The current Conduct Review Panel (CRP) training is conducted much like a lecture.

While there is plenty of information given, I have attempted to make the training more interactive by alternating between lectures and activities, and have created handouts that can quickly be referenced before a hearing, and which the students can take with them at the end of the day. A PowerPoint would be created to be used throughout the day. I wanted to start the day off by having students fill out a pre-test, which will ask them to rank the importance they give to certain violations that may occur. This test was provided by UHP, and is meant to get the students thinking about the different ways in which students can violate the Code of Conduct, and gives a frame of reference for the topics that will be discussed throughout the day. The test and the students answers will be discussed later in the day. Once everyone is in the room and settled in, introductions and an overview of the day will be given. During this time, the purpose of the training and goals that we have for the students will be discussed. Next, the Student Panelist Handbook will be introduced. During this time the students will have an opportunity to read and sign the proper forms and will be shown charts which will explain the hierarchy of the Community Standards and Student Conduct office (CSSC), as well as for the CRP. When the students have a clear understanding of the Handbook and its contents, we will begin an activity, the Question Ball, and review what they have just learned. This will be a chance for them to move around and keep them energized. Once the activity has ended, questions that were not answered with the Question Ball, which may pertain to panel members, such as dress code and timeliness, will be reviewed. Students will then be given a handout with definitions of words that may be heard during a hearing. These definitions can be taken from the Code of Conduct, or from Jamie or Gary. With these definitions, we will separate students into two teams and review them by playing Jeopardy. The definitions will be given, and students will have to answer with the word that is being defined. No technology is needed for this activity. Instead, sit students in two rows and have the first person in the row answer the question. Rather than buzzers, the students

can use their hands to tap the desk in order to be called on. They may receive help from their teammates and/or the paper. This activity is a simple and fun way for the students to learn the terms. After Jeopardy, the process of a hearing will be reviewed. The Students will learn, through lecture (possibly with the PowerPoint), the purpose of, and philosophy behind holding a CRP. The concept of student development will also be discussed during this time. Following the process of hearings, will be a discussion of Due Process, and what that means for a Universitys CSSC. During this time, an optional activity is possible. Clickers, which can be provided from the University library, can be used in conjunction with a PowerPoint. The library staff can teach somebody from CSSC to create the PowerPoint and use the clickers with it. This activity gets the students away from another lecture, and allows them to demonstrate their knowledge. True and false questions will be shown on the screen, with an A. True and B. False option given. The students will use the clickers to answer what they believe to be the correct answer. The presentation shows the number of people who chose each option, and then the correct one can be discussed. Doing this activity will require someone to learn how to make the presentation and use the clickers, and will require advance notice for the library to ensure they are available for the training. If you do not want to use the clickers, giving the student half sheets of paper, one with an A on it and one with a B on it, will work the same. After this activity, or discussion, we will present to students the difference between a legal hearing and a University Hearing. This will be the last lecture before breaking for a forty minute lunch. During the last ten minutes of this lunch, while students are finishing their meals, the Green Zebra, an activity provided by Illinois State, will be handed out. This activity is one that is done independently and allows students to practice their deductive reasoning skills. Once the last ten minutes of lunch are over, the sheet can be gone over. It should be explained to students how this activity relates to the CRP hearings. During hearings, the students will be hearing pieces of information, but not necessarily the entire story. They must make the best decisions possible, based on the information they will be receiving, and that is what

this activity will be showing. It will also show the students how important it is to go over every detail of information that they are given from students. The discussion from the Green Zebra activity will then lead into the topic of why students interact with CSSC to begin with, which is violations of the WSU Code of Conduct. The difference between A & B violations will be addressed. At this time, the students answers to the pre -test can be discussed. We can talk about why students answered the way they did, and compare how their answers match up with whether the violation is considered an A or B violation at WSU. The definition of sexual misconduct will also be discussed at this time. Next, we will inform the students of the rights which those individuals in a hearing have, as well as those students who have violated a code, but may not enter a hearing. This is important to address because, while they may not be in a hearing right away, at some point it may come to that, and the CRP should understand where the student has been before that point in time. The next topic to be discussed during training will be Standards of Proof, where a handout will be provided for students. This will be strictly informational, covering the types of evidence the panel will be looking for during a hearing. This leads into a discussion on the types of evidence and then the different sanctions that can be given. Finally, we will begin a discussion about effective questioning. We will discuss open ended versus closed ended questions, and at the end of the lecture, do an activity. This activity will be done through the PowerPoint and was provided by the University of Florida State. A question will be shown with incorrect wording, and the students will need to raise their hands and explain the reasons why the question is incorrect. They will then ask the question in a more appropriate form. This can be done with as many or as few questions as one would like, it is just a quick way to engage students. Finally, the students will be given a handout that has a list of general skills and tips for the participating on a CRP from Marshall. Other handouts that will be used are included in the Appendix, and have been provided by Illinois State University and University of Florida and are meant to be taken from with students and referenced before taking part in a hearing, although they should be mentioned in

training. This will conclude the lecture portion of the training, and a ten minute break will be given before Mock Trials begin. The backgrounds for the Mock Trials will be provided by CSSC, either with ones they have used in years past, or new ones they have chosen based on the prior years cases. During Mock Trials, it would be ideal to have the students role-play. One student will be assigned to each of the students mentioned in the police report, who would be brought in for a hearing. These students should be told what their story is and what they should report to the panel. This can be based on the actual case that the mock trial was taken from, or could be determined by the directors. Three students will be selected to act as a panel member and the rest will be the audience. A hearing will be played out just as it would in reality, and at the end a short discussion can be had about how things went before the next mock trial begins. Having more than one mock trial gives more students a chance to practice being a panel member.

WSU Conduct and Community Standards Conduct Review Panel Training Manual

As students walk into the room, hand them the pre-test, and ask them to fill it out and hold onto it. Also, provide them with nametags. Half of the nametags will have one color circle on them, and the other half will have a different color circle on them, dividing the group for jeopardy teams, which will be played later. (See Appendix A for pre-test) I. Introductions A. Overview of Training Day 1. End time & Lunch 2. Lecture & Activities 3. Purpose/Goal 15 mins

B. Introductions 1. Presenters (name, title, years experience, why youre in student conduct) 2. Panel Members (name, year in school, why you want to be a panel member) II. Manuals (Brief explanations) A. Overview of sections B. Read & sign affirmation forms C. Jurisdiction & authority (See Appendix B for authority chart) D. Questions on organization of manual and authority III. Question Ball (See Appendix for question suggestions for question ball. This activity will work best if students have had a chance/ are required to review the manual ahead of time) 10 mins IV. Being a Panel Member mins A. Dress Code (if not answered on question ball) B. Timeliness (if not answered on question ball) C. Confidentiality: importance, consequences, details. D. Table of definitions 1. Jeopardy ( 30 30/35 mins

Appendix D rules, questions & table of terms) V. The Process 40 mins

A. Purpose & Philosophy (quotes on presentation) B. Steps of process (See Appendix E for flow chart) C. Student Development

VI. Due Process A. True & False Clickers? VII. Legal vs University Hearing mins Lunch Break- 40 minutes (w/ game in last 10 minutes)

15 mins

5/10

During the last 15 minutes of lunch, pass out the Green Zebra sheet. Briefly give instructions and allow students to work on it as they finish up their lunch. (prize for person who gets it?) VIII. Violations of WSU Code Conduct A. Differences between A & B violations B. Review pre-test answers, and discuss as group C. Definition of sexual misconduct IX. Rights of the Accused, the Complainant, & rights during hearings X. Standards of Proof A. Preponderance of information presented B. What evidence are you looking for? 1. Motivation 2. Opportunity 3. Admission XI. Evidence 20 mins 5 mins 15-20 mins

A. Oral B. Written C. Physical D. Investigative E. Weighing evidence & the best types (Standards of Evidence handout, see Appendix F) XII. Sanctions A. Options B. Relatable & Proportional C. Not punitive, but educational D. Sanctioning facts & exercise ( See Appendix G) 15-20 mins

XIII. Effective Questioning A. Types of Questions 1. Open vs close-ended (who, what, how vs were, did) 2. Factual 3. Perception B. Rephrasing the question activity (See Appendix H) XIV. General Skills & Tips (See ) A. Non verbals B. Minimal encouragement C. Paraphrasing D. Summarizing Ten minute break. XVI. Mock Hearings A. Read police report B. Cases heard C. Sanctions D. Discuss outcomes

25 mins

Appendix A Pre-Test

Instructions: Rank the following violations of college rules according to the importance or seriousness you attach to them. Place a I in front of the most important, and so on. You have 10 minutes for this task. A. Cheating on an exam B. Defacing college property C. Forging or altering an I.D. card D. Distributing or selling drugs E. Plagiarizing an English Term Paper F. Punching a roommate during an argument G. Pulling a fire alarm as a prank H. Smoking in a classroom with a posted No smoking sign I. Making a false entry on an application for financial aid J. Possessing marijuana K. Stealing a bike on campus L. Throwing firecrackers out of a classroom building _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____

When these are shared later in the day, you could come to a consensus as a group as to which is the most and least serious violation based on what has been learned up to that point.

Provided by UHP

Appendix C Question Ball Question Suggestions for Question Ball. These could be related to dress, manual, timelines, confidentiality etc. Answers are not to be included on the ball; however an answer key should be present. Perhaps have a Q & A handout panel members can take home with them. Q. Who does the Code of Conduct apply to? A. WSU undergraduate, graduate, & professional students, as well as all student organizations. Q. When does a student become responsible for their conduct at WSU? A. At the time of application for admission. Q. If a student acts against the Code over summer vacation and/or off campus, are there still consequences with the panel at WSU? A. Yes, inappropriate behavior during academic year, between academic terms & periods of suspension/dismissal are all subject to review at WSU. Also, when off campus, if conduct may have an adverse impact on University community, it can be reviewed by WSU CSSC. Q. What WSU events might the Code apply to? A. Sponsored events, athletics, activities, or trips. Q. While the WSU conduct system is the VP of Student Affairs, & the director or designee of the Office of CSSC has responsibility for day to day actions, what other University offices may have responsibilities? A. Residential, Student Activities, and Greek Affairs. Q. While serving on a panel, what dress would be appropriate or not appropriate? A. No hats or ear buds. Please dress in a clean, somewhat professional manner, Dresses, suits, and ties are not necessary. We want you to look like a student, while maintaining a sense of professionalis. Q. How early should you arrive to a Conduct Panel Review? A. Please arrive 15 minutes before the scheduled time. (The scheduled time will be the time that Cindy puts in the email, please plan to arrive BEFORE that time). We would like you to have time to review any documents necessary, and to meet the other members of the panel for the day.

Appendix B Student Conduct Process

Complaint filed in Community Standards & Student Conduct

A Conduct officer will review the report to determine if violation has occurred, and if it was an A or B violation.

If an A violation may have occurred, a meeting is scheduled with a conduct officer and the student or organizations president will be scheduled.

If no violation has occurred, the case will be dropped.

If a B violation occurrs, the director or designee will process the case. A meeting with the accused with be scheduled.

After a discussion with the student, the officer will either dismiss the case or give the student a notice of alleged violation in written form and a conduct conference scheduled, at least three days in advance.

The director will schedule a meeting with the student and discuss the incident. Either a notice of the alleged violation will be given or the case will be dismissed.

If the student admits responsibility, an appropriate sanction is issued and the incidenet is resolved

If the student denies the alleged violation, the conduct officer must made a decision based on the perponderance of evidence, and a sanction will be issued or the directorthe case dismissed.

If a notice is given, the student may waive his/her right to a hearing, and agree that the director adjudicate the case, or he/she may request a hearing.

Appendix C Question Ball Question Suggestions for Question Ball. These could be related to dress, manual, timelines, confidentiality etc. Answers are not to be included on the ball; however an answer key should be present. Perhaps have a Q & A handout panel members can take home with them. Q. Who does the Code of Conduct apply to? A. WSU undergraduate, graduate, & professional students, as well as all student organizations. Q. When does a student become responsible for their conduct at WSU? A. At the time of application for admission. Q. If a student violates the Code over summer vacation and/or off campus, are there still consequences with the panel at WSU? A. Yes, inappropriate behavior during academic year, between academic terms & periods of suspension/dismissal are all subject to review at WSU. Also, when off campus, if conduct may have an adverse impact on University community it can be reviewed by WSU CSSC. Q. What WSU events might the Code apply to? A. Sponsored events, athletics, activities, or trips. Q. While the WSU conduct system is the VP of Student Affairs, & the director or designee of the Office of CSSC has responsibility for day to day actions, what other University offices may have responsibilities? A. Residential, Student Activities, and Greek Affairs. Q. While serving on a panel, what dress would be appropriate or not appropriate? A. No hats or ear buds. Please dress in a clean, somewhat professional manner, Dresses, suits, and ties are not necessary. We want you to look like a student, while maintaining a sense of professionalis. Q. How early should you arrive to a Conduct Panel Review? A. Please arrive 15 minutes before the scheduled time. (The scheduled time will be the time that Cindy puts in the email, please plan to arrive BEFORE that time). We would like you to have time to review any documents necessary, and to meet the other members of the panel for the day.

Appendix D Jeopardy- Rules & Questions

When the students come in, they will be given a nametag with a colored in circle on it. When it is time for this activity, students will divide into teams, based on which color circle they are wearing. They may either use clickers (which can be provided through the library, or a simple buzzer/bell system). The person running the activity will read a definition, and the team must buzz in to answer. Teams will be playing for points, and the winning team gets a prize? (gets in line for lunch first)

Term Sanction Due Process Preponderance of Evidence Chair Code of Student Conduct Academic Integrity Hearing Panel Academic Misconduct

Definition Educational outcome imposed in response to violation Legal requirements for conducting hearings. Not comparable to criminal or civil proceedings The standard of proof that indicates that the information provided leads the Conduct Officer or panel member that more likely than not a violation did or did not occur. Board member trained to implement hearing procedures and ensure a fair hearing. A special chair may be appointed for complex cases. The name of the document that contains the conduct regulations at WSU Group of trained students, faculty, & staff who examine information in order to determine if a violation of academic integrity occurred, and if so what sanctions should be assigned Engaging in an act that violates the standards of academic integrity policy as described in the Code of Student Conduct or in any behavior specifically prohibited by a faculty member in the course syllabus or class discussion. Group of trained students and faculty who examine information in order to ensure a decision made by a conduct officer or a hearing panel was fair and/or to ensure University policies & practices have been followed. An outcome imposed for the violation of the Code of Student Conduct. Generally, sanctions are educational in nature & intended to modify the students behavior as well as build an awareness of personal responsibility and community standards. Any behavior that is inconsistent with University policy or community standards as outlined in the Code of Student Conduct, or other University publication. Violation for which any sanction other than separation from the University usually will not be assigned as a sanction. A violations involving residential students are usually adjudicated by a RS conduct officer. Those committed by a non-residential student and/or when alleged to have taken place off campus, are usually heard by a student affairs conduct officer. A serious or repeat violation for which any sanction in the code may be assigned. These violations are processed exclusively through the director or designee. B violations may entail a hearing before a conduct officer or

Appeal Hearing Panel

Behavioral Misconduct

Sanction Category A Violation

Category B Violation

Conduct Conference

Conduct Officers Complicity

hearing panel. Process in which the facts of an alleged violation of the Code of Student Conduct are presented to Conduct Officer to determine if a violation took place & what sanctions are appropriate. Professional staff & graduate students trained to adjudicate violations of the Code of Student Conduct. Condoning, supporting, or encouraging any violation of the Code of Student Conduct. Students who anticipate or observe any violation of the Code are expected to remove themselves from association or participation in any such inappropriate behavior.

Suspension Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) Fundamental Fairness Conduct Body A federal law passed in 1974 which defines educational records and indicates who may have access to disciplinary records and under what circumstances. A standard that includes minimally the right to receive notice of the alleged violations and the time, date, and location of the opportunity to be heard. Any person or panel authorized by the University to determine whether a student has violated the Code of Student Conduct and to assign appropriate sanctions. To recommend that a student meets with another department or person. For example, to CWS or a Dean of Students. A group of trained students, faculty, & staff who review cases in which information of an alleged category B violation is presented in an effort to determine if a violation took place & when appropriate sanctions should be assigned. Quoting, paraphrasing, or otherwise using the words or ideas of another as your own without acknowledging or properly citing the other. Any attempt or actual unwanted sexual contact, physical or nonphysical, in the absence of clear & voluntary consent. A panel composed of trained faculty & students who review any case that is appealed by a student to ensure University policies & practices have been followed.

Referral Conduct Review Panel

Plagiarism Sexual Misconduct University Appeals Panel

Appendix E Flow Chart Residential students will most likely see CDs for A Violations, but for B Violations, Jamie and Gary are seen, and possibly the Conduct Review Panel.

Valita Gary Dickstein Director of CSSC & Assistant Director of Student Affairs Chair of Conduct Review Panel Jamie Dulle Associate Director of CSSC Graduate Assistant Conduct Review Panel

Sherry Cunningham Community Director

Chris Hogan Community Director

Dan B. Director of Residence Services

Vik Arunkumar Assistant Director of Residence Services

Lydell Perry Community Director

Joshua Foster Community Director

Jennifer Attenweiler Community Director

Appendix F Standards of Evidence Four traditional Standards of Evidence exist:

Substantial Information

Preponderance of Evidence
The Board needs to be 51% sure that the student violated policy in order to find them in violation. More likely than not NOT Beyond a reasonable doubt

This means there is enough information present to charge a student with a violation.

Clear & Convincing Evidence

Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

This standard is used in criminal cases & rarely is employed by a university. Using this standard, the Board would have to have no doubt whatsoever as to the students involvement in an incident to find them in violation.

This means the evidence must be VERY persuasive, significantly more than Substantial Evidence and a Preponderance of Evidence.

33% Substantial Evidence

66%-75% Clear & Convincing Evidence

0% 50.01% Preponderance of Evidence

In some hearings there will be clear evidence as to whether a student has violated the Code of Conduct in some way. However, sometimes there may be ambiguities and contradictions, which will require you to decide whom to believe, or in some cases who is more credible. If you have to make a credibility decision, you will be assessing several types of information. Here is some information that may be helpful in making this decision. When you have to weight on persons word against anothers: barring other forms of evidence, the testimony of the unbiased person is given more weight. For example, an uninvolved bystander or the police officer is more credible than the partner of the student responding to charges. When t he student claims to have not known he/she was breaking a rule: this is usually an attempt to distract the listener so the listener will accept the students failure to assume accountability for his/her role in the alleged violation. Multiple witnesses corroborating the same set of facts: the number of such witnesses may be limited by the Chair in the interest of expediting the hearing.. The testimony of a single, unbiased and disinterested witness is worth several biased testimonies. When a person acknowledges responsibility: there is no need for the Panel to ask questions about the facts unless the Panel needs clarification on what happened. The Panel should concentrate on the students perception of the seriousness of the violation for determining the appropriate sanctions.

Appendix G Sanctioning Facts & Exercise Factors to Consider: When administering a sanction, you must take many factors into consideration. There are several questions you may ask yourself as you determine which sanctions will be most appropriate. A helpful acronym is MASH! M-Motivation: What sanction will motivate the student to change his or her behavior? What sanctions have proven effective or ineffective in the past? A- Attitude: What has the students attitude been (during the incident in question, during the previous incidents included in the file, and during your conference with the student)? S- Seriousness: How serious is the violation (i.e. physical assault vs noise)? What has been the seriousness of the previous incidents? Does the student comprehend the seriousness of the violation? What effect did the students behavior have on the others/the community? H-History: What does the students file look like? Does the student have a history of the inappropriate behavior? Has the student learned from his or her mistakes? Are the same people involved in the situations listed in the students file? How does the students current environment seem to influence his/her behavior? How does the students behavior seem to influence the environment? Activity: Split students into groups of three or four. Give each group a list of 4 scenarios. Have them discuss what sanctions they would give in each scenario. Make sure to explain that these students have ALREADY been found responsible. Then, come together as a group and discuss why they chose each one, and see if there are differences among the groups. Possible scenarios: A first year student is responsible for plagiarizing 48% of a paper in their freshman seminar class. A student is responsible for a DUI which included causing damage on campus. A graduate student is responsible for making a false or misleading statement in order to procure an academic advantage. She told her professor that she had been in a car accident in order to get an extension on a term paper. A student is responsible for cyber-stalking his ex-girlfriend via text messages, emails, and Facebook. A student is responsible for threatening and attempting to run over a police officer with his vehicle after being pulled over for a traffic violation.

Provided by Illinois State University

Appendix H Rephrasing the Question Activity

For this activity, simply read a question to the students, and ask them what is wrong with the way the question was asked. Get their thoughts, and then explain why it was wrong. Then, ask them to rephrase the question in an acceptable manner. Example questions: 1. What were you feeling when the incident occurred? Angry? Frustrated? Confused? - Multiple choice -Causes respondent to feel the need to choose one of the prescribed answers -Could excluded important information Possible rephrase: How were you feeling when the incident occurred? 2. Did you and the other student hookup last night? - Uses slang term, which can mean different things to different people Possible rephrase: Did you and the student engage in sexual intercourse on the night of the incident? 3. Why didnt you think it was wrong to copy that material from Wikipedia? - Assumes student committed a violation- make sure that he student accepted responsibility before asking such a questions Possible rephrase: Do you think copying material from the internet into an assignment without citing it is acceptable. 4. The professor just stated that he explained how to properly cite in class, so you should have understood how to do that right? -Leading questions - Respondent may feel pressure to agree with questioner - Assumes the faculty members statement is true Possible rephrase- Do you remember Dr. Smith explaining how to properly cite sources in class?

Provided by University of Florida