View Bill 21-22-18
Senate Bill 21-22-18
|Proposal for Changes to the Codes of Student Conduct and Academic Integrity
|James Bond, Director, Office of Student Conduct
|The Code of Student Conduct (CSC) and Code of Academic Integrity (CAI) are routinely reviewed and updated
for administrative efficiencies, ease of understanding, and to stay current with best practices. The CSC has not
been updated since 2018, and the CAI was updated in 2020, but has not seen significant changes since 2019.
The Office of Student Conduct (OSC) would like to initiate a review of both Codes in order to address specific
issues the Office has experienced and identified in the past few years.
During the 2020-2021 academic year, the OSC worked through twice as many cases than the previous year
pertaining to both Codes, while the Office of Rights and Responsibilities within Resident Life (R&R) likewise
saw a dramatic increase in cases and behavioral issues in and around our residence halls and public private
partnership properties. Such an influx of activity has allowed OSC and R&R staff to examine its operations to
determine ways to be more expedient in resolutions, more responsive to the needs of Maryland students and
instructors, and clearer in language for all those who may seek understanding about the conduct processes.
Further, the Codes as written reflect an adversarial process and should do more to emphasize the educative
nature of student disciplinary processes, as well to reinforce the OSC’s mission to promote the health and
safety of the campus community, while at the same time ensuring due process for all involved.
The Code of Student Conduct (V-1.00(B)) and the Code of Academic Integrity (III-1.00(A)) function as two
processes out of the same office. The proposed changes to both policies are below:
1) Create tighter alignment between the two Codes as they relate to terminology, definitions, timing, and
2) Provide greater clarity as to what is expected of students as they participate in the conduct process (i.e.,
move away from legal terminology as our process is an administrative and educational one). OSC should
use wording that is more common to most readers. The current versions use terms common in the legal
system, and students have expressed a lack of understanding based on the current wording of the Codes.
a) Terms like “charge”, “hearing officer”, and “plea” should be changed.
b) The timing of the process should be consistent between the two Codes.
3) Update the hearing board procedures in a manner that expedites the process, makes it more accessible to
all students, and centers student learning.
a) Currently, cases that go to hearings take several weeks to complete. This complicates the adjudication
process, as recollection of incidents is compromised, and less learning occurs as it is hard to tie it back
to the original incident. Time limits should be established as to when a matter, once discovered, should
b) The Codes should explain each step of a disciplinary meeting process so students will have a better
understanding of what to expect.
c) The appeals process should be expanded to include information about how the Codes are to be
i) The appeal process should include an initial review to determine if an appeal should be heard based
on the grounds outlined in the Codes.
4) Modify the listed sanctions and update the factors considered when determining the most appropriate
sanctions (e.g. mitigating and aggravating circumstances), to align with best practices.
a) Terminology like “demeanor” should be removed as that is subjective to interpretation.
b) The Disciplinary Probation sanction should be adjusted to give the case manager the ability to include
restricting factors they deem appropriate.
5) Shift dismissal-level sanction (suspension and expulsion) review and approval to the Dean of Students.
6) Adjust resolution options for different types of cases.
a) Provide students with additional resolution options, like the ability to resolve their cases with smaller
boards. This would expedite the scheduling of most disciplinary meetings, while at the same time putting
students more at ease.
b) These boards should have staff members participate to ensure proper and consistent interpretation and
administration of policies.
c) Cases resulting in transcript notations (e.g. suspension, expulsion, or “XF”) should be subject to appeal.
d) Resolution options for organizations should be included.
Changes specific to the Code of Academic Integrity:
1) Create a resolution option for minor incidents to quickly and appropriately address incidents in consultation
with the affected faculty and students without instituting a full hearing process, in order to center student
learning and clarify academic integrity expectations for students.
2) Refine the definition of the “normal sanction” designation of the grade of “XF” to align with best practices.
a) Major assignments for a course should warrant an “XF”, but other assignments typically should not.
b) The CAI should provide more clarity as to what types of violations would warrant what types of penalties.
3) Provide for greater flexibility to the limiting factors of the “XF”. The language should be adjusted to give the
case manager the ability to include the restricting factors they deem appropriate.
4) Add sanction options to the CAI to provide educational outcomes for incidents when a student is not
currently enrolled in a course. The sanction list should be expanded to include disciplinary sanctions to be
used when appropriate.
|Senate Executive Committee (SEC)
|The SEC voted to charge the Student Conduct Committee with a related charge as seen in Senate Document #21-22-22.
|The SEC voted to charge the Student Conduct Committee with a broader review that includes the considerations in this proposal as well as a related proposal. Please see Senate Document #21-22-22 for more information.