A short overview of one type of resolution intervention, in contrast to formal disciplinary procedures.When you see the purpose of disciplinary action as just punishing perpetrators, you cannot effectively protect your community from harm. Once you start to look at University non-academic misconduct as a concern to holistically resolve, you open the door to broader possibilities than just reprimands and fines – and this is of paramount importance for the wellbeing and safety of your community.
Traditionally, as discussed further in ‘Why Don't University Misconduct Processes Work?’, cases of misconduct – from plagiarism to sexual assault – are often processed similarly. From report, to investigation, to panel hearing, to outcome, it can be a ‘cut and paste’ kind of set up. Whilst it is, of course, vital to follow due process (as long as that process is fit for purpose…), there also needs to be possibility for flexibility. That flexibility needs to be considered throughout the process, not just at the end where potentially sanctions may be imposed (although that needs a fair bit of consideration as well).
In my limited experience, there has been a growing request for what may be considered on the surface as ‘low level’ behaviours and incidents to be considered by the University disciplinary functions. There have also always been incidents occurring in different pockets of the University – be that sports teams, or Halls of Residences – with varying end results, often due to where these incidents may end up being reported. All of these incidents need fair, consistent and holistic responses, and one way to do this would be for all reports to be processed by a central team of trained responders who could determine an effective course of resolution. Please note, this resolution option may not always be implemented at the traditional ‘end’ of a process, where sanctions are usually applied.
The ‘correct’ resolution will be determined based on a number of factors, which we won’t necessarily go into here, but will need to be selected (to subsequently be offered and discussed) from a large selection of flexible options to span the entire ‘straight line process’. This spectrum of resolution options should mirror the broad continuum of behaviours University Conduct Teams could be facing (referenced by Kelly, 1987; 1988). This continuum is so important to acknowledge given how the behaviours on one end support the behaviours on the other end through a process of mirroring, pushing boundaries and escalation. Logic would dictate that an unresolved rape ‘joke’ could very easily become and non-consensual sexual act. This is why resolution options need to be appropriately applied throughout what would be seen as a traditional disciplinary process, even if a case has not been formally investigated.
This spectrum of possible resolutions could include:
Supporting students in addressing some of the behaviour they are subjected to by discussing with the individual(s) causing the unacceptable behaviour. (Perhaps particularly useful in cases of household disputes, before they have escalated)
An independent party (for example a trained mediator) facilitating a conversation between both/ all parties (reporting and reported) to assist with conversations and provide external perspectives on a situation. ((May be particularly useful in cases where allegations and counter-allegations may be of a similar, relatively ‘lower-level’) – please note: if mediation is to be offered, this would need to be agreed to by both parties, and facilitated by an individual appropriately trained in this area)
An official member of staff (for instance the University Conduct Team, or Head of School/ Department/ Service) making the reported party aware they have been reported for misconduct and that this would be their first warning – should the behaviour continue, they may be subject to a formal investigation and sanctions. (Particularly appropriate for cases were individual and/ or facilitated attempts at resolution have failed or not been deemed appropriate)
An official member of staff (for instance the University Conduct Team, or Head of School/ Department/ Service) suggesting/ recommending the reported student look into relevant training/ development options in relation to their alleged behaviour, in order to try and prevent a future report of this nature. (Please note here, the focus is on supporting the reported student to recognise why their behaviour may have been perceived as misconduct, in order to try and prevent future perpetration)
Removal of privileges such as access to recreational spaces. (Whilst this may primarily be seen as a punishment for the reported student, depending on the nature of the alleged behaviour, restricting access to spaces where unacceptable behaviours may be more frequent would help protect the community as a whole)
Changes to schedules (particularly in relation to academic study). This should obviously also be considered as a temporary safeguarding measure whilst a final decision is being processed, and most likely implemented equally between parties. However, used as a sanction post-investigation and outcome decision, this should have no automatic detrimental effect on the schedule of the reporting party.
Expulsion. (This should always be a possibility for proven reports of non-academic misconduct, for the primary reason of protecting the University community.)
Please note, the first four suggestions could be implemented without a determination of ‘guilt’ or breaching of the University’s regulations, or they could be introduced into the University’s selection of formal sanction options with an in-breach outcome decision. The primary difference is, of course, what the University is able to insist a student is to do, without them having been found in breach of University regulations. Wording around insistence Vs suggestions should be altered accordingly. Whilst implementation of lower-level ‘suggestions’ are not mandated, they could contribute to any possible future reports made against the reported student – positively or negatively from their perspective, depending on how they engaged with this suggestion.
The above is, of course, not an exhaustive list and, as previously mentioned, there is usually a considerable amount of work needed to develop the formal sanctions section of University disciplinary processes alone. One guiding principle, to be considered across a resolution options spectrum, should be the protection of safety and wellbeing of the University community as a whole. On the assumption (or through proof by investigation/ evidence) that an allegation of unacceptable behaviour (bullying, assault, harassment etc.) be true, protection of the community means prevention of future perpetration – not tokenistic gestures, at best, designed to solely punish and restrict.
Comments