Welcome to the Spring 2002 issue of the ACPA Commission XV Newsletter!


Commission XV: Campus Judicial Affairs and Legal Issues is pleased to bring you this online version of its newsletter entitled XVeritas. A portable
document format (PDF) version is also downloadable by clicking here. This page is constructed as text only to increase accessibility for association members and other readers with visual disabilities. Note that the very last part of the page has the commission directorate body membership listed. Here is the table of contents:

Letter From The Interim Vice-Chair
We Need Your Help To Publish Your Next Newsletter!
Feature Column: Dealing With Bias-Motivated Offenses on Campus
Convention 2002 Highlights
Commission XV Sponsored Programs At The 2002 Convention
Visit The ACPA Convention 2002 Website
Call for Award Nominations
Commission XV Directorate Body


Letter From The Interim Vice-Chair
Have you ever contemplated what the name of this newsletter means or symbolizes? XVeritas blends the Roman numeral designation of our commission (XV=15) with “veritas,” a Latin word meaning “truth”. Symbolically, I suppose this could be interpreted as “the judicial affairs profession is intimately connected with the truth,” or put another way, “judicial affairs professionals are about the business of distinguishing the truth.”
Now that we’ve got that figured out, how about we press on and discover the meaning of “truth”. Modernists thought they had a pretty good handle on it. The truth could be rationally known and quantified and a handful of them could be universalized (i.e. they were true for everyone, everywhere, for all time). Then along comes a post-modernist perspective which holds that truth is subjective. The truth can only be individually known and is situated culturally and temporally. In other words, as you and I examine any given issue, it is possible that my truth will be different from your truth, especially if we were socialized in different gender, socioeconomic, or racial ways.
So how is that relevant for the judicial affairs practitioner? Many of us have encountered the proverbial “he said/she said” sexual misconduct case. She testifies with emotion and conviction that she never gave consent. He testifies in an equally compelling way that she did give consent. It’s clear they both were present during the same incident, but the way they’ve made meaning out of what happened diverges. Alcohol or other drug impairment adds a further layer of complexity to the decision-making. We’ve taken it upon ourselves (or perhaps we advise a committee of others) to determine who is telling the truth, and to either exonerate or hold responsible and sanction. To add pressure, our finding will be devastating no matter to which truth we give credence.
And there you have it. In my view, we are ill-equipped to know the truth or to use the tools we have at our disposal (hearing scripts, questioning skills, ways of detecting deception) to discern the truth. Rather, we can only know that we hold a perspective, and we may in the course of our work encounter students (or staff, or faculty, or parents!) who offer a counter-perspective. Which way do we (or the boards we advise) tend to lean when our perspective runs head-long into (what may appear at first blush to be) a mutually exclusive perspective?
My perspective is inextricably grounded in my Whiteness, my maleness, my experience growing up with middle-class privilege, and yes, my socialization as a judicial affairs practitioner. We learned how to do judicial  affairs a certain way, we tend to seek out training experiences that don’t push us too far out of our comfort zones, and we train others the way we were trained. Many of us inherently trust ourselves and distrust “the other.” To do the opposite (doubt yourself while believing the other) seems pretty counter-intuitive, even counter-productive.
Some of us may have taken steps to ameliorate the so-called “blind spot” that the post-modern self becomes aware of. We seek gender balance and racial diversity for our judicial panels or hearing officer teams. We seek out training that would help us to have empathy with the perspective of “the other.”
My point (and I do have one) is that the ground we stand on may not be as firm as we thought. Certainly our truths changed on September 11. `Tis best to be humble, remain flexible, and always aware that there are limits to our knowing. But we should not view those limits as fixed. We can learn something every day and we can also unlearn something every day.
I wish you much learning and unlearning. I wish for you that your “net learning” does not equal zero! And if you found this letter from the interim vice-chair to be unsettling, here is something foundational for you to rest on: this edition of XVeritas contains the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth!

Sincerely,

Jeff Cullen
Interim Vice-Chair for Publications


We Need Your Help To Publish Your Next Newsletter!
The deadline for the post-conference edition of XVeritas is April 12, 2002. E-mail your contributions, ideas for articles, suggestions or complaints to <jcullen@iastate.edu>.
XVeritas is published approximately three times a year. This edition was compiled on an HP Vectra using Adobe PageMaker 6.5 and Adobe Acrobat and web-published using Adobe PageMill.

Dealing With Bias-Motivated Offenses on Campus
By Lee E. Bird, Vice President for Student Affairs,
Oklahoma State University

University administrators and campus judicial officers are generally quite adept at developing a measured response to highly charged events, activities and personal behaviors on campus.  We work hard to avoid that ever-popular “knee jerk” reaction which often equates to job security for the office of legal counsel but usually does more harm than good in the long run.  Sometimes avoiding the knee jerk response is difficult because we want to immediately express our moral outrage about whatever has taken place, be it vestiges of homophobia, xenophobia, racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, or any other cowardly and/or reprehensible behavior.
We are all concerned about civility on campus, but we need to be equally vigilant about preserving the rights of our students – especially that of freedom of speech.  In attempts to prevent a “hostile campus environment,” several colleges have experimented over the years with hate speech codes that prohibited the use of racial epithets and other demeaning and offensive language.  These attempts failed, because the “governmental interest” to control speech for these purposes was not viewed by the courts as important enough to outweigh the constitutional right of free speech.
It has been my experience that no one strategy alone is sufficient to address complex issues such as bias-motivated offenses on campus.  Developing a thoughtful plan under the specter of the media and pressure from various constituent groups is nearly impossible.  This is a nice way of saying start now to gauge your readiness.
If you have not already read The Shadow University, I strongly suggest that you do so.  While it provides a scathing assessment of student affairs, judicial affairs and orientation activities aimed at educating students about campus climate concerns, it also provides an insightful perspective as to the constitutional rights of students, which can be ignored or abused in the rush to address politically-charged campus incidents.  While I ardently disagree with the book’s overall perspective and premise, I think it is important reading nonetheless.
Rather than offer a laundry list of ideas, I want to offer a series of questions and observations, which may prompt further discussion on your campus.
1. Can you address common bias-motivated behaviors based on your current code of conduct including solicitation, harassment, violence, threats and intimidation?

Since we know hate speech codes have failed legal scrutiny because so many are overbroad and unconstitutionally vague, code language must address hate related behaviors, not speech.  However, when speech (said directly to a person) equates to a threat or intimidation, the code may be invoked.
Campuses can apply stronger penalties (enhancements) if the student is found responsible (for violating a code provision) and if it can be shown the prohibited conduct was motivated by bias.  This language must be placed in the code of conduct and training of judicial board members on bias-motivated offenses should occur.
2. Do the students most likely to be targeted for bias-motivated incidents know how and to whom to report such incidents?  Do you provide education, support and assistance to encourage reporting?
Students don’t generally read their code of conduct until and unless there is an incident.  Gay and lesbian and international students may be most likely to be targeted yet may be least likely to report.  Implications about having to “out” oneself in order to report or mistrust of campus authority figures based on cultural differences are common reasons given for not reporting.  It is necessary to meet with student leaders and groups to share this information personally.
3. Are your policies addressing speech on campus written in ways to encourage free speech and are they applied in a content neutral manner?
Recognizing that public colleges and universities can apply reasonable time, place and manner restrictions to speech, would your current regulations apply equally to a student government function or the KKK gathering without regard to content?
4.  Do you have trained crowd monitors to assist with security needs and a statement (readily available) to share with students regarding the rights and responsibilities associated with free speech?
To the extent that campuses choose to have a free speech zone or area and registration or permit requirements, staff must be trained to apply them in a content neutral manner.  Administrative oversight is needed to assess risk and security needs.  However, generalized concerns about safety are not adequate to deny a request or cancel an event.
Realize that while speech in a public forum is protected, it does not mean that offensive or bigoted speech should be ignored.  Administrators should be prepared to fight speech with speech at every turn, be it with a letter to the editor, rallies or through other educational means.
Staff (especially those living in the residence halls) should be trained to observe, report and confront incidents (as appropriate).  Again, their silence says volumes about the institution’s willingness to address bias-motivated incidents.
5. Do you have written solicitation policies, which require that the name and phone number of the sponsoring group be printed on the poster or flier?
When this information is not provided, the material can be “safely” removed.  The removal is not content driven but based on a content neutral solicitation policy, which again should be published with other similar policies.
6.  Do you have a response team that could remove graffiti from a public area and/or meet with students as soon as practical following an incident?

Contrary to The Shadow University perspective, I believe campus personnel and student leaders have a responsibility to help define the culture of the campus community and to demonstrate solidarity around differences.  To do less implies that the campus really doesn’t care.  Rather than being “thought police” I view our role as that of educators about the behavior we expect in order to preserve free speech and other democratic principles in the college and university setting for all our students.

Reference:
Kors, A. C. & Silverglate, H. A. (1998).  The shadow university: The betrayal of liberty on American’s campuses.  New York: Free Press.

Dr. Lee Bird is the President-elect of the Association for Student Judicial Affairs (ASJA)


Convention 2002 Highlights

Judicial Affairs and Legal Issues Academy
Sunday, March 17, 2002, 8:30 AM - 4:30 PM
Westin, Barcelona Conference Room
This pre-conference workshop will focus on current judicial and legal issues. The panel will use a collaborative learning process to facilitate an interactive session that will include discussion of codes of conduct, due process, judicial boards, intervention and psychological issues, alternate dispute resolution, academic misconduct, computer misconduct, evaluation and assessment tools, and available resources. Each participant will receive a bound resource publication and additional resource materials.

Commission XV Business Meeting
Sunday, March 17, 8:30 AM-3:00 PM
Hyatt, Seaview B

Convention Carnival
Monday, March 18, 6:00-8:00 PM
Westin, Centennial Ballroom

Commission XV Social
Monday, March 18, 8:00-10:00 PM
Hyatt, Regency Section D


Look Forward To These Sponsored Programs At The 2002 Convention

Building Moral Citizens & Enhancing Civic Engagement Through Student Conduct
Monday, March 18, 9:00-10:15 AM
Westin, Salon A
Program Abstract: There is growing recognition that the future direction of society is contingent upon the development of its leaders. It is widely supported that one of the issues facing student affairs professionals now is the development of civic responsibility and ethical leadership among and within students. This presentation reviews the relationship between moral growth, civic engagement and civic responsibility and its application through the student conduct process.
Presenter: Gina Vanacore, SUNY-Stony Brook

Judicial Affairs and Academic Affairs: Truth or Consequences
Monday, March 18, 1:00-2:15 PM
Long Beach Convention Center, Room 202A
Program Abstract: It may initially seem that judicial and academic affairs have little, if anything, in common. At George Mason University, though, we have discovered the importance of working closely together. Through a united effort, we are best able to provide everyone in the campus community with a safe and welcoming environment that allows for academic expression and success. Case studies will be presented, and opportunities for collaboration between academic and judicial affairs will be discussed.
Presenters: Dorris Bitler, Jerry Mulherin, Walter Rankin & Donna Fox, George Mason University

The Voices from Washington: Federal Legislation and Student Affairs Practice
Tuesday, March 19, 9:00-10:15 AM
Long Beach Convention Center, Room 101A
Program Abstract: Over the past three decades, Congress has passed significant legislation impacting student affairs. The program will provide participants with the context and background of  Federal legislation affecting student affairs, an overview  of its impact on student affairs, an analysis of recently passed and pending legislation related to student affairs, and suggestions for developing a proactive approach to legislative issues.
Presenter: John Wesley Lowery, University of South Carolina

Hot Topics in Judicial Affairs
Tuesday, March 19, 10:45 AM-12:00 PM
Long Beach Convention Center, Room 103A
Program Abstract: Every year, we have lamented the lack of time to discuss the issues that we are facing on our campuses. This session is 75 minutes of time to have roundtable discussions of the topics that we decide are the most pressing.
Presenters: Karen Poulin, UConn & Kathleen Simons, Fitchburg State College

SEC, PEACE and Q Course: Educational Sanctions for Student Success
Tuesday, March 19, 1:00-2:15 PM
Long Beach Convention Center, Room 103A
Program Abstract: This presentation will introduce and define three alternative educational sanctions being implemented at SUNY at Stony Brook. The Substance Education (SEC) Class, Personal Exploration of Anger to Communicate Effectively (PEACE) Class and the Q Course. This presentation will help anyone who is looking for information on educational sanctions to meet the needs of today’s ever-changing college student. There have been over 500 students who have participated in these educational sanctions over the past four years at Stony Brook.
Presenters: Brian DeLong & Matty Punnett, SUNY-Stony Brook

Violence Goes to College: Lessons Learned from Campus Rioting
Tuesday, March 19, 2:45-4:00 PM
Long Beach Convention Center, Room 201A
Program Abstract: Has campus rioting become all the rage? Frustration and finger pointing do not seem to be solving the problem. Presented by a police psychologist and a Lieutenant of the University of Colorado Police Department, this multi-media workshop will give participants an overview of    current patterns in campus rioting and a look at rioting dynamics, stages, and players. Solution-oriented suggestions on prevention and response are offered. Small group exercises will help participants share struggles and success stories.
Presenters: Sally Spencer-Thomas, Regis University & Michell Irving, CU-Boulder


Visit The ACPA Convention 2002 Website:
http://www.acpa.nche.edu/Convention/Convention2002/index.htm

Call for Award Nominations!
Nominations are now being taken for the 2002 Commission XV Awards.  The deadline for submitting nominations has been set for March 8, 2002.  So please help us recognize professionals who are deserving of the following awards:

New Professional of the Year Award
This award recognizes the contribution of a new professional in student affairs who is involved in campus judicial affairs and /or legal issues.  This person should be known not only for their campus contributions but also for their involvement in expanding the field of judicial affairs through membership(s) in professional associations, research, presentations, and authorship of articles.  We are particularly interested in candidates who have implemented new initiatives that have made a difference on their campus and can be modeled by other institutions.

Outstanding Service to Commission XV Award
This award is determined on the basis of a member’s contribution of effort, energy, and time on behalf of the goals of Commission XV.  This may involve work on committees, conference, and programs related to Commission XV. In addition, recruitment and retention of new members, work assisting newcomers to the Commission XV, and the student affairs profession can be used in judging merit for this award.

Outstanding Research in Judicial Affairs
and Legal Issues
This award recognizes research in areas applicable to campus discipline and legal issues in higher education. Research should contribute to the expansion of the profession’s body of knowledge concerning the application of due process, developmental theory and legal or legislative mandates.  Evidence of such contributions may include but are not limited to surveys, experimental research, historical treatment of current issues, literature reviews, or annotated bibliographies.
Tracy R. Teele Memorial Award

This award recognizes outstanding contributions to the area of judicial affairs and legal issues and is the highest award given by Commission XV.  This is not an annual award and can be awarded to an individual, group or institution that has demonstrated one of the following:
1. Development of an innovative approach to campus discipline.  The approach may contribute to promoting individual student’s development or may contribute to furthering development of disciplinary processes in general.  This approach must have been successfully modeled and implemented by others in the field.  In all cases, the contribution will have a positive impact on quality of the facilitation of judicial affairs in higher education.
2. Contributions to expanding the field of judicial affairs through research, instruction, publication authorship or service to ACPA or other professional organizations.

NOMINATION PROCESS
Anyone may submit nominations for these awards.  The nomination packet should include: 1) a title page that includes the nominee’s title, address, and phone number, the name of the award for which he/she is being nominated and the nominator’s name, title, address, and phone number; 2) a copy of the nominee’s resume with a list of other awards or grants that they have received in the most recent 24 months; 3) three letters of recommendation; 4) proof of contributions deserving acknowledgement; and 5) A letter describing the rationale for the nomination with supporting information about the nominee’s  professional contributions to the field.

Specific qualifications for each award will be mailed out to all Commission XV members by January 22, 2002.    Remember all nomination materials must be submitted by March 8, 2002.  Faxed or e-mailed materials will not be accepted. Please submit 5 copies of the nomination packet to:
Wanda Ochei
Coordinator of Judicial Affairs
East Stroudsburg University
East Stroudsburg, PA  18353
(570) 422-3461


Commission XV Chair:
Patricia Cordner
Director of Judicial Affairs
State University of New York at Cortland
(607) 753-4725
cordnerp@cortland.edu

Chair-Elect:
Jeffrey Shoup
Director of Residence Life and Housing
University of Notre Dame
(219) 631-5551
jeffrey.r.shoup.1@nd.edu

Vice Chair for Administration:
Wanda Ochei
Coordinator of Judicial Affairs and
Commuter Student Services
East Stroudsburg University
(570) 422-3461
wanda.ochei@po-box.esu.edu

Vice Chair for Education:
Karen Poulin
Coordinator for Judicial Affairs
University of Connecticut
(860) 486-1971
k.poulin@uconn.edu

Vice Chair for Publications:
Jeff Cullen
Graduate Student
Iowa State University
(515) 965-0527
jcullen@iastate.edu

Class of 2002
William Fischer
Director of Judicial Affairs
Northeastern University
(617) 373-4390
w.fischer@neu.edu

Andrea Goodwin
Assistant Director, Office of Judicial Programs
University of Maryland-College Park
(301) 314-7598
agoodwin@accmail.umd.edu

Tim Sheridan
Director of Student Judicial Programs
Western Illinois University
(309) 298-2436
tim_sheridan@ccmail.wiu.edu

Kathleen Simons
Dean of Students
Fitchburg State College
(978) 665-3133
ksimons@fsc.edu

Wendy Smith
Assistant Dean/Mediation Coordinator
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
(217) 333-3680
wsmith@uiuc.edu

Class of 2003
Nicole McClenic
Assistant Dean of Students/
Judicial Affairs and Community Development
West Chester University of Pennsylvania
(610) 436-3511
nmcclenic@wcupa.edu

Jonathan C. Sawyer
Asst. Director for Residence Life and Judicial Affairs
The Catholic University of America
(202) 319-5615
sawyerj@cua.edu

Deri Richard Wills
Director of Residence Life
Castleton State College
(802) 468-1259
deri.wills@castleton.edu

Class of 2004
Bryan L. Bain
Residence Hall Director/Investigating Officer
University of Wisconsin Oshkosh
(920) 424-1169
bain@mio.uwosh.edu

Brian Haggerty
Complex Coordinator
University of Buffalo
(716) 645-2135
bhaggerty@urh.buffalo.edu

Kristen Kawczynski
Coordinator for Judicial Affairs & Mediation Services
SUNY Institute of Technology at Utica/Rome
(315) 792-7530
kawczyk@sunyit.edu

Mike Walsh
Director of Residence Life
The University of Portland
(503) 943-8113
walsh@up.edu