Student-run conduct and honor boards are rare on university campuses, but Longwood University’s Honor Board and Conduct Board features students who serve as the judicial branch to the Student Government Association.
Darnell Royster, Conduct Board chair, said the board’s purpose is essentially to “keep the university students safe.”
The 2013-2014 academic year is Royster’s first year as chair, and while he initially viewed his position as ensuring that the board recommended that students were charged — or not charged — with proper sanctions, “now I see it as more of a learning process.”
Royster explained, “We’re just an educational board. We want to make sure that people are safe, and if people do decide to make mistakes we realize they’re still a person. We don’t care about whatever mistake you made, we just want to make sure you learn from it.”
Royster said the Conduct Board knows it is a priority to treat each case differently because each respondent, or the individual the complainant files the complaint against, is different and may have taken steps to correct their alleged actions before the hearing begins.
As for the most common charge the Conduct Board sees, Royster named 13a, which he described as “public intoxication and/or other use, consumption, possession or distribution as expressly prohibited by university regulations and state law.”
Royster said there are 36 Conduct Board justices total, with 10 justices typically present per hearing in order to exceed quorum. According to the Conduct Code web page, hearings are held three nights a week.
Jordan McWilliams, chair of the Honor Board, said, “We’re there to just kind of be that thought in people’s minds that I shouldn’t do those things.”
He said the board’s purpose is essentially to protect the Honor Code, which states, “We shall not lie, cheat, or steal, nor tolerate those who do.” McWilliams added, “We’re not a courtroom. We’re not there to get somebody in trouble. Our purpose isn’t really to be punitive; it is more to be educational. It’s to teach people a lesson and maybe help them grow from it instead of getting them in trouble like a courtroom.”
The intention of the Honor Board, according to McWilliams, is to provide students with “some reflection or something they can think about to do so they won’t repeat the same actions instead of [solely] punishing them for what they did wrong.”
As is the procedure with Conduct Board, McWilliams said that “anyone can write anyone up at any time.”
While McWilliams said there is not necessarily a most common Honor Board charge because “every situation is different,” code 2a, which he said is cheating, and code 7a, lying or falsifying information, are charges that the board sees more often.
McWilliams said there are 11 Honor Board justices, and all are required to be part of the weekly hearings each Monday night.
While the Conduct Board and Honor Board serve different purposes, the hearings for each board are run similarly. According to Royster, he and the justices begin a Conduct Board hearing by meeting in the hearing room. He goes over the case report and reviews any pertinent information about the case. The sergeant-at-arms then meets with the respondent and shows the individual the roster of justices just in case there is a conflict of interest and a justice needs to step down from that case. Royster said the complainant is not required to come to the hearing; therefore, the complainant is not always present.
Royster said that there is also a faculty or staff student rights adviser present before the hearing to inform the respondent of his or her rights and assure that these rights are not being infringed upon.
The respondent can then ask any questions before proceeding to the hearing room, according to Royster. The respondent then enters the room and Royster or the vice chair then explains the hearing process. According to Stephanie
Rowland, J.D., director of Student Conduct and Integrity, a student can plea “responsible” at either a Conduct or Honor Board hearing. However, she said that if a student pleas “not responsible” or “no plea,” they go through the formal hearing process.
Rowland, who succeeded Dr. Rick Chassey as director of Student Conduct and Integrity, reviews the recommended sanctions from the Honor Board and Conduct Board. She said she has not yet turned over a decision.
While Rowland said there are some sanctions that allow respondents to have their records destroyed after three years, expulsion is recorded permanently
Rowland added that both boards know that the entire process is confidential, and complainants and witnesses sign confidentiality waivers.
The disciplinary process is mapped out on the Office of Student Conduct and Integrity’s web page.
As for the Conduct and Honor Board’s hearing process, Rowland said, “There are minimum sanctions that [the boards] have to give. They are not out to get students. They really do understand that this is an educational process and they really are trying to help students realize what they’ve done wrong, what they can do better, so it doesn’t happen next time and so the student can be successful. That’s the whole purpose of our role here.”
