The Objectives of Student Discipline and The Process That's Due: Are They Compatible?

Abstract

The disciplinary process on campuses has been too procedural and mirrors an adversarial proceeding that precludes student development. Suggestions for a paireddown process allowing for student learning are provided.

The E.P.I.C. Journey Sanctioning Model

“…With regard to student conduct systems, a legalistic approach is often viewed as being incompatible with a developmental one (Dannells, 1997;Lowery, 1998;Gehring, 2001;Lake, 2009). A developmental process, however, is not necessarily predetermined by the code of conduct.…”

“…Over the next few years the relevant case law expanded, with the court in Esteban v. Central Missouri State College (1967College ( /1970 outlining with far greater specificity the due process elements it declared were warranted when a student was facing possible separation from the institution. Many universities then chose to craft legalistic conduct codes that included most, if not all, of those elements and in many cases more (Dannells, 1997;Gehring, 2001).…”

A Theoretical Model to Explain the Overrepresentation of College Men among Campus Judicial Offenders: Implications for Campus Administrators

“…These efforts should provide opportunities for male students to express themselves and explore their perceptions of manhood, while simultaneously exposing them to positive examples of masculinity. Gehring (2001) argues, "The disciplinary process on campuses has been too procedural and mirrors an adversarial proceeding that precludes student development" (p. 466). To this end, developmental approaches to addressing male misbehavior on college and university campuses are offered in this section.…”

Arrested emotional development: male college students' experiences with a campus judicial process

“…As highlighted by Mercer (1996), judicial affairs has emerged in part to protect the rights of both students and institutions in processes designed to enforce campus policies and procedures. However, some professionals (e.g., Bostic & Gonzalez, 1999;Dannells, 1997;Gehring, 2001;Steele, Johnson, & Rickard, 1984) have argued that this legalistic language and focus complicates the campus judicial process. As mentioned previously, students may perceive this complicated legal process as adversarial.…”

“…"The disciplinary process on campuses has been too procedural and mirrors an adversarial proceeding that precludes student development" (Gehring, 2001, p. 466). Gehring (2001) suggested that higher education has allowed "creeping legalism" (Dannells, 1997, p. 69) to bring the due process rights and procedures way beyond what is required by the courts, and that campuses must review their disciplinary procedures to bring back the focus on education and student development.…”