Introduction
As the Executive Dean and Vice President of Student and Academic Services, I was presented with a student appeal challenging the Coordinator of Residence Life, as communicated by the Registrar, Susan Shirk. The Appealing Student, a learner at a community college in Santa Ana, pleads against fine and disciplinary action concerning a housing violation citation for possession of alcohol (“Artifact 3”, n.d.). In contrast, the Reporting Students reported the alcohol violation around the school environment. I have reviewed the college’s reply to the appeal, a summary of the interview with Resident Assistants, a letter of appeal by the student, housing code sections, and infraction citation documentation to establish my findings. Campus residence misconduct, including possession of alcohol, require enforcement of dormitory housing policies but should be balanced with a concentration on student education and awareness to facilitate responsible behavior among students.
Investigative Findings/Results
Background
The case of the Appealing Student issued with an on-campus living transgressions breach for possessing alcohol in a residence hall is common in learning institutions. Nevertheless, such incidents mandate strict enforcement of housing procures and codes to maintain security and order within college surroundings. To a great extent, the residential policies of the college in question prohibit learners from possessing and drinking alcohol in residence halls. As a result, the Reporting Student communicated such housing offenses to the Coordinator of Residence Life. The Coordinator conducted a detailed investigation and established that the Appealing Student was responsible for the breach, imposing a fine of $100 and disciplinary probation for the remainder of the semester (“Artifact 2”, n.d.). The Appealing Student appealed the decision to the Level 1 College Appeal Board members, who upheld the Coordinator’s choice outcomes. Nevertheless, the Appealing Learner pleaded with Level 2 Appeal Board personnel, resulting in the existing appeal.
The student’s action to request the review of the housing violation case highlights the severity of the situation. Therefore, the Executive Dean has to ensure that the appeal is handled fairly and transparently per the campus’s regulations and procedures. Reviewing all the available documentation and the interview with the relevant parties, including the Resident Assistants, helps make fair and informed decisions. Notably, the summary of an interview with Resident Assistants assists in offering additional insight into the incident and aids in establishing a clear comprehension of the circumstance (“Artifact 6”, n.d.). The school management must balance dormitory policies’ strict enforcement while emphasizing student education and awareness to facilitate responsible conduct among learners within campus housing (“Artifact 1”, n.d.). In the given case, the college’s executive team must evaluate and update the housing code, which has not been revised in multiple years. As a result, the student’s expectations will be clarified and provide a robust foundation for disciplinary action when necessary.
Investigative Findings
Housing Code Sections Prohibit Alcohol Possession/Consumption
After an extensive review of the housing code sections offered by Susan Shirk, it is clear that the institution has a strict policy against students possessing or consuming alcohol in the residence halls. The guidelines apply to entire learners living in college housing, regardless of legal or age status (“Artifact 2”, n.d.). In addition, the regulation makes no exceptions for personal use or possessions, even if the student does not consume alcohol. However, the law excepts alcohol consumption by learners during special events, requiring prior approval from the college administration.
The lack of specificity in the housing code concerning the penalties for breaching such policy is an issue. The college residence regulation indicates that the sanctions must be appropriate to the nature of the offense, thus not clarifying specific fines to be imposed. Therefore, such inconsistencies in the penalty’s imposition create negative perceptions of unfairness in disciplinary actions. In the given case, the Coordinator of Residence Life established that the Appealing Student violated the campus housing procedures by possessing alcohol and imposed a fine of $100 (“Artifact 2”, n.d.). However, there was no sufficient justification of whether the learner possessed the alcohol, and the sanctions may have been charged arbitrarily, which hindered the transparency of the decisions made.
The Housing Violation Citation
The residence breach citation is a form the Resident Assistant (RA) uses to record the learner’s infringement of the on-campus living policies. In the given case, the RAs present, John Scott and Bill Goenig registered the student who communicated the violation (the Reporting Student) and the name of the learner who committed the offense (the Appealing Student) as required (“Artifact 1”, n.d.). In the Incident Housing Report, RAs indicated the Appealing Student was one of the occupants in Smith Hall 12, where beer was found on August 29, 2021, at around 1: 22 am (“Artifact 1”, n.d.). Therefore, based on the evidence in the housing violation citation report, the student breached campus residence regulations and could face potential eviction.
Letters of Appeal by Student
After reviewing the letter of appeal by student level 1, the finding is that the Appealing Student challenges the Coordinator of Residence Life’s conclusions that he had possession of alcohol in his room. As a result, the letter indicates that the RAs did not follow proper procedures when searching and seizing the Appealing Student’s property. The interview summary with RAs showcases that they did not do thorough research and relied on the smell of alcohol and empty cans of beer as evidence that the Appealing Student possessed them (“Artifact 6”, n.d.). Furthermore, the RAs did not investigate whether the colleagues of the Appealing Student were the ones who were drinking the beer in his absentia. Even though the RAs followed the college’s policy for conducting searches, there was no probable cause on whether the Appealing student committed the crime (“Artifact 3”, n.d.). Given that the Appealing student knew disciplinary actions were imposed for violating the housing code, the RAs did not have any tangible evidence, such as videos and photos, to incriminate the defendant of his unlawful undertakings. However, the letter of appeal level 1 results suggests a lack of proportionality of sanctions for breaching the housing code by convicting the Appealing Student without RAs having a thorough investigation of the issue.
Furthermore, the student appeal level 2 raises additional issues, including the duty of the Reporting Student as a witness, the violation of the Appealing Student’s due process rights, and the reliability of the RA’s testimony. One of the notable investigative findings in the learner’s appeal is that the Reporting Student’s testimony was biased and unreliable against the Appealing Student. As a result, the Reporting Student might have acted with intent to deceive, and his attestation should not have been considered (“Artifact 2”, n.d.). In addition, the RAs might have acted dishonestly, and the Coordinator should not have embraced their statement.
From the material evidence provided, another investigative finding is that the Appealing Student was denied a fair hearing since he was not authorized to present evidence, including the availability of witnesses in his defense. In the letter of appeal 2, the defendant indicates that he was trying to help his classmates struggling with a particular subject and proceeded to play gaming cards (“Artifact 5”, n.d.). He never knew that there were prohibited substances in the room. In that case, there was no validity of the search and seizure conducted by the RAs. The student appeal indicates that the existing sanctions are arbitrary, and the learners do not know what to expect after violating the housing code.
The Decision Justification
Another investigative finding is that the Appealing Student submitted a letter of appeal level 1 that did not offer a compelling argument for reconsideration because the learner acknowledged violating the housing code during the inspection. Moreover, Susan Shirk’s response to appeal level 1, denying the students plead, was appropriate given the evidence presented. The Executive Dean and Vice President of Student and Academic Services do not find any indication of a lack of due process in the appeal process, as claimed by the Appealing Student. The Coordinator’s decision was supported by sufficient evidence, and the learner was subsequently fined for violating policies regarding possessing alcohol in the room, which he did not report earlier to the RAs (“Artifact 3”, n.d.). Therefore, the response indicates that even though the student denied the violation charges, the Coordinator’s verdict was justifiable.
The Associate Dean of Students’ feedback highlights the seriousness of the housing violation and the potential harm it could cause to the societal members. As a result, the alcohol breaching case was not a minor infraction but a significant transgression that has had adverse repercussions, including destroying the moral behavior of other students (“Artifact 2”, n.d.). To a great extent, Susan Shirk’s decision to uphold the sanction may reflect the college administration’s commitment to maintaining a safe and respectful community where all learners are expected to follow the established rules and guidelines. Nevertheless, even though the housing code has not been updated for several years, the school committee ensures that the learners are aware of the consequences of possessing or consuming alcohol within the campus environment (“Artifact 4”, n.d.). In addition, the disciplinary case involved many stakeholders, including RAs, the Coordinator of Residence Life, and the school Registrar, to ensure that the residence policy reflects the college’s values and priorities. Generally, Shirk’s feedback indicates that the school management takes allegations of housing code violations seriously, and the staff members are dedicated to ensuring that the policies are fair and consistent.
Notably, the Registrar’s response does not offer details regarding the specific evidence of the Coordinator’s decision. Such a lack of information may frustrate the Appealing Student, making him feel not given an equal opportunity to defend themselves. However, the evidence might have been deemed sensitive and confidential and thus could not be shared with the learner (“Artifact 3”, n.d.). At the same time, it is unclear from Shirk’s college feedback whether the Appealing Student was allowed to appeal the decision further.
Recommendations
Based on the investigative findings, multiple recommendations have been suggested to ensure sufficient disciplinary actions for students violating the housing code. Firstly, the housing department management must establish guidelines for the role of the Reporting Student as a witness. The procedures should mandate the Reporting Student to offer a written statement and attend the hearing to testify if necessary. The housing personnel should thoroughly investigate allegations of dishonesty and bias and take appropriate action if required (“Artifact 3”, n.d.). The housing department team must develop guidelines for the responsibility of the RA as a bystander. The members must conduct investigations separately regarding discrimination claims and execute the necessary disciplinary actions for the culprits. Secondly, the Board of Trustees must design policies for due process rights in the housing code violation. Such procedures should ensure that the Appealing Students can rightfully call witnesses and present evidence in their defense. Such regulations must offer clear instructions regarding search and seizure and ensure that the RAs follow those rules.
Thirdly, the Board of Trustees must establish clear and specific policies for sanctions for housing code violations. For instance, if a student is found possessing alcohol, they should pay a fine of $100, be evicted from the residential halls, or receive disciplinary action of being suspended for the remainder of the semester (“Artifact 2”, n.d.). The developed rules must offer different penalties for each breach, consider the violation’s severity, and mitigate the circumstance. In addition, the policies should provide an appeal process for the learners who disagree with the disciplinary punishment decisions from the Coordinator of Residence Life. To a great extent, all the learners in the room during the inspection period must be arraigned before the case hearing committee. Therefore, the final disciplinary case decision from the Coordinator will be fair without exempting anyone from the crimes committed. In that case, the management will ensure that RAs and Reporting Student’s testimonies are not biased or unreliable against the Appealing Student.
Fourthly, the students facing disciplinary action must consider other avenues for appeal or seek legal advice. Even though the college’s punishment process may be fair and thorough, the Appealing Student may feel dissatisfied with the outcome. In such cases, the learners need to understand their rights and options and seek guidance and support as required. One potential route for appeal is to pursue the next level of plea within the school’s disciplinary process (“Artifact 3”, n.d.). For example, suppose the student’s request to level 1 was unsuccessful; they may have an alternative to level 2. The procedure may involve a higher-ranking review of the hearing with a different panel of decision-makers. However, the learners need to comprehend the appeal process and deadlines or prerequisites that may apply.
Another option for appeal is for students seeking mediation or external review that entails working with a neutral third party to resolve the issue or appealing to an external organization or authority, including an ombudsperson. While these legal alternatives may be costly and time-consuming, they may be necessary in cases where the student feels the college’s process was inadequate or unfair (“Artifact 4”, n.d.). Notably, such measures are particularly essential if the disciplinary action has substantial consequences, such as suspension from the college. An attorney can guide on the legal aspects of the case, including the potential legal remedies and student’s rights.
Lastly, the college management should consider updating its housing code to reflect the priorities and demands of the community members. The review process must involve input from multiple stakeholders, including the staff, parents, faculty personnel, and students, to ensure that the residence policy is clear, relevant, and consistent. The school executive team must consider providing more databases to learners regarding the evidence used to support disciplinary decisions while respecting the sensitivity and confidentiality concerns (“Artifact 4”, n.d.). The recommendation to update the college’s housing code is grounded on the acknowledgment that it has not been revised for several years. Therefore, the housing rule is outdated and does not mirror the current needs of the students, thus not preventing existing and future violations. In addition, the campus management should consider offering increased counseling and creating awareness among the students regarding the repercussions of possessing alcohol in the school environment.
After the Reporting Student informs the RAs of the housing violation case, the RAs must conduct search and seizure and have written statements in the housing incident report per the college residence code. However, improved measures, including recording material proof through videos and photos, will create more transparency, help students feel more confident in the institution’s disciplinary process, and increase trust in the learning center (“Artifact 4”, n.d.). After the RAs establish that they have found the Appealing Student in possession or drinking beer, the Coordinator of Residence Life must undertake separate investigations and allow the learner to appeal.
However, alternative measures involving the attorney will help mediate the disciplinary process after the appeal is denied. The management must allow the Appealing Student present witnesses and evidence and not rely solely on RAs’ testimonials. After the student is found guilty of violating the housing code, penalties, such as disciplinary of being suspended from the school, paying a fine of $100, or eviction from the house, should be imposed (“Artifact 2”, n.d.). However, offering counseling initiatives will enable the students to rectify their behaviors and uphold the implemented school care values. Appendix A illustrates the process mapping of the recommended housing violation code process to be implemented by the Board of Trustees.
Conclusion
The investigative findings indicate RAs did not follow acceptable policies when searching and seizing the Appealing Student’s property. In addition, the Coordinator’s decision was supported by sufficient evidence, and the learner was subsequently fined for violating policies regarding possessing alcohol in the room, which he did not report earlier to the RAs. Another finding is that the Appealing Student was denied a fair hearing since he was not authorized to present evidence, including the availability of witnesses in his defense.
Based on the case results, several recommendations have been spearheaded to ensure sufficient disciplinary actions for students violating the housing code. Firstly, the housing department management must establish guidelines for the role of the Reporting Student as a witness. Secondly, the college executive members should consider updating its housing code to reflect the priorities and demands of the community members. Thirdly, the students facing disciplinary action must consider other avenues for appeal or seek legal advice. Lastly, the school executive team must establish clear and specific policies for sanctions for housing code violations.
References
Artifact 1: Housing violation citation [PDF document]. (n.d.). Web.
Artifact 2: Housing code sections [PDF document]. (n.d.). Web.
Artifact 3: Letter of appeal by student level 1 [PDF document]. (n.d.). Web.
Artifact 4: College reply to appeal level 1 [PDF document]. (n.d.). Web.
Artifact 5: Student appeal level 2 [PDF document]. (n.d.). Web.
Artifact 6: Summary of interview with resident assistants [PDF document]. (n.d.). Web.
Appendix
Appendix B: Housing Violation Process Mapping (“Artifact 2”, n.d.)
