Skip to main content
Apply

Campus Life

Open Main MenuClose Main Menu
Student Conduct

Investigation & Committee Hearing Process Timeline

  • COMPLAINT RECEIVED
    Student Conduct will review a complaint to determine if the actions reported could violate university policy. Information about the process and supportive measures are sent to the complainant and respondent.
  • SEPARATE INVESTIGATION MEETINGS

    Including:

    1. Complainant

    2. Respondent

    3. Witnesses

     

    During the first investigation meeting Student Conduct will:

    • Review the investigation process
    • Answer any questions you have
    • Ask you to share their perspective on the situation
    • Elicit any documentary information and names of relevant witnesses
  • COLLECTION OF DOCUMENTARY INFORMATION
    It is valuable to meet with people who were around during the time of the 
    situation to hear their perspectives. Witnesses must be relevant to the situation, they cannot be character witnesses. Examples of documentary information are screenshots, text messages, emails, or any official documents such as police reports or SANE exams
  • FOLLOW UP INVESTIGATION MEETINGS
    Student Conduct will meet separately with the complainant and respondent for a second meeting. This follow up meeting allows for us to go through any gray areas in the information we have gathered. This assist in have an accurate investigation report.
  • INVESTIGATION REPORT DRAFT 
    An investigation report and collected documentary information is compiled. This document contains the perspectives of the complainant, respondent, witnesses, and any relevant documentary information. 
  • FEEDBACK ON INVESTIGATION REPORT DRAFT
    The complainant and respondent are provided 10 days to review and provide feedback. You can provide any additional information or context you feel is missing from the report. A meeting could be held to discuss the feedback. 
  • HEARING PANEL IDENTIFIED
    A Hearing Panel is identified, consisting of a student, a staff member, and a faculty member that are advised by a member of legal counsel. This panel is trained to be un-biased, to determine the facts of the situation, and to ultimately decide on the outcome.
  • HEARING NOTICE
    A hearing notice will occur 15 days before the hearing. Hearing notices will be sent to the complainant and respondent with the date, time, and location of the hearing. A date and time is selected based on student’s academic schedules. This notice will provide a refresher on the outline of the hearing and what you should be prepared to share.
  • ESTABLISH AN ADVISOR OF CHOICE
    12 days before the hearing. The complainant and respondent must notify Student Conduct with names of advisors and witnesses that will be attending the hearing. A form will need to be submitted 12 days before the hearing. If you do not have an advisor, our office will provide you with an advisor for the hearing.
  • HEARING FILE
    10 days before the hearing. Hearing File is distributed to the complainant, respondent, and their advisors 10 business days before the hearing. The hearing file includes the investigation report including documentary information, the outline of the hearing, the people that will be present for the hearing, and any additional supporting documents
  • STUDENT CONDUCT COMMITTEE HEARING
    The hearing is held as schedule. See more information about the hearing process online. In the hearing you will be given a chance to share your perspective and ask and answer questions of the other party through your advisor.
  • OUTCOME LETTER
    Outcome Letter is sent within 2 days after the hearing. The outcome letter will outline if there is a finding of a violation of the Student Code of Conduct and if so any applicable sanctions that were assigned. 
  • APPEAL

    Both the complainant and respondent are able to appeal the decision within 10 days after the hearing. The grounds for appeal are

    • Hearing procedures were not followed
    • New information has been discovered
    • The sanction(s) assigned are not appropriate
    • The investigators or hearing panel had a conflict of interest and were biased
MENUCLOSE