to playing loud music and having 50-60 people in their yard.  As a sanction the Board recommended that Students A, B, C, and D be given disciplinary warnings.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that Students A, B, C, D, and E had violated Section II, Regulation 1 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Students A, B, C, and D had loud music coming from a stereo inside their house.  The students stated that the noise was coming from unaffiliated individuals in a parked car.  The Board found that Students A, B, C, D, E not in violation of the Code because of the Public Safety report and the evidence presented. 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that Student A had violated Section II, Regulation 1 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A’s music was playing too loudly in Student A’s room and Student A was not present to turn it off.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because Student A did have his music on loudly as outlined in the public safety report.  As a sanction the Board recommended that Student A complete 10 hours of community service. 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that Students A-M had violated Section II, Regulation 1 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that Students A-M threw a loud, large party. The Board found that Students A-C were not in violation because they were not present at the party. Student D was not in violation because he did not live in the house at the time of the violation.  Students E-M were found in violation because they indeed threw a party that was loud (at least 200 people present).  The Board recognizes that they “sound-proofed” their house, informed the neighbors of the party, and asked for their permission.  The Board also recognizes despite their efforts to clear people off of their property, they made no effort to call Public Safety once the party got out of control.  As a sanction the Board recommended that Students E-M be given disciplinary warnings.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that Students A-D had violated Section II, Regulation 1 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that there was a lot of noise being generated from a car near their property, thus attracting a small gathering.  The Board found that Students A-C were not in violation of the Code because they were not present at the party at any time during the gathering.  Student D was present at the house but it was determined that the music was coming from an alumni car near their property (not on the property) and was not affiliated with the party. 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that Students A-D had violated Section II, Regulation 1 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  The Board found that Student A-C had indeed violated the Code (Student D had not) because the Public Safety report indicated they had indeed violated this regulation.  As a sanction the Board recommended that Students A, B, and C be given disciplinary warnings and complete 5 hours of community service by December 31, 2004. 

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that Students A-G had violated Section II, Regulation 1 and 13b of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Students A-G had been or were consuming alcohol while being underage and had exceeded acceptable levels of noise.  The Board found that Students A-G were not in violation of the Code because of the lack of evidence of alcohol consumption and unreasonable levels of noise. 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that an organization had violated Section II, Regulations 1, 13c, and 15 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that the organization was the source of loud music and noise.  It was also alleged that there was alcohol being distributed to minors and that the organization did not register the party in accordance with Department Regulations.  A lot of people and untapped kegs were observed at this location and the music turned off when Public Safety arrived and entered the house.  The Board found that the organization had indeed violated the Code.  As a sanction the Board recommended that the entire organization perform 100 hours of community service with at least one member of each class represented in the community service hours. 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that Student A and Student B had violated Section II, Regulation 1 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that Student A and Student B had excessive noise at a party at their house.  The Board found that Student A and Student B had not violated the Code because they actively tried to get people off their lawn and were not responsible for the loud noise coming from their area.  They complied with Public Safety and attempted to reduce the noise level to the best of their ability.

Regulation 2 - Harassment and Abuse Harassment and abuse, directed toward individuals or groups, may include at least the following terms: the use or threat of physical violence, coercion, intimidation, and verbal harassment and abuse.  Harassment and abuse may be discriminatory or may be nondiscriminatory. Wesleyan University’s commitment to nondiscrimination means that discriminatory harassment may be punished more severely than nondiscriminatory forms of harassment.

In a full hearing, the Board considered an allegation that Student A had violated Section II, Regulation 2 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that Student A pushed Student B and then pushed Student C and then punched Student C.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because Student A did punch Student B when there might have been another alternative to the situation.  These are mitigating circumstances because even though Student A felt threatened and felt the need to act in self-defense, Wesleyan does not tolerate physical altercation.  As a sanction the Board recommended that Student A be placed on disciplinary probation for the remainder of the semester, as well as through the entire 2004-05 academic year.  Student A must also organize and assist the RA’s of In-town in creating a program. 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that Student A had violated Section II, Regulation 2 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A had purposely smashed a small glass on the floor while screaming at Student B for not being environmentally safe.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because of the evidence presented.  As a sanction the Board recommended that Student A complete 5 hours of community service by March 15, 2005.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that Student A had violated Section II, Regulations 2 and 15 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A verbally abused Person B and failed to follow department regulations.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because Student A behaved in a verbally abusive manner towards public safety officers and admitted to smoking in the building.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be given disciplinary warning. 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that Students A and B had violated Section II, Regulation 2 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. It was alleged that Student C had violated Section II, Regulation 13b of the Code.  Specifically, it was alleged that Students A and B had stored their equipment in the basement.  Both students confirmed using the basement but said it was open and had no prohibitory sign.  Student C was seen by Public Safety with a beer in hand.  Student C was underage at the time.  The Board found that Students A and B were not in violation of the Code.  The Board found that Student C had indeed violated the Code.  As a sanction the Board recommended that Student C given a disciplinary warning.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that Student A had violated Section II, Regulation 2 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that Student A had harassed and abused Student B. The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because Student A admitted to the violation and there was significant evidence that she violated the code.  As a sanction the Board recommended that Student A be placed on disciplinary probation for the remainder of the semester, as well as through the entire 2004-05 academic year.

In a full hearing, the Board considered an allegation that Student A and B had violated Section II, Regulation 2 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that Student A and Student B harassed students on campus.  The Board found that Student A and B were not in violation of the Code because they did not harass anyone.  There was no victim and there was no intention for harassment or abuse. 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that Student A and Student B had violated Section II, Regulations 2, 14, and 15 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that Student A and Student B had climbed onto the roof of an university building and refused to come down upon request by Public Safety.  In addition, the students were alleged to have dropped a banner screwed to the roof.  The Board found Student A and Student B not in violation of Regulation 14 because they had cooperated with Public Safety upon request.  The Board, however, found that Students A and B had indeed violated Regulations 4 and 15.   As a sanction the Board recommended disciplinary warnings for Students A and B and 5 hours of community service to be performed by each to be completed by December 31, 2004. 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that Student A had violated Section II, Regulations 2 and 14 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that Student A pushed his way into Summerfields after it was closed, made harassing comments, and failed to leave when asked by Summerfield’s employees. The Board found that Student A had not violated the Code because, according to one worker, it was o.k. for him to be there and there was a general commotion but nothing explicitly clear.  Student A did leave when asked by Public Safety and he did not make any director or serious comments directed towards the Summerfields’ workers.  

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that Student A had violated Section II, Regulation 2 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that Student A verbally harassed an RA. The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because the report against Student A was persuasive and Student A had no defense against it.  Furthermore, Student A did not deny that the exchange occurred between Student A and the RA.  As a sanction the Board recommended that Student A be given a disciplinary warning and requested to complete 5 hours of community service by January 1, 2005.   

Regulation 3 - Sexual Misconduct Sexual misconduct, including, but not limited to, sexual harassment, sexual assault, coercion, and threats or use of force, is prohibited.

Regulation 4 - Property The unauthorized use, or the abuse, destruction, or theft of University property or any of its members, guests, or neighbors is prohibited.  This regulation prohibits the unauthorized appropriation or “borrowing” of common property for personal use. 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that an organization had violated Section II, Regulation 4 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged stolen university property was found within the residence of the organization.  The Board found not in violation of the Code because individual people claimed responsibility for property and stated that they committed the acts as individuals and not as part of the organization. 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that Student A had violated Section II, Regulation 4 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A had painted a university residence hall.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because Student A admitted to the incident.  As a sanction the Board recommended that Student A be given disciplinary warning. 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that Student A had violated Section II, Regulation 4 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A smashed a window at one of the university’s dorms.  Student A pleaded not in violation of the offense.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because of the evidence presented.  As a sanction the Board recommended that Student A be given a disciplinary warning, as well as 15 hours of community service to be completed by December 31, 2004 or restitution. 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that Student A had violated Section II, Regulation 4 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A had driven recklessly across a university banner. Public safety later identified the car parked at a lot.  The Board found that Student A had not violated the Code because there wasn’t enough evidence to confirm that Student A was actually driving the car at the time.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that Student A had violated Section II, Regulation 4 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A was seen in a restricted area of a university building by Public Safety.  Public Safety asked Student A to leave and Student A complied.  The Board found that Student A had not violated the Code.

In a full hearing, the Board considered an allegation that Student A had violated Section II, Regulation 4 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A damaged a couch stolen from an university dorm which was later brought to High Street damaged and unusable.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because of evidence related during previous hearings.  As a sanction the Board recommended that Student A perform 35 hours of community service, give financial restitution for the couch, and be placed on disciplinary probation until graduation. 

In a full hearing, the Board considered an allegation that Student A had violated Section II, Regulation 4 and 13b of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that Student A attempted to steal various items from a house.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because Student A admitted to attempting to take the items and was caught in the act of doing so.  As a sanction the Board recommended that Student A be placed on disciplinary probation for the remainder of the semester, perform 10 hours of community service, and present a one-page paper about his learning experience during his service. 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that Student A and Student B had violated Section II, Regulation 4 and 13b of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that Student A and Student B were drinking underage and stealing property in a foreign country.  The Board found Students A and B not in violation of the Code because Student A and B were over the legal drinking age of that foreign country and they stated that they were not the ones to steal the street signs.  All charges were dismissed. 

In a full hearing, the Board considered an allegation that Students A, B, and C had violated Section II, Regulations 4, 9a, 10, and 13b of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that Student A and Student B were involved with lighting four separate fires on campus.  Student C did not do anything to stop the fires from being set and was charged with reckless endangerment.  The Board found that Student A and Student B had indeed violated the Code because they admitted to lighting the fires.  Student C was found in violation of Regulation 10 for failing to intervene.  As a sanction the Board recommended that Student A and Student B be suspended for one semester, provide restitution for damages, and complete 30 hours of community service.  The Board recommended that Student C be placed on disciplinary probation for the remainder of the semester, as well as through December 20051 and  complete 10 hours of community service to be completed by August 30, 2004.

Regulation 5 - False Information Knowingly furnishing false information to a University officer or member of any constituted hearing board acting in performance of his/her duties is prohibited, as is the failure to provide University personnel with adequate identification upon request.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that Student A had violated Section II, Regulations 5 and 14 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that Student A provided false information to Public Safety and failed to comply.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because Student A admitted to admitted to stating that he went to Middletown High School  As a sanction the Board recommended that Student A be placed on disciplinary probation for the remainder of the semester.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that Student A had violated Section II, Regulation 5 and 13b of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that Student A was seen with a bottle of beer.  Upon questioning, Student A provided a false identification to Public Safety.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because Student A confirmed the allegation and said it was stupid to have acted that way.  As a sanction the Board recommended that Student A be placed on disciplinary probation until March 15, 2005.  

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that Student A had violated Section II, Regulations 5 and 13g of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that Student A was seen driving around a university field with Student A’s headlight turned off.  Student A also drove uphill without headlights turned on, the Public Safety report stated.  Upon questioning, the student denied driving and was also seen with a beer in hand.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because of the evidence presented.  As a sanction the Board recommended that Student A be placed on disciplinary probation through tenure, and complete 10 hours of community service by March 15, 2005. 

Regulation 6 - Misuse of Documents Forgery, alteration, or the unauthorized possession or use of University documents, records or instruments of identification is prohibited.

Regulation 7 - Tampering with Locks and Duplication of Keys Tampering with locks in University buildings, unauthorized possession or use of University keys, and alteration or unauthorized duplication of University keys are prohibited.

Regulation 8 - Fire Protection Systems Tampering with fire extinguishers, fire alarm boxes, or smoke or heat detectors anywhere on University property is prohibited.

Regulation 9 - Restricted Items/Fire Hazards The possession or use of  items designated as fire hazards is prohibited within any University-owned or operated facility.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that Student A and Student B had violated Section II, Regulations 9c and 9a, respectively, of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A had painted a university residence hall.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because Student A admitted to the incident.  As a sanction the Board recommended that Student A be given disciplinary warning.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that Student A had violated Section II, Regulations 9a and 14 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that Student A had stored property in an unauthorized location.  The Board found that Student A was indeed in violation of the Code.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be given disciplinary warning.  Student B was found not in violation of the Code. 

Regulation 10 – Reckless Endangerment Creating condition(s) or an environment that endangers, or has the potential to endanger, other members of the community or property is prohibited. Failure to take reasonable constructive action to remedy such conditions may also constitute a violation.

Regulation 11 - Pets  Uncaged pets are not allowed in any University facility, including residential facilities, classrooms, libraries, laboratories, studios, sports facilities, food service areas, administrative offices, and public meeting areas.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that Student A had violated Section II, Regulation 11 and 14 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that Student A kept a cat in Low Rise and failed to remove the cat when asked on several occasions to remove the cat by his Area Coordinator and SLF staff.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because Student A kept a pet in university dorms and persistently refused to remove the cat when asked by university staff.  As a sanction the Board recommended that Student A be given disciplinary warning. 

Regulation 12 - Disruptions  The following “ground rules” for political freedom on campus are excerpted from the booklet "Academic Freedom and Civil Liberties of Students in College and University," published by the American Civil Liberties Union in 1970.

"Ground Rules. Picketing, demonstrations, sit-ins, or student strikes, provided they are conducted in an orderly and non-obstructive manner, are a legitimate mode of expression, whether politically motivated or directed against the college administration, and should not be prohibited. Demonstrators, however, do not have the right to deprive others of the opportunity to speak or be heard; take hostages; physically obstruct the movement of others; or otherwise disrupt the educational or institutional processes in a way that interferes with the safety or freedom of others.”

Regulation 13 - Drugs and Alcohol The University prohibits underage and unlawful possession, use, or distribution of illicit drugs and alcohol.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that Student A had violated Section II, Regulation 13a of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that Student A had a bag of marijuana in her possession and proceeded to flush it down the toilet when approached by a public safety officer.  The Board found that Student A had not violated the Code because of lack of evidence that the marijuana was not Student A’s, contradicting statements as to what happened, and lack of reason not to believe Students A’s insistence that it was not her marijuana. 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that Student A had violated Section II, Regulations 13a, b and 15 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that Student A, who is underage, was in possession of alcohol and drugs and had also violated the non-smoking residential policy.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because Student A admitted to the offenses.  As a sanction the Board recommended that Student A be given disciplinary warning and be placed on disciplinary probation for the span of one semester (until Spring break 2005). 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that Student A had violated Section II, Regulation 13b of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A was in possession of a bottle of vodka.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because, in addition of the Public Safety report, he admitted to being in possession of the bottle.  As a sanction the Board recommended that Student A be given disciplinary warning. 

In a full hearing, the Board considered an allegation that Student A had violated Section II, Regulation 13b of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A consumed alcohol underage.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the code because the student was found intoxicated and admitted to consuming alcohol.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be placed on disciplinary probation until graduation and complete seven hours of community service per week until May 14, 2005.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that Student A had violated Section II, Regulation 13b of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A consumed beer from a plastic cup.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because the student admitted to consuming the alcohol and it was confirmed by the Public Safety report.  As a sanction the Board recommended that Student A be given disciplinary warning.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that Students A, B and C had violated Section II, Regulation 13b of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Students A, B, and C were drinking while not of legal age.  The Board found that Students A, B, and C had indeed violated the Code because they admitted to have been drinking when not 21.  As a sanction the Board recommended that Students A, B, and C be given disciplinary warnings because this was their first violation of Regulation 13b. 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that Student A had violated Section II, Regulation 13b of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A drank alcohol underage to the point of illness.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because of the Public Safety report and Student A’s own statement.  As a sanction the Board recommended that Student A be given a disciplinary warning because this student had no prior violations.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that Student A had violated Section II, Regulation 13b of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A was in possession of an open cup of alcohol while under the age of 21.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because of both the Public Safety report and Student A’s admission that he did indeed violate 13b.  As a sanction the Board recommended that Student A be given disciplinary warning because this student had no prior violations.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that Student A had violated Section II, Regulation 13b of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A was in possession of alcohol at Summerfields.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because of both the Public Safety report and Student A’s admission that he did indeed violate 13b.  As a sanction the Board recommended that Student A be given disciplinary warning.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that Student Group A had violated Section II, Regulation 13c of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student Group A distributed alcohol to minors and without a license.  The Board found that Student Group A had not violated the Code because Student Group A was not actually serving the alcohol, instead individuals just walked into the group event with alcohol. 

In a full hearing, the Board considered an allegation that an organization had violated Section II, Regulations 13c and 13f of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that the organization distributed alcohol to underage persons and distributed alcohol without permission or a permit.  The Board found that the organization had indeed violated the Code because of evidence of underage drinking and no permit obtained for the distribution of alcohol.  As a sanction the Board recommended that the organization be placed on disciplinary probation for the remainder of the semester, as well as through the entire 2004-05 academic year, and host a campus event with a recovering alcoholic as a guest speaker by the end of the year.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that Student A had violated Section II, Regulations 13b, and 14 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A was drinking underage and provided a false name to the Public Safety officer.  The Board found that Student A was not in violation of Regulation 13b but had violated Regulation 14 of the Code.  As a sanction the Board recommended that Student A be given disciplinary warning because it was a first time offense and Student A was very cooperative with the Public Safety officer after the initial encounter. 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that an organization had violated Section II, Regulation 13c of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A was served alcohol at a fraternity function.  The Board found the organization not in violation of the Code because the evidence did not show the organization was serving alcohol. 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an organization had violated Section II, Regulation 13c of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that several students were found intoxicated at a department on another part of campus (Science Center).  The underage students said that they had gotten drinks from the said organization.  The Board found that the organization was not in violation of the Code because the evidence presented wasn’t reason enough to find it in violation. 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that Student A had violated Section II, Regulation 13c of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct and that Student B had violated Regulation 13b of the Code.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A distributed alcohol to underage students and that Student B was drinking underage.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because of irresponsible supervision of his purchase and the foreseen problems with keeping a keg in a freshmen/sophomore dorm.  Student B had indeed violated the Code because he was caught with beer in his cup while being clearly intoxicated.  As a sanction the Board recommended that Student A be given an additional disciplinary warning and 5 hours of community service.  The Board recommended that Student B receive disciplinary warning. 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that Student A had violated Section II, Regulation 13g of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A was driving under the influence because Public safety smelled alcohol on Student A’s breath.  In addition, Student A hit another student’s car and refused to stop to acknowledge it.  Public Safety was on the scene moments later to confirm the incident.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code.  As a sanction the Board recommended that Student A be given disciplinary warning and 10 hours of community service to be completed by May 31, 2005. 

Regulation 14 - Failure to Comply Members of the community are expected to comply with requests made by University personnel acting within the capacity of their responsibilities. Public Safety Officers should be allowed to enter private residential spaces to address suspected policy violations. Officers may enter private residential spaces without residents' permission only with the approval of the dean of the college (or designee).

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that Student A had violated Section II, Regulation 14 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A removed a boot from a car booted earlier by a Public Safety officer and then dropped it off at the Public Safety office.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because Student A clearly did not comply with the practices for boot procedure.  As a sanction the Board recommended that Student A be obliged to pay the fee associated with removing the boot and perform 5 hours of community service. 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that Student A had violated Section II, Regulation 14 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A had an interaction with a Public Safety officer at Andrews Field but Student A did not want to give his name and fled the scene.  The Public Safety officer found an I.D. that night in the Public Safety office and immediately identified the student.  The Public Safety officer filed a second report due to the new information.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because it was more likely than not that he did in fact commit the allegation.  As a sanction the Board recommended that Student A’s disciplinary probation be extended to December 31, 2005 and complete 10 hours of community service by March 7, 2005.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that Student A had violated Section II, Regulations 14 and 15 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A loaded up food from the dinging hall and refused to stop when confronted by a worker in the dining hall.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because of the evidence presented.  As a sanction the Board recommended that Student A be placed on disciplinary probation for the remainder of the semester, as well as through May 31, 2005. 

Regulation 15 - Department Regulations Members of the community are expected to abide by duly established and promulgated nonacademic regulations.  This is intended to cover the operating regulations of all University programs and facilities.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that Student A had violated Section II, Regulation 15 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A violated the code of conduct connected to information technology.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because of Student A’s confession and the evidence presented.  As a sanction the Board recommended that Student A be given disciplinary warning. 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that Student A had violated Section II, Regulation 15 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A, as a host of an alcohol free event, had allowed for alcohol to be at the event and allowed for the party to go past 2:00 am.  The Board found that Student A was not in violation of the Code because Student A was not host-trained and did not know how to fully conduct a party.  At the same time, Student A tried to ensure that people were checking ids and making sure that people weren’t drinking inside.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that Students A and B had violated Section II, Regulation 15 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Students A and B, by hosting a party, had left large amounts of alcohol unattended.  They were also not cooperative with Public Safety in trying to shut the party down for the violation.  Student A agreed to having organized the event but refuted the allegation of alcohol violations.  Student B denied involvement in the incident and could not speak to any violations.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because of the evidence presented.  The Board found Student B not in violation of the Code.  As a sanction the Board recommended that Student A be given disciplinary warning and complete 10 hours of community service. 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that Stude