University Adjudication Standards and Terms
Belmont’s disciplinary system is not equal to a criminal or civil court system. The two systems are independent, have different purposes, processes, and standards used to determine responsibility and sanctions; therefore, the procedural defense of double jeopardy does not apply. While some procedural elements may seem similar, Belmont’s system is founded on educational philosophies and fundamental fairness.
Due to the standard of fundamental fairness, the principle of due process as defined and used in the civil or criminal court system is not required in educational disciplinary situations.
Standards rules of evidence do not apply in the university’s disciplinary process. Information is presented rather than evidence at an inquiry or conference.
Also, in contrast to the prevailing legal standard in criminal matters of “beyond a reasonable doubt” does not apply. To be consistent with comparable adjudication standards of other institutions of higher education, administrators and the Community Conduct Board determines that a student is responsible for an alleged incident when they assess that a preponderance of the evidence supports that conclusion.
Due to the difference in standards, Belmont uses specific terminology in its disciplinary process. Below is a list of terms and definitions that are used frequently.
I. Incident. The term “incident” refers to the violation of Belmont Community Commitments and its accompanying policies.
II. Community Conduct Form. The “Community Conduct Form” acts as official university notice for the student and begins the disciplinary process. The form is a triple carbon copy document. The white carbon copy is placed in the student’s official disciplinary records. The yellow copy is to be signed and returned to the appropriate university official, where the notice derived. The pink copy is a copy for the student’s records.
III. Administrator. The term “administrator” means any person authorized by the Dean of Students or the Director of Residence Life to conduct an inquiry/conference to determine whether a student has violated any university commitments or policies.
IV. Community Conduct Board. The Community Conduct Board is a body of students, faculty, and staff that adjudicates student conduct incidents. The Office of the Dean of Students reserves that right to designate this body to conduct particular inquiries/conferences. This board is over seen by the Coordinator of Judicial Services. Each member of the board has a vote. The response (See Section G: X) by a Community Conduct Board will be based on a simple majority vote by the board.
V. Inquiry. The term “inquiry” is a mechanism for adjudicating an incident, when the student contests the allegations and does not take responsibility for his or her alleged misconduct.
VI. Conference. The term “conference” is a mechanism for adjudicating an incident when the student takes responsibility for his or her actions.
VII. Information. Rather than providing evidence in an inquiry/conference, information is presented for the purpose of clarifying details. Information can be presented in various forms, such as documentation and witness statements.
VIII. Advisor. The term “advisor” is defined as a member of the university community (i.e. faculty, staff, or peer.) This person may not speak to the alleged violations or on behalf of the student during the inquiry/conference unless called on by the administrator or body conducting the inquiry/conference. No representation by an attorney is permitted regardless of community membership.
IX. Preponderance of Evidence. “Preponderance of evidence” means that the information, as a whole, shows that the fact(s) supports the conclusion that it is “more likely than not” that the student engaged in the alleged incident.
X. Response. At the conclusion of a judicial inquiry/conference, the student will receive a response from the adjudicating body. In this response, the body will determine responsibility and if found responsible determine sanctions. The response will try to be provided verbally, but always provided in writing to the student within a reasonable time frame.
XI. Responsible and Not Responsible. A student who participates in an inquiry is found responsible or not responsible for the incident, rather than guilty or not guilty.
XII. Sanctions. Students found responsible for an incident are given sanctions that focus on education, but also may include restitution and in some case a penalty or punishment.
XIII. Failure to Comply. Failure to adequately meet the expectation of our Disciplinary Process. Example include, but are not limited to, failing to comply with instructions, requests, or orders of an university administrator/designee or official university documents, such as Community Conduct Forms and adjudication response, which may include sanctions rendered during the discipline process.
XIV. Judicial Hold. The mechanism used for compliance among the student population in regards to participation and completion of the disciplinary process. A Judicial Hold is an official stop on a student’s university records, which prevents a student from registering, dropping and/or adding classes, requesting transcripts, etc.
