W76"

A SURVEY OF SOCIAL-REGULATORY
PRACTICES IN SELECTED MICHIGAN

COMMUNITY COLLEGES

By

Martin E. Hollander

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
Department of Adult and Higher Education

1968

ABSTRACT
A SURVEY OF SOCIAL-REGULATORY

PRACTICES IN SELECTED MICHIGAN
COMMUNITY COLLEGES

by

Martin E. Hollander

It was the purpose of this study to make a survey-analysis
of the specific social—regulatory practices of selected community
colleges in Michigan to ascertain the prevailing conditions that

exist regarding the following:

1. The origin and extent of written social-regulatory
policies and the provisions for change.

2. The types of rules of conduct.

3. The communication of social-regulatory policies and rules.

4. The enforcement of social-regulatory policies and rules.

A preliminary search of the literature revealed a paucity of
research in this area at the community college level of education.
It seemed then that research in this area was well in order and that
data collected from this study would be of practical use to admin-
istrators in charge of discipline.

The following delimitations were established for the purposes

of this study:

1. The study was limited to commuter-type publicly supported
community colleges in Michigan with enrollments of more
than 1500 students.

2. Data gathered for the study were limited to responses

-2- Martin E. Hollander

made during interviews with Disciplinary Administrators,
and information gained from the literature, student
handbooks, college bulletins, and policy manuals of

the colleges selected for the study.

Size, location and the experience of the disciplinary admin-
istrators were factors considered in the selection of the colleges
to be studied.

After reviewing the literature, disciplinary administrators
of the twelve colleges selected for this investigation were inter-
viewed. An interview form was developed to be used as a guide.
Disciplinary administrators were asked to respond to questions
based on the above mentioned areas of inquiry. The responses were
collated in the various categories, tabulated and analyzed.

The following major conclusions were drawn from the findings
of the study:

1. Most of the larger community colleges in Michigan are

in need of more carefully defined social-regulatory
policies and rules governing student conduct and
discipline.

2. Social-regulatory policies and rules are more likely

to be reasonable and more readily accepted when
students, faculty members, and administration share
the responsibility for their formulation and when
they are written in positive terms.

3. Communication of social-regulatory policies and rules
is more likely to be effectively achieved when they
are published and distributed and discussed at
scheduled orientation sessions.

4. A student court system of enforcement of social-

regulatory policies and rules is not perceived by
the participating administrators as an effective

means to handle infractions.

-3- Martin E. Hollander

5. The extent of involvement of the faculty in the en-
forcement of student conduct at campus events is more
and more being determined by professional negotiations
and collective bargaining in Michigan.

6. The single disciplinary administrator concept is pre-
ferred over the concept suggesting a division of
reSponsibilities according to the sex of a student.

7. Most of the enforcement problems in the institutions
studied centered around drinking, theft, illegal

parking, and cafeteria behavior.

8. Counselling and disciplinary tasks are not compatible
functions for one person.

9. Student probation and withdrawal of certain campus
privileges are the most widely used methods of discipline
when infractions of rules occur.

10. Michigan laws in general permit the community colleges
ample freedom to develop policies and rules for governing
themselves.

Criteria were listed as standards by which major social-regulatory

practices of Community Colleges could be clinically judged. The study

was concluded by delineating the ideas generated from the findings

regarding the need for future research.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

 

The author wishes to take this opportunity to thank all
those whose cooperation made this study possible. He is greatly
indebted to Dr. Max R. Raines for serving as a constant source of
encouragement and guidance through his counselling, direction and
sincere efforts above and beyond the call of duty as a doctoral
advisor. The writer is also especially grateful for the excellent
advice, assistance and constructive criticism which he received
from the members of his Guidance Committee: Dr. Max S. Smith,

Dr. John Useem and Dr. Fred Vescolani.

It would be impossible to list individually all the suggestions
and assistance contributed by colleagues, fellow students and
friends, but the author is no less grateful on that account.
Sincere thanks must go to all of the disciplinary administrators
of the colleges selected for this study for permitting the author
to interview them and for being so generous with their time.

On a personal note, the writer cannot overlook the patience,
understanding and cooperation exhibited by his family during this
prodigious effort. A great debt of sincere gratitude and love must
go to my wife, Bernice and our four sons, Jay, David, Daniel and
Mitchell. Finally, the author feels indeed fortunate to have a
most loyal and dear friend in Mr. Sol Dovitz, who graciously

volunteered to be used as a sounding board. And lastly, the writer

must express his appreciation to Miss Janice Petro for the excellent

job she did in typing the manuscript.

ii

I3§£§.9§ CONTENTS
CHAPTER Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i
LISTING OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi
I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Background

Statement of the Problem

The Need for the Study
Delimitations of the Problem
Definition of Terms

Organization of the Study

II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
The Emergence of the Community (Junior) College - Its
Functions and Aims.
Student Characteristics
Historical Changes in the Administration of Discipline
in Higher Education in the United States
Development of Social-Regulatory Policies and Rules
Communication of Social-Regulatory Policies and Rules

Legal Implications of Conduct and Discipline
I I I O METHODOLCEY o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 6 0

Sources of Data
Review of Publications

iii

Data-Gathering Instrument Used for Interviews
Interviews with Disciplinary Administrators
Selection of the Community Colleges for Visitations
Treatment of Data

Summary

IV. WRITTEN POLICIES AND RULES - EXTENT AND ORIGIN . . . . . . . . 67

General Information

Title of Disciplinary Administrator

Extent of Present Policies Delimiting Student Conduct

Area of Written Social-Regulatory Policies and Rules

Origin of Written Policies and Rules

Form of Written Social-Regulatory Policies and Rules

Review and Revision of Social-Regulatory Policies and
Rules

Summary

V. THE COMMUNICATION OF SOCIAL-REGULATORY POLICIES AND RULES . . .90

Methods of Written Communication
Orientation Programs
Effectiveness of Communication

Summary

VI. ENFORCEMENT OF SOCIAL-REGULATORY POLICIES AND RULES . . . . 105

Extent of the Problem

Frequency of Discipline Problems

iv

VII.

Factors Contributing to the Extent and the Frequency of
Student Conduct Problems

The Role of the Disciplinary Administrator and
Administrative Procedures

The Role of the Faculty

The Role of the Student

Legal Implications

Summary

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS FOR

FUTURE STUDY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142

BIBLImRAPHY O O O O O O O O O C O O 0 O O O O O O I O O O O 1 80

APPENDIX A. LETTER OF INTRODUCTION FROM DOCTORAL ADVISOR . . 190

APPENDIX B. DISCIPLINARY ADMINISTRATOR INTERVIEW GUIDE FORM. 191

APPENDIX C. CHARACTERISTICS OF COMMUNITY COLLEGE FRESHMEN

ACCORDING TO WEIGHTED NATIONAL NORMS . . . . . . . . . . 202

APPENDIX D. MICHIGAN COMMUNITY COLLEGES SELECTED FOR INTER-

VIEWS WITH DISCIPLINARY ADMINISTRATORS . . . . . . . . . 218

TABLE

II.

III.

IV.

VI.

VII.

LISTING OF TABLES

Page
1967 FALL ENROLLMENT FIGURES OF COLLEGES VISITED FOR
PERSONAL INTERVIEWS - AS STATED BY DISCIPLINARY

ADMINI STRATOR O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 7 0

TITLES OF DISCIPLINARY ADMINISTRATORS OF TWELVE SELECTED

CWNITY COLLEGES O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O 7 1

EXTENT AND DESIRABLENESS OF SOCIAL-REGULATORY POLICIES

AND RULES IN EACH OF THIRTY AREAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

CURRENT PRACTICES OF DISSEMINATING INFORMATION ABOUT
STUDENT POLICIES AND RULES OF THE TWELVE COMMUNITY COLLEGES

VISITED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

AREAS OF STUDENT CONDUCT IN WHICH PROBLEMS MOST FREQUENTLY

OCCUR IN THE TWELVE COMMUNITY COLLEGES VISITED . . . . . . 114

FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO THE FREQUENCY OF STUDENT

VIOLATIONS OF SOCIAL-REGULATORY POLICIES AND RULES . . . . 120

CLINICAL JUDGEMENTS OF THE SOCIAL-REGULATORY PRACTICES
OF THE COLLEGES SELECTED FOR THIS STUDY ACCORDING TO

SPECIFIC CRITERIA O O O O O O O O O C C O O O O O O I O I O 1 7 5

vi

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND OF THE PROBLEM

 

Social-regulatory policies regarding the maintenance of disci-
pline and specific codes of conduct in colleges have changed greatly
over the past several centuries, and what was once common practice
at early American colleges would not be recognized or tolerated
today. Frederick Rudolph, in his excellent book, The American College
and University, does a superb job tracing the historical changes
that have occurred in administrative attitudes regarding various
social-regulatory practices in higher education.1 He noted that dur-
ing the mid-eighteenth century there were many colleges which had
regulations of conduct reflecting an atmosphere of a boarding
school for small boys.

Although this attitude has been grossly modified over the years,
the concern for appropriate rules of student conduct is still a major
one today. Social and political struggles of our times, and the
anxieties created by sweeping changes in a rapidly changing society
have increasingly entangled the relationship between students and
their college regarding their rights and the college's rules and re-
gulations. A clear example of this is the student-administration
conflict that has erupted at the Berkeley Campus of the University of

California.

 

1Frederick Rudolph, The American College and University, (New
York: Alfred A. Knon, Inc., 1962).

 

-2-

The community college, like any other institution of higher
education, is also concerned with student conduct and discipline.

As an educational institution, it serves as a common meeting place
for students of all walks of life. According to Ralph C. Fields,
Professor of Higher Education, Columbia University, community colleges
attract a more representative group of students with respect to socio-
economic status and age than do typical four-year institutions, there-
by having more heterogeneous student populations.2 These students
interact among themselves and directly or indirectly with the in-
stitution's Board of Trustees, Faculty and Administration. It is

this interaction within a certain framework of order or organization
that makes the school what it is.

As is the case with all individuals and groups in our type of
society, the community college is subject to rules and regulations
established for the common good. Under the General School Laws of the
State of Michigan, it is empowered, as an institution of higher ed-
ucation, to adopt by-laws, rules and regulations for its own control
and government.3 It is clear then that the community college has
the authority to establish social-regulatory policies or codes of
conduct that will guide the behavior of anyone affiliated with it.

The American Civil Liberties Union recognizes this propriety of

supervision of student behavior when it clearly states,

 

2Ralph C Fields, The Community College Movement, (New York:
McGraw Hill Book Co., Inc., 1962), p. 80.

 

3State of Michigan, General School Laws, Legislative Service
Bureau, 1960, p. 400-403.

 

-3-

The authority of the educational institution is
an extension of the traditional legal authority
which parents exercise over their children. Insofar
as the institution is responsible for the welfare
and guidance of its students, it must exercise
reasonable control over their general activities.
Not to do so would be to fail in the discharge of
the educational function.

Having the legal authority to establish rules and policies
governing student behavior is one thing; however the establishment of
functional social-regulatory policies that are reasonable and fair
is another thing, a task that is not always an easy accomplishment.
One would not have to search the wells of historical inquiry too deeply
to find that the topic of student discipline has created much discus-
sion and has reflected as much ambivalence among educators of young
adults as any topic has in history.

This situation probably occurs because the term discipline has
different meanings to different peOple. Webster's Dictionary reflects
this confusion by giving the following four most common meanings.

1. Teaching, instruction, tutorship, education, etc.

2. Training or course of training which corrects, molds,

strengthens or perfects, a faculty or faculties.

3. A rule or system of rules affecting conduct or action.

4. Control gained by enforcing obedience or order.

Although the definitions mentioned above still leave open the choice

of which one a person might accept, most educational authorities

generally recognize that the term discipline has been synonymous with

 

4Academic Freedom and Civil Liberties of Students, (New York:
American Civil Liberties Union, August, 1956), p.3 (Pamphlet).

-4-
education and training as far back as man can recall. In 1928,
Herbert Hawkes said,

Discipline may be defined either broadly or
narrowly. Broadly defined it is as wide as ed-
ucation itself. Physical, moral and intellectual
discipline may be defined so as to include the
entire development of the individual, involving
his relations to his environment both animate and
inamimate, both human and divine.

In a more specific sense, Williamson and Foley defined disci-
pline as "re-education of those particular students who are in open
conflict with fellow students, the faculty, the standards of society
and the community.”6 One can see from definitions such as these
that although most educators do agree that discipline is a process,
or a tool of education, they can and do differ as to how, and to what
extent this so called tool is to be used.

It is interesting to note at this point the historical relation-
ship between the word discipline and education. The word discipline
is actually derived from the Latin verb disciple "to teach or to
train." Biblical literature reveals that this meaning stems from the
methods Christ used in teaching and leading his disciples. Here we
have an example of a leader teaching the desirability of a particular
pattern of conduct in life in such a clear way that many people became
convinced that his social and moral concepts should become their

guides for behavior; ergo, these people became disciples or followers

of a particular teacher or teaching.

 

5Herbert E. Hawkes, "Constructive Discipline," Association of
American Colleges and Universities Bulletin, Vol. XIV, No.3 (April,
1928), p. 180.

 

6E. G. Williamson and J. D. Foley, Counselling and Discipline,
(New York: McGraw Hill Book Company, Inc., 1949), pp. 2-3.

 

-5-

In essence then, discipline connotes a process of leadership and
followership; leadership in teaching insight and understanding of
particular concepts of social conduct, and followership in the accept-
ance and develOpment of concepts of self-control in accordance with
established rules or limitations. This concept of discipline is
still esteemed among educators.

Another term used today in connection with the training of in-
dividuals for life in our democracy is "citizenship." Like discipline,
this term has been defined in many ways. Generally speaking,
citizenship may be thought of as the status of being a citizen. Most
students entering college have come into their local, state, and
national citizenship by birth and residence. But the word citizenship
implies more than just status, for it involves a process of training
or discipline that provides an individual with an opportunity to learn
what his rights, duties and opportunities are in our way of life.
Democratic living and good citizenship also imply the development of
internal controls of behavior based upon knowledge and reason that will
in turn help students anticipate the consequences of their actions
throughout their lives, thereby enabling them to make more intelligent
decisions. To this end, the policies and specific administrative
rules of any college governing the education re-education or
rehabilitation procedures relative to discipline and good citizenship

can do much to encourage self-discipline and self-direction.

STATEMENT 93 THE PROBLEM

 

The recognized need for community colleges in the American

educational system is reflected by the rapidity with which they have

-5-

been established. Enrollments over the past few years have spiraled
and most community college facilities have become over-crowded, taxed
almost beyond their limits. According to the Michigan Department

of Public Instruction, community college enrollments have increased
by more than one-hundred-percent during the last five years of the
last decade, and even greater growth in student enrollment is
anticipated in the future.7 Generally speaking, as colleges grow
larger, they tend to become more impersonal with respect to the
administration and control of student behavior. An examination of

the pattern of events that led to the "Berkeley Crisis" of the University
of California shows how great the distance is and how difficult is

the communication between those who make the multi-versity's rules and
those who must live by them.8 Rapidly growing community colleges are
not immune from the develOpment of this type of situation. Many of
these "crisis situations" may in many cases be precipitated by the
college's philOSOphy regarding social-regulatory policies and the level
of communication and understanding that exists between the college

and its students. As it was mentioned earlier in this study, history
is replete with examples of the divergencies of opinion that have
existed in higher education regarding the development, communication,
and enforcement of social-regulatory policies. In the light of this,

the author of this dissertation felt that an analysis of specific

 

7Community Colleges, (Lansing: The Department of Education,
State of Michigan, 1963), p. 29. (Bulletin No. 366)

8William P. Lineberry (ed.), Colleges At the Crossroads,
(New York: The H. W. Wilson Company, 1966), pp. 71-88.

 

-7-
social-regulatory practices of selected rapidly growing community
colleges would be most timely.

It was the purpose of this study, therefore, to make a survey
analysis of specific social-regulatory practices of selected community
colleges in Michigan to ascertain the prevailing conditions that
exist regarding the following:

1. The origin and extent of written social-regulatory

policies and the provisions for change.

2. The types of rules of conduct.

3. The communication of social-regulatory policies and rules.

4. The enforcement of social-regulatory policies and rules.

It was also the purpose of this study to throw light upon emergent
practices as well as prevailing conditions that generated ideas for

future research and study.

THE NEED FOR THE STUDY

 

In a preliminary search of the literature, the author of this
study found that there was a paucity of research in this subject area
at the community college level throughout the country, and none to
speak of in the State of Michigan. This particular subject area is one
of major concern to those community college administrators who have
been delegated the responsibility for implementing the social-regulatory
policies and enforcing them. According to Thomas A. Brady, the former
Dean of Extra-divisions Administration of the University of Missouri,

...we have today only a meager body of educational

research on student discipline, we have few books or
manuals, and our professional organizations rarely

-3-

devote to it any sessions for discussions and

consideration of improved and more uniform

practices. Rarely does one find an article

in a professional journal that deals with this

important subject....here is an academic

wasteland so far as study and research are

concerned.9
It seemed then that research in this area was well in order and
that data collected from this study could be of practical use to
administrators in charge of student affairs and conduct as a reference
when considering criteria for the formulation of written social
regulatory policies and the further development of student conduct

rules.

Delimitations 2f the Problem:

 

The following delimitations were established for the purposes of

this study:

1. This study was limited to commuter-type publicly supported
community colleges in Michigan with enrollments of more
than 1500 students.

2. This study was more concerned with written policies and rules
related to student conduct and citizenship rather than with
the Specific administrative disciplinary actions taken for
infractions of the policies or rules in individual cases.

3. Data gathered for the study were limited to responses made
during interviews by disciplinary administrators, and in-

formation gained from the literature, student handbooks,

 

9Thomas A. Brady and Leverne F. Snoxell, Student Discipline In
Higher Education, (Washington, D. C.: The American College Personnel
Association, 1965), p. 2.

-9-
college bulletins, and policy manuals received from

the community colleges selected for the study.

DEFINITION 9; TERMS

 

WOrds and phrases have long created semantic problems. Depending
on the context in which they are used, they could have different
meanings. For the purpose of this study, and in the interest of
providing a more common understanding of terminology, the following

definitions of terms were used:

Chief Disciplinary Administrator--This term refers to the person on
the community college administrative staff who is charged with the
major responsibility of carrying out the college's policies and rules

regarding student discipline.

Citizenship--This term applies to the student's recognition of his
rights and responsibilities on campus. These rights and responsibil-
ities include voting in school elections, complying with school policies
and rules developed for the welfare of the general student body, loyalty
to the school and its traditions, and striving not only for one's own
betterment but the improvement of the general college community. In
other words, it is a mode of behavior that is essential in government,
or for that matter, in a community college, that will establish those

conditions promoting order and progress in college life.

Code of Conduct--The term refers to those rules or standards of behavior

that students are expected to comply with while attending college.

-10-
Community College (Commuter type)--A two-year, non-residential,
comprehensive institution of higher education (beyond high school)
that serves a particular community or several communities in a
regional area by preparing some students for advanced college study,
by preparing others for vocations, by offering all students a general

education, and by offering non—credit post high school courses.

Control-~The power to exercise restraints on an individual or a group
through the imposition of a certain set of rules or standards delimit-

ing student behavior; also the power to enforce the imposed rules.

Corrective approach--This is a conceptual approach to discipline that
generally recommends the involvement of the counselling process--that
is, to determine the causes for misconduct and then to employ guidance
and counselling techniques to deal with the causes in order to prevent
a reoccurence of the infraction. This approach is not incompatible

with the administration of discipline.

Discipline problem-~Any conduct or behavior, aside from unsatisfactory
academic achievement, which goes before any administrative officer or
any staff or student agency, responsible for handling and enforcing

student discipline.

Disciplinary Actions--Actions (including counselling and penalties)
taken by disciplinary administrators or any staff or student agency
responsible for handling and enforcing student discipline after con-
sideration of the discipline problem. Penalties considered commen-

surate with the type and severity of misbehavior involved may include

-11-
loss of student activity privileges for a specified time, verbal
reprimands, traffic violation fines, imposition of probation status,

suspension or dismissal.

Dismissal--This term implies the involuntary separation of the
student from the college. It may not be permanent but neither is a

definite time set when return is expected.

Expulsion--Student behavior which is so eccentric and unacceptable that

the college permanently excludes him from enrolling.

Governing Board of Trustees--The community college governing group
established under the General School Laws of Michigan. The board
members (individual members have no authority to act separately) have
the power to make plans for, to promote, and/or acquire, construct,
own, develop, maintain and Operate according to defined policy and
legal limits, the community college. It has the explicit power to
adopt by-laws, rules and regulations for its own government and control

of college Operations.

Orientation--As defined and used, "orientation” refers to the help and
assistance given new students via planned programs, classes, activities
and college publications which may aid the students in becoming

familiar with their new academic and social environment, the functions
and aims of the college and the policies and rules with which they are

expected to comply.

Policy--This term refers to general guidelines, established by the

board of trustees of the community college, that serve to delimit con-

-12-
ditions under which various decisions can be made. These guidelines
are broad in scope and worded to define "what" can be done. The "how"

of operative action is usually considered administrative procedure.

Probation--This term refers to a middle status between good standing
and suSpension or dismissal. In this situation, the student remains
enrolled in the college but under stated conditions according to
college policies. Probation covers a stated trial period during which
a student is given an opportunity to show that he can conduct himself
according to the college's conduct rules. At the end of this period,
the college determines whether the student is returned to a status of

good standing.

Social Regulations--Prescribed regulations stated in either positive
or negative terms that serve as policy or implement college policy

relative to student behavior, discipline, and citizenship.

Student Council--The student organization authorized by the board of
trustees to, within prescribed limits, share the responsibility for
the administration of student affairs. Student councils are usually
involved in the development, supervision, coordination, and financing
of student activities. They may also play an active role in the
formulation of policies and rules in the area of student behavior,

discipline, and citizenship.

Student Court--A judicial branch of student government charged with

 

the responsibility for assisting in the adjudication of certain

-13-

infractions of college policies and rules. Many community colleges
do not encourage the formation of student courts because they do not
believe it to be good practices to have students sit in judgement of
other students. Some student courts have the power to prescribe
penalties while others only judge the case leaving any penalties to

be set to the administrative officers in charge of discipline.

Student handbook--That publication given to a student upon enrollment
to help orient him to his new college environment. It is generally
designed to provide the student with a broad spectrum of information
about college life including the colleges policies governing standards

of student behavior.

Suspension--Suspension is also an involuntary separation of the student
from the college but it differs from dismissal in that it implies

and states a time limit when return will be possible.

ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY

 

 

In the first chapter, the background of the problem, a statement
of the problem, and a discussion of its significance have been pre-
sented. Delimitations, and definitions of terms were also outlined.
Chapter II reviews the literature pertinent to this research study.
The chapter was sub-divided into the following categories: (1) the
emergence of the community college - its aims and functions, (2) historical
changes in the administration of discipline in higher education in

the United States, (3) the development of social-regulatory policies

-14-
and rules, (4) the communication of social-regulatory policies and
rules, (5) legal implications of student conduct and discipline.

The methodology used in conducting and reporting this research
study are described in Chapter III. The selection of community
colleges for the study, the procedures for interviewing the chief
disciplinary administrators, the review of college publications and
materials, and the treatment of data are all briefly discussed.

Chapter IV reports the findings relative to the extent of
present policies and rules delimiting student conduct and their origin
of development.

The findings regarding the communication of social-regulatory
policies and rules to students are presented in Chapter V.

In Chapter VI the findings concerning the enforcement of social
regulatory policies and rules are presented.

Chapter VII, summarizes the significant findings, and presents
conclusions drawn from the data of the study and implications for

future research and study.

CHAPTER II
REVIEW 9}: THE LITERATURE

Since World War II, our systems of public education have been
rocketed into a challenging new era by the convergence of many power-
ful forces such as an explosion of pOpulation and knowledge; a
fantastic burst of technological and economic growth; a declining
reliance upon the unskilled worker; a decreasing death rate because
of advances in medical research. These converging forces brought forth
longer life spans; the outbreak of ideological conflict; the cultural
and political upheavals of old customs; and the unparalleled demand for
equality of opportunity for all Americans regardless of their race,
creed, or national origin. The effect of these forces on our institutions
of public education has been phenomenal. No longer are the educational
needs of our people as simple as they were in the pioneer days or for
that matter at the turn of the last century. In our complex economy, one
can no longer depend solely on the ”three r's" and expect to succeed to
any great heights. In fact, today, a high school education has become
the minimum and higher education or continuing education of some form
the goal. As a result, more students than ever before are knocking at
the doors of our community colleges, four year colleges, and universities
requesting admission.

This upsurge in high educational enrollments and the above
mentioned forces behind the increased student population reflecting
young adults from all walks of life, have created tremendous pressures
on our institutions of higher education, especially in the various

areas of educational administration. This impact on the administration

-16-

of higher education has been particularly felt in the administration
of student regulations concerning student conduct.

Although many books have been written in the fields of secondary
school or college and university administration that contain sections
on student personnel services, most of those that have chapters
touching upon the topic of student regulations and student conduct
have been mainly written for the secondary level of education with the
remaining chapters for the university level. Very little has been
written about community college social-regulatory policies; nevertheless,
some of the secondary level and university level information is
apparently applicable to the community college. Still the author has
found that there is a paucity of research in this subject area. In

1962, Kinzter studied Board Policy Manuals in California Public Junior

 

Colleges at the University of California. Although this study dealt
with the over-all approaches of institutional written policies, it did
not specifically deal with community college social-regulatory practices.
At Columbia University, in 1963, Fley completed a doctoral dissertation
dealing with The Changing Views of Deans and Personnel Workers Toward

The Handling 2; Individual Discipline Cases. Hubbell studied The varying

 

Perceptions g; Alleged Misbehavior and Resultant Disciplinary
Adjudication at the University of Wisconsin in 1964. This doctoral
dissertation compared the adjudicative judgments of parents, students,
and student personnel administrators regarding disciplinary alternatives
in various cases of alleged misbehavior rather than the regulatory

policies governing discipline. In 1965, the Carnegie Corporation of

 

New York sponsored a study of Junior College Student Personnel Programs

-17-

under the direction of Max R. Raines. This study, however, pertained
mainly to the development of these programs and a general appraisal
of them in various regions of our country. Raines and McDaniel co-
authored a section of the findings of this study relating to the
social-regulatory functions of large junior colleges. They found
that the social-regulatory function differentiated the strongest and
weakest student personnel programs more than any other function.

E. G. Williamson and J. L. Cowan, in 1966, completed a research ap-

praisal of The American Student's Freedom 2: Expression at four year

 

institutions of higher education. This study published by the
University of Minnesota Press, was designed to determine: (1) How
much academic freedom do students now enjoy? (2) Which institutions
granted the most freedom or the least? (3) What forces prevented
the expansion of freedom and how effective were they? (4) How much
freedom should be granted? (5) Was the incongruity of perception
between students and colleges regarding the amount of freedom a source
of confusion and conflict.

The author of this research study found many books to be most
helpful in reviewing the literature on this subject. To list but a
few, there was Bakken's The Legal Basis For College Student Personnel

Work (1961), Blackwell's College Law (1961), Bogue's The Community

 

 

College (1950), Blocker's The Two-Year College: ‘A Social Synthesis

 

(1965), Brady's Student Discipline 12 Higher Education (1965), Dennis

 

and Kaufman's The College and the Student (1966), Dunbar's The Michigan

Record i2 Higher Education (1963), Gleazer's, Jr. American Junior

 

-13-

Colleges (1967), Hofstadter and Smith's American Higher Education -
'A Documentarngistory (1961), Katope's Beyond Berkeley (1966), Lee's

God Bless Our Queer Old Dean (1959), Medsker's Junior College Progress

 

and Prospect (1962), Rudolph's The American College and University
(1962), and Williamson's Counselling and Discipline (1949).

The professional journals and periodicals found to be most help-
ful were the American School Board Journal, Education Digggt, Journal
.3: College Student Personnel, Junior College Journal, National

Association 9f Secondary School Principals Bulletin, Personnel and

 

Guidance Journal, and School and Socigty.

The review of the literature in this chapter has been divided in
the following manner: (1) The Emergence of the Community (Junior)
College - Its Function and Aims, (2) Student Characteristics, (3)
Historical Changes in the Administration of Discipline in Higher Edu-
cation in the United States, (4) The Development of Social-Regulatory
Policies and Rules, (5) The Communication of Social-Regulatory Policies

and Rules, (6) The Legal Implications of Student Conduct and Discipline.

THE EMERGENCE OF THE COMMUNITY (JUNIOR) COLLEGE-ITS FUNCTIONS AND AIMS

It was a little over a hundred years ago that the idea of a junior
college was conceived as a means of relieving the large universities
of under-classmen. The names of several university leaders were assoc-
iated with the early development of the idea that the first two years

of the university more appropriately belonged to the secondary schools.

-19-

According to Dunbar,1 Henry P. Tappan, in 1852, in his inaugural ad-
dress as President of the University of Michigan, advocated trans-
ferring the first two years of university work to the high school.
William W. Folwell, at his inauguration, in 1869, as President of

the University of Minnesota, echoed the idea of President Tappan by
suggesting that the university devote itself to teaching upper-
classmen and graduate students. Although Tappan and Folwell both
strongly believed in the German plan of higher education, they never
succeeded in eliminating the first two years or the "secondary years"
from their own schools.

The task of re-organizing the university to pave the way for the
establishment of the first junior college in the United States was
left to William Rainey Harper, President of the University of Chicago
at the turn of the century. In 1892, Harper separated the University
of Chicago into distinct divisions. The upper division, the junior
and senior years, was called the "University College" and the lower
division, the first two years, was called the "Academic College". Four
years later, in 1896, these titles were changed to "Senior College"
for the upper division and to "Junior College" for the lower division.
This according to Walter C. Eells, was the first use of the term

"Junior College".2 Thus in the beginnings of the junior college the

 

1Willis F. Dunbar, The Michigan Record i3 Higher Education.
Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1963, pp. 239-240

 

2Walter C. Eells, The Junior College. Boston: Houghton Mifflin
Company, 1931, p. 47.

-20-

major encouragement came initially from the university.

In 1902, William Rainey Harper urged the school board of Joliet,
Illinois to establish a junior college. The Joliet Junior College is
thus the oldest extant public junior college in the United States. It
exists today as evidence of the unusual persuasive powers of Harper,
at the turn of the century, in fostering the junior college movement.

Harper, in 1900, is also credited with having instituted the
awarding of the Associate of Arts Degree, at the University of Chicago,
to all students who had successfully completed the junior college pro-
gram of studies. He thus, officially recognized the junior college
program as a specific collegiate achievement.

In Michigan, the Grand Rapids Board of Education Opened the first
junior college. In 1914, upon the recommendation of the University of
‘Michigan, it established the Grand Rapids Junior College. In fact,
this institution had come into being three years before the state legis-
lature past the first enabling act. Jesse B. Davis, the principal of
the Grand Rapids Central High School became the first President of
Grand Rapids Junior College.

After the establishment of the Grand Rapids Junior College, the
Michigan Legislature, in 1917, passed its first junior college enabling
act.3 The act empowered the board of education in any school district
with a pOpulation of 30,000 or more to offer advanced courses of study

to high school graduates. This advanced program was not to embrace

 

3Dunbar, op. cit., pp 40-41.

-21-

more than two years of college work. As a result of this first enabling
act, Highland Park, Michigan, established the second junior college in
1918. Other early pioneers in the junior college movement in Michigan
were Bay City (1922), Flint (1923), Port Huron (1923), Muskegan (1926),
and Jackson in (1928).

Over the years, the term "junior" has been substituted by many junior
colleges with "community", so that many junior colleges are now called
"Community Colleges". A recent listing of junior colleges in Michigan

n 4

revealed that 18 out of the 27 listed are now called "Community Colleges .

Russel, in a study reported in the Junior College Journal the two basic

 

reasons for substituting the term "Community College" for "junior College":

(1) The term "junior" is no longer an appropriate one because junior

colleges are no longer to be construed as junior to a four year college,

but are instead considered to be a separate and distinct area in our

education system; and, (2) students attach a great deal of importance to

the prestige factor of higher education and tend to feel that the word

"junior" may have an inferior connotation at certain four—year institutions.5
Since the community college is now considered a distinct and

separate area of our educational system, its function and aims should

then be defined. In The Community College, the late Jesse P. Bogue,

 

long-time executive secretary of the American Association of Junior Colleges,

wrote an excellent summary of the basic functions of the community college:

__‘

AWilliam A. Harper, ed., The 1967 Junior College Director, Washington,
D. C.: The American Association 2: Junior Colleges (1967) pp. 32-34.

 

 

 

5John H. Russell, "Why Fourteen Colleges Changed Their Names",
Junior College Journal, 31 (January, 1961), pp. 248-249.

 

-22-

By examination of life situations, of identi-
fiable problems that need solution, on national,
state, and local levels, we arrive at conclusions
regarding the basic functions of community col-
leges. They are guidance and counselling for all
students and for the people of the community;
general education for all students regardless of
vocational objectives; technical and other
vocational training, and that on a continuing
basis, for students who will not advance to upper
division collegiate studies; the further demo-
cratization of higher education by surmounting
barriers of geography and family financial
difficulties; the pOpularization of higher education
by breaking down family traditions and creating
greater personal interest and motivation; adult
education and university-parallel studies for
those students who should continue formal education.

From Bogue's definition of the basic functions of a community college
one can readily see that he implies that the general purposes of

this type of institution should be broad in scope in order to cover
major areas of a community's higher educational needs.

‘Medsker, in his book, The Junior Colleg_: Progress and Prospect

 

notes, however, that there is a tendency to confuse what might be re-
garded as the general functions of the junior college with the aims of
a college in terms of desired outcomes for students.7 He points out

that while the functions of a college broadly define its expected per-

6Jesse P. Bogue, The Community College. New York: McGraw-Hill
Book Company, Inc., 1950, p. 76.

7Leland L Medsker, The Junior College: Progress and Prospect.
New York: ‘McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1960, pp. 84-86.

 

 

-23-

formance as an institution, the aims of the college are generally
more detailed and specific with regard to the stated objectives of
various areas of knowledge and understanding, the types of attitudes
and appreciations, and the specific skills and abilities necessary
for the institution to fulfill its functions. A statement of aims
and objectives, then, according to Medsker, "...is to an institution
what a road map is to the tourist or a flight plan to the pilot --
they chart the direction."8

In a study of the catalogues and handbooks of the twelve major
community colleges of Michigan included in this research project, the
author of this dissertation found that only two clearly made a
distinction in their catalogues between their functions and their aims
according to the criteria set forth by Bogue and Medsker, Only two
Community Colleges in Michigan separated their statements of their
colleges' functions from their colleges' aims.9

One Community College, for example, listed its major functions
as: (1) personal, academic and vocation counselling, (2) general
education, (3) technical and semi-professional education, (4) transfer
education that parallels the freshman and sophmore years of four-year,
degree-granting colleges, (5) cultural education for adults, and (6)
specialized services for the community. Its aims were listed more
specifically as striving to:

1. Contribute to good citizenship by helping students to under-

stand democratic process.

8Ibid., p. 84.

9See Appendix D. The two colleges referred to are among the twelve
listed but shall not be referred to by name in fairness to all of the
pnlleges-

-24-

Prepare the student to make a contribution to the
economic life of his community.

Expose the student to our cultural, social scientific,
and spiritual heritage out of which he may construct

a satisfying and consistent world view by which to

guide his life.

Foster self-reliance on the part of the student by en-
couraging him to think critically in solving problems.
Encourage the student to participate in some form of
satisfying creative activity and in appreciating the
creativity of others.

Develop within the student increased understanding of the
political and socio-economic problems confronting our
nation and the world contributing to a sense of social
responsibility.

Help the student to understand his relationship to his
biological and physical environment so that he may better
adjust to and improve that environment.

Develop within the student an appreciation and under-
standing of the contributions afforded by other ideas,
races, and religions.

Develop with students skills in writing, speaking, reading,
and listening which lead to improved self-expression and

communication.10

 

101bid., Appendix D.

-25

Another Community College in a very similar fashion listed major
functions and approximately ten aims which conceptually included many
of the same values stated in the example on the previous page. Both
were quite definitive and distinctively clear. The ten other colleges
typically had statements that tended to fuse their basic functions and
their aims. Although there were differences among the colleges re-
garding their aims, most of them had closely related definitions of

function.

STUDENT CHARACTERISTICS

 

Intellectual, social, and psychological factors affect the relation-
ships that students have with the community college. A dearth of in-
formation in this area has handicapped student personnel workers in their
attempt to better understand the perceptions, expectations, and back-
grounds of two-year college students. This situation tends to exist
more at the two-year non-resident public community college. Blocker,
et al, in their very thorough book, The TWO-Year College: A Social

Sygthesis, cites the need for more research in this area.11 In the

 

latest publication of the American Junior Colleges (1967), a standard
reference in the field of community college work, not one major
recently completed study in this area was noted in the ten pages of

writings and research cited.12 It should be noted however, that

 

11Clyde E. Blocker, et. a1., The Two-Year College: A Social
Sygthesis. Englewood Cliffs: Prentis-Hall, Inc., 1965, p. 106.

12Edmond J. Gleazer, Jr., (Ed.), American Junior Colleges.
Washington, D.C.: The American Council on Education, 1967, pp. 51-60.

-25-

research studies in this area have recently gotten under way. In 1967,
the American Council on Education Office of Research published a major
statistical survey of student characteristic information that included
a variety of interesting data regarding the two-year public college
freshmen student.13 Of the total number of students enrolled full-time

in the two-year public community college, approximately 89 percent
fall within the age range of 17 and 19. Five percent are 20 to 21
years of age, and the remaining six percent comprises those students
who are older than 21 years of age. There are also a large number of
students who are not of college age and who make up a large portion of
the part-time or "unclassified" student. Their ages range from the
twenties to the sixties and sometimes seventies, and they comprise
approximately 50 percent of the total number of the two-year college
student in the United States. The perceived needs of these students
in relation to education vary a great deal from those of their full-
time younger counterparts.

The adult part-time students of a community college tend to be
substantially more mature than the youthful full-time students, and
this maturity is generally reflected in their seriousness of purpose

both in personal activities and academic endeavors.14 While younger

students may be sincere in their endeavor to achieve, they are not as

 

13See Appendix C for specific breakdown of various freshmen
characterics according to Weighted National Norms.

14Blocker, Et. a1., Op. Cit., p. 108.

-27-

definitive in their immediate goals. The part—time older students
on the other hand, focus their attention generally upon the completion
of college work required for graduation or to achieve a specific goal.
It is for this reason that they have little or no interest in extra-
curricular activities, athletics, or other non-classroom events
compared to the more active participating roles of the younger full-
time students.
D'Amico and Raines in their study of the "Employment Characteristics
of Flint Community College Students" found that 57 percent of the

15 The researchers noted that

students studied had part-time jobs.
63 percent of the men and 47 percent of the women worked on jobs which
consumed a median of 22 and 16.8 hours per week, respectively. An
interesting question was raised by the authors as to whether the majority
of these students needed to work in order to pay their college and
personal expenses. They noted that approximately half of those students
with outside employment stated that they did not need to work to stay

in college. It seems apparent from the above study that community
college students tend not to withdraw from the community at large dur-
ing his stay at college. They are, for the most part, active partici-
pants in the community's vocational activities and tend to continue to
absorb the community's attitudes towards occupations and the value of
education in attaining occupational advancements. This certainly has

its affects on the students perceptions of the ultimate worth of a

college degree.

 

15Louis A. D'Amico and Max R. Raines, "Employment Characteristics
of Flint Junior College Students", Junior College Journal, 28,
(December, 1957), pp. 193-195.

-28..

Obviously family background also conditions the attitude of students
toward higher education. A generation or two ago it was the exception
for a student of working-class background to enter college. Today, the
number of community college students from working-class homes exceeds
that from upper and upper-middle class homes. This was verified by a
most comprehensive study of the socio-economic backgrounds of college
students made by Clark who found that proportionally more two-year
college students came from lower socio-economic backgrounds than do

16 Because

their counterparts in four-year college and universities.
his financial resources are limited, the parent of a community college
student who is in a lower income bracket is not always in a position
to assist his child in going to college. Hence, one does find a goodly
number of community college students who are job oriented throughout
their education. Because most of the unmarried community students at
community colleges are forced to live at home, even though they may in
many instances prefer not to do so, they are influenced to a much greater
degree by their parents than is true of the students who go away to
college. Hence, even though they may rebel and resent the pressure
of the home, they are probably less likely to throw off the restraints
of the past or to be as venturesome as their counterparts who have left
home to attend college.

It was not the main purpose of the author of this dissertation to

dwell on an item by item analysis of community college student charact-

eristics, but rather, it was his intent to shed some light on the type

 

16Burton R. Clark, The Open Door College: 'A Case Stud . New York:
‘McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1960, p. 54.

 

 

-29...

of student personnel that most public community colleges find
challenging them today. The major problem confronting the community
college then is the necessity to develop those policies, social-
regulatory and others, which will in the end provide those conditions
which will motivate students to grow to the limits of their abilities.
In order to accomplish this task it appears axiomatic that a good
place for any institution to begin is to assess the students' thinking
regarding the establishment of various programs and policies, since
they, as the participants, are the primary purpose for their establish-
ment. The goal of the college then, should be to involve students to
strike the delicate balance between institutional and student expecta-

tions. In this way the institution will serve a beneficial function.

HISTORICAL CHANCES I}! THE ADMINISTRATION 93 DISCIPLINE IN

 

HIGHER EDUCATION IN THE UNITED STATES

Over the past three hundred years disciplinary practices in
American institutions of higher education have changed tremendously.
For the most part the general practices of our early American colleges
would not be recognized or for that matter even tolerated today.

In order to understand the vast changes that have occurred in
the disciplinary practices of our institutions of higher education, it
is imperative to refer to their historical origin. In 1636, the
Puritans of the Massachusetts Bay Colony founded Harvard~College. Their
chief motives for its establishment were to advance and perpetuate

learning and to supply the Puritan pulpits with ministers.17 Subse-

 

17Richard Hofstadter and Wilson Smith, American Hi her Education-
é Documentary History. Volume I Chicago: Tfie UniverSI y of Cfiicago
Press, 1961, p. l.

 

-30-

quently, all of our pre-Revolution colleges were denominational in
control and, almost entirely in spirit, with the sole exception of

the College of Philadelphia whose control was non-sectarian. In
Virginia, the Anglican College of William and Mary was chartered in
1693. In Connecticut, the Congregationalist Yale College was
established in 1701. The Presbyterian College of Princeton was charter-
ed in New Jersey in 1746. These were followed by the chartering of
such schools as: the Anglican King's College in New York in 1754; the
Baptist Brown College in Rhode Island in 1764; the Congregationalist
Dartmouth College in New Hampshire in 1769; and, in New Jersey, the
Dutch Reformed Rutgers in 1770.

In almost every respect all of these colleges were patterned after
the residential colleges of the ancient universities of England with
which their founders were familiar. These early American colleges
carried on with the classical curriculum; their rules and regulations
were almost a verbatim duplicate of those in Cambridge or Oxford. This
was especially true in the early days of their existence. The formation
of Christian Character, as well as the furtherance of learning were
their aims. While exerting a profound influence on early colonial
environment through the civil and religious leaders, the colonial
colleges failed to establish themselves as popular institutions intimately
affecting the lives of the people. This situation existed mainly
because these institutions were shaped by aristocratic traditions and
served mainly the aristocratic elements of colonial society. For

example, Harvard's first code of laws admonished its scholars not to

-31-

"frequent the company and society of such men as lead an ungirt and
dissolute life".18 There were nineteen laws in all in the 1646
Harvard Code dealing with not only religious expectation in behavior
but social as well. The Yale statutes were very explicit in their

condemnation of a student found, "

...Guilty of Profane Swearing,

Cursing, VOwing, and Petty or Implicit Oath, Profane or Irreverent

Use of the Names, Attributes, Ordinances or Word of God; Disobedient

or Contumacious or Refractory Carriage towards his Superiors,

Fighting, Striking, Quarrelling, Challenging, Turbulent Words or

Behavior, Drunkeness, Uncleaness, Lacivious WOrds or Actions, Wear-

ing Woman's Apparel, Defrauding, Injustice, Idleness, Lying, Defama-

tion, Tale Bearing or any other such like Immoralities..."19 The

penalty was punishment by fine, confession, admonition or expulsion,

depending on the case. One could well understand from codes such as

these why early American institutions of higher education could easily

be referred to as the "Citadels of Discipline”. Yale had twenty penal

laws in all covering everything from fornication to religious practice.
Schetlin, in her brief but informative article entitled, "Disorders,

Deans, and Discipline", noted that "punishments for infractions of college

regulations from 1630 to 1870 consisted primarily of public con-

fessions and reprimands, public whippings, extra assignments, fines,

suspensions, and at Harvard included a solemn public ritual of expulsion.20

 

18Ibid., p. 9.

19Hofstadter and Smith, Op. Cit., pp. 56 and 57.

20EleanorM. Schetlin, "Disorders, Deans, and Discipline, The
Education Digest, 33 (December, 1967), p. 49.

 

-32-

The standard means of discipline for most cases was flogging until
1718. This practice was then substituted by the practice of boxing,
in which a student who violated a rule had to kneel at the feet of his
tutor who cuffed him stingingly on the ear. This practice was elimi-
nated by 1755 and omitted from most college laws by 1767. The
elimination of these practices according to Rudolph, "...clearly
recorded the humanitarian spirit that was loose in the Western world,
but it may also have meant that the English college was being
Americanized." 21
The president and his tutors literally held big sticks over their
students. They felt that their regulations and punishments were
necessary regardless of their ineffectiveness in changing the behavior
of student violators. It became increasingly obvious that as the rules
became more punitive, the violations of these same rules occurred with
greater frequency. The presidents were slow indeed in perceiving that
their systems did not work. For tough as their penalties were, they
did not bring order to their colleges. After the "bread and butter
rebellion", in 1805, Harvard suspended half of its entire student body.
Similarly, Princeton suspended or expelled 125 of its 200 students after
the "Riot of 1807". The approach was dictatorial and vindictive.
Presidents, in those days, who were distinquished clergyman, philosophers,
scholars and teachers, felt compelled to demonstrate authority. There

had to be a law and a penalty for every possible situation.

 

21Frederick Rudolph, The American College and University.

New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1962, p.27.

-33

W. Storrs Lee, in his delightfully descriptive book, God Bless

Our Queer Old Dean; notes however, that "the law wasn't enough.

 

Presidents and Professors continued to live in mortal terror of the
youth they were guiding. With a crust of stale bread, a Harvard
student scored a hit on the left eye of historian William Prescott
and blinded the eye. University of Virginia faculty members were
subjected to brutal assaults, and in 1842 a professor there was shot
and killed by a trigger-happy assailant. At Oakland College in
'Mississippi a drunken student satisfied his grudge against the Presi-
dent by stabbing him to death. Dignified men of letters were stoned,
whipped and ridden out of town."22
This type of college behavior hardly reflected the college
atmosphere intended by leading educators of the time. The college was
supposed to be a close community where students lived in on-campus
dormitories like a large family, sleeping, eating, studying and wor-
shipping together under one roof. Rudolph, cites facts to the
contrary, however, dormitories actually facilitated rebellion by creat-
ing atmosphere void of planned recreational activities and conditions
that were harsh, frustrating ones that invited tension and mal-behavior.23
Dormitories between 1800 and 1870 actually documented the failure of
college personnel to recognize the need for satisfactory outlets for

the human energy and imagination of young men on campus. A possible

reason for these conditions might well be that the college professors

 

22W. Storrs Lee, God Bless Our Queer Old Dean. New York: G. P.
Putnam's Sons, 1959, pp. 62-63.

23

 

Rudolph, op. cit., pp. 96-97.

-34-

in the middle 1800's were for the most part clergymen or men who had
been trained for clergy. They were largely "divorced from the world”
in their ideas and philosophy on student morals and standards of
conduct. According to Rudolph, the faculty at Dartmouth between 1828
and 1862 was composed of two-thirds clergymen. Lafayette College in
1841 had its entire staff comprised of clergymen and in 1868 seven
out of the ten faculty members at Princeton were Presbyterian
ministers.24 The paternalistic endeavor of these professors to create
a campus world separated from the mainstream of life in the world
outside was doomed to failure. By 1850, over 700 colleges had closed
for lack of students.

The rigid academic philosophy and authoritian methods of control
of the early colleges slowly gave way to the development of an
atmosphere of freedom rather than that of strict authority. In 1869,
Harvard made a sharp distinction between scholarship and conduct,
ranking students henceforth on the basis of academic grades alone. As
for character, this no longer would count in the ranking of students.
What was most important was intellectual performance in the classroom,
not model behavior in the dormitory or village pub.25

By the 1880's, football came into being as a collegiate activity.
As strange as it might seem, it had a favorable influence on student

conduct and discipline. In many ways, it served to channel the human

energies of young men in the right direction more effectively than

 

24Rudolph, op. cit., p. 159-160

25Hofstadter and Smith, op. cit., pp. 611-612.

-35

directive from a faculty discipline committee, possibly because it
built a loyalty to the college and its ideals among most of the
students. Rudolph quoted the famous football coach, Amos Alonzo
Stagg, as saying, "Until intercollegiate athletics came along, the
major sport in America had been convivial drinking." He might have
added, said Rudolph, "that football appeared to be responsible
for cutting down the incidence of rebellions, rioting and hazing."26
It was also during this period following the Civil War that
colleges realized more and more the importance of serving the needs of
their students not only through expanded academic programs of elective
subjects but through involvement in extra-curricular activities. This
democratization of higher education continued to shift some of the
disciplinary and regulatory functions over to students and students
finally began to be treated like adults. According to E. G. Williamson,
most forms of student participation in newly structured student governments
centered on problems of discipline and control of student behavior.27
In 1868, the University of Illinois inaugurated a comprehensive scheme
of student government to establish more orderly and constructive re-
lationships between faculty and students through student control of
behavior. The system proved to be unwieldly, and students did not

especially relish the idea of disciplining each other. From that day

on, a greater number of higher education institutions made serious

 

26Rudolph, Op. Cit., pp. 378-379.

27Edmund Griffith Williamson, Student Personnel Services in Colleges

and Universities. New York: McGraw Hill Book Company, 1961, p. 375.

 

-36-

attempts to involve students in the control of behavior. Numerous
remedies were introduced in an attempt to bridge the communication
gap between the student and their mentors.

During the first decade of the new twentieth century, the
philosophy of most colleges served to encourage responsible demo-
cratic citizenship. This reflected the changing current of American
life at the turn of the century. Student councils, extra-curricular
student activities and clubs, fraternities, inter-fraternity councils,
and other variation of the idea of self-government became widespread.

Over the past six decades students have been granted a wide
latitude in the day-to-day management of their own extra-curricular
student activities. Williamson noted, however, that students over the
years increasingly insisted that they be granted an opportunity to
participate in the actual making of general university policies as
opposed to just extra-curricular affairs policy-making.28 Undoubtedly
the scope and extent of participation today are much broader than they
were prior to World War II days even though evolution is not proceeding
today as quickly as some educators might wish. According to Harry H.
Lunn, Jr., the United States National Student Association, in 1955, found
that in its study of 486 college student governments regarding areas of
interest and action, that students were interested and involved in some
24 areas of university and college policy and decision-making either

directly or on a consultative basis.29 Of these areas, the functions

 

28Ibid., p. 378.

29Harry H. Lunn, Jr., The Student's Role i2 College Policy-Making.
Washington, D. 0.: American Council on Education, 1957, p. 19.

 

-37-

of determining and administering social-regulatory policies and

student discipline policies ranked among the top three in terms of
interest and some measure of involvement. The interest in these two
major areas is not too unusual since it affects students so directly

in their day-to-day life on campus. One phase of student participation
in these two areas about which there seems to remain major disagree-
ment is that of student-administered discipline, generally encompassed
by the concept of the student court or discipline committee. McKown,

in his book, The Student Council, noted that the student court move-

 

ment in America began to flourish during the "late twenties" and "early
thirties", but because of unfortunate experiences with this procedure,
it was soon eliminated as a policy in most colleges until it was
revived again just prior to World War II.30

The crux of objections on student competency in the area of
discipline is the belief of many educators that students do not have
the background to be involved in a wide variety of individual miscon-
duct cases. According to a study cited by Lunn, Jr., out of thirty-
five areas in which students were considered capable of taking action,
deans ranked student competence in the area of discipline as sixteenth.31
The literature on this subject also revealed that most college presidents
felt that discipline cases should be referred to the Dean of Students,
Dean of Men, Dean of Women or some other administrator.

During the greater part of the nineteenth century, the presidents

of an institution of higher education handled most of the administrative

 

30Harry G. McKown, The Student Council. New York: McGraw-Hill

Book Company, 1946, p. 265

-33-

tasks. In effect, he served as registrar, financier, admissions
director, disciplinarian, and dean of faculty. By the turn of the
century however, the growth in the number of students, plus increasing
campus activities had laid burdens upon the president which he was
unable to meet. At first the head of a college would follow the

usual method of naming several staff members to serve as a committee
on student affairs, designating a professor who had some qualifications
as chairman. In time, the problems, activities and social affairs,

in addition to such important matters as student government, loans,
and assistance, proved too much for the committee. In fact, as time
passed, discipline began to take up most of the committee's time.
According to Lindsay and Holland, "Faculty Discipline Committees be-

came very common during the first two decades of this century."32

Their function was to deal with various violations of campus rules and
regulations, or against public morals and decency. The student was
summoned before the committee, who sat on a jury and made disciplinary
decisions subject to review by the college president. But even a
committee solely responsible for discipline became bogged down and
took away time from the classroom. As a result, the offices' of deans
of men and women came into existence.

The new administrators were appointed as chief officers of disci-
pline of the college. They had to work out new techniques of approach
to student problems before their offices would justify the expense of

maintaining them. Lee33 noted that the disciplinary administrator

 

31Lunn, Jr., Op. Cit., p. 20.

32E. E. Lindsay, and E. 0. Holland, College and Universit
Administration. New York: The MaCMillen Company, 1930, p. 504.

33

 

Lee, Op. Cit. p. 36.

-39-

is the person students go to when they are in trOuble, when they
need an advocate, when they have a grievance to air. Regardless of
the title in the college catalogue, he is the official from whom
the derelict with a bad conscience expects a summons, and with whom
the "goof" knows he will eventually have to reckon. Sometimes the
duties of the dean are intricately departmentalized. Sometimes he
is labeled "Director of Student Activities", or "Student Welfare",
"Director of Student Personnel", or "Dean of Students" or "Student
Affairs". Lee went on to point out the rather humorous fact that
students don't pay too much attention to titles, for they have an
instinct for "sniffing their way” to the proper office regardless of
the title on the door. To students, the official to whom students
customarily go for their reckOnings is known simply as "the dean".
Lindsay and Holland, in discussing the functions and responsibil-
ities of the deans of men and women, indicated that these deans held
strategically important positions for they were the chief bonds
between the administration and the student body.34 Persons qualified
to hold this position must have the ability to work with young peOple.
To be successful, deans of men and women must be able to establish a
rapport with students, win and hold their respect and confidence.
Deans must on the other hand, also be able to cooperate with faculty
colleagues and interpret the rules of conduct set by the faculty and

administration. They should without doubt be in close touch wiflithe

 

34Lindsay and Holland, Op. Cit., p. 27

-40-

president to keep an open channel of communication. The reason for
this close relationship between the president and the dean of students,
according to Woodburne, "...is that when any situation occurs or any
problem arises on the campus, the president is the one who is held
responsible even though the dean of students may have been the person
who made the decision; the president's office will either take the
"heat" of an unpopular decision or will get the credit for a wise
decision".35

But despite all that, this responsibility has implied for the
deans in terms of status over the past years, Lee observed, that "the
dean is still the most misunderstood character in the academic pro-
cession. In the eyes of the public and many students, he is "the
campus spoil-sport, the man who orders the vital tackle out of action
just before the big home game, the temperance agitator who has an
over-whelming aversion to bourbon and beer,...the symbol of authority

against whom university riots are waged,"36

Alternately then, the dean, depending upon the situation at hand,
is a sort of pastor and policeman, teacher and tyrant, sympathetic
counselor and condemning judge. There are times when he is probably
forced into the ambiguous position of representing the whole reach of
law enforcement, and, in succession, serves as detective, prosecutor,
defendant, jury, and judge for a single infraction. These are pre-

cisely the reasons why the dean must understand the dynamics involved

 

35Lloyd S. Woodburne, Principles 2f College and University Ad-
ministration. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1958, p. 172.

 

 

36Lee, Op. Cit., p. 33

-41-

in his interaction with other people. For in a way he is custodian
of the best interest of all, and more specifically, he is the
cohesive element between students, faculty members, administrators,
and the public.

Although the Dean of Student Personnel Services is a conventional
fixture today, it became apparent after World War I that the Dean
himself could not possibly handle the multitude of behavioral problems
that continued to come to the fore with increased enrollments. By
the 1920's most colleges and universities were busy perfecting various
systems of freshmen counselling. At first there was little debate
about the role of the counselor in personnel work. It was generally
accepted that a counselor could be one who not only talked with a
student and advised him but also one who could in some measure be in-
volved in the administering of discipline. Hence, for many years

counselors assisted the "Deans of Students" in the disciplinary

37 the purpose

counselling process. According to Williamson and Foley,
of disciplinary counselling was to take action against a student in a
given case to help him learn, or relearn the type of behavior which
is acceptable to the group, the institution and to himself.

By the early 1940's, however, a serious question was raised in
the field of counselling as to whether or not the counselling function
and the disciplinary function could be integrated successfully and

coped with by one person on the staff regardless of his title. This

question erupted into a full scale debate with the publication of

 

37E. G. Williamson and J. D. Foley, Counselling and Discipline.
New York: 'McGraw Hill Book Company, Inc., 1949, p. 26.

 

 

_42-

Carl Rogers', Counselling and Psychotherapy in 1942. Rogers, a

 

psycholgist, questioned whether a therapeutic relationship was com-
patible with authority. This produced a healthy but violent debate
among student personnel workers, for essentially what Rogers was
asking, was whether it was possible for a counselor to also be a
disciplinarian.38 He concluded that therapy and authority could not
co-exist, noting that the mixture of the two functions nearly always
proved unsuccessful in helping to establish a good relationship with
the student. To Rogers, a separation of the counselling function
from authoritative functions in our schools and colleges was an
absolute necessity.

This recognition of the need to separate the counselling function
from the disciplinary function was lauded by such authorities as
Arbuck1e39, Cortale40, and Maslowal. Counselling, according to the
client-centered theory expressed by Roger was meant to be "ego-

strengthening", and "self-regulatory", avoiding any impositions or

 

38Carl R. Rogers, Counselling and Psychotherapy. Boston: Houghton-
Mifflin Company, 1942, p. 108.

 

39Dugald S. Arbuckle. Student Personnel Services 22 Higher
Education. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1953, p. 138.

 

4OMichael J. Cortale. "Counselors and Discipline", Personnel
and Guidance Journal, 39 (January, 1961), pp. 349-351.

 

41Abraham H. Maslow. Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper,
1954, p. 137.

 

-43-

42

restrictions in dealing with the client. The miscreant, noted Lee ,

was not to be approached with authoritarianism or threat so that he
might be more agreeable to accepting an inviting course of rehabili-
tation. Discipline, on the other hand, was repressive, regulatory
and punitive; it was "drum-head justice".

The argument as to whether or not a counselor should be involved
in the administration of discipline still rages on in many circles
of education administration. Novak, exclaimed in the Phi Deta Kappan
recently, "Unless the counselor is freed to counsel, his service will
be ineffectual and largely wasted. Too many schools expect counselors
to administer discipline".43 Cortale44 in his survey of fifty prin-
cipals in twenty-eight school districts in Nassau County, Long Island,
regarding their practices in the use of counselors as disciplinarians,
found that fifty percent of the principals felt counselors should
handle minor discipline problems. Those that opposed the involvement
of counselors in the disciplinary process did not do so because they
felt a counselor couldn't handle this role effectively, but rather be-
cause other load factors and time posed a limitations problem.
Cortale asserts that the rapport, acceptance, and understanding
essential to a counselling situation are an impossible realization, if
the counselor is responsible for discipline. However, he could assist

in preventing the repetition of a disciplinary case by helping the

 

42Lee, Op. Cit., p. 158.

43Benjamin J. Novak, "Let the Counselor Counsel". The Phi Delta
Kappan, 43 (January, 1962), p. 171.

 

44Cortale, loc. cit., pp. 349-351.

-44-

student to analyze his case and understand the reason for a penalty.
Lee sums up the views of those who believe that counselling and
disciplining can remain as one, in the process of helping a student
to change his behavior, by quoting a college dean who said,
Discipline is not bad, unnatural, conducive to
frustration, ego-damaging, or repressive. The
corrective definition of discipline is training which
corrects, molds, strengthens, and perfects. Learning
is impossible without discipline. Students do not
reject discipline unless they have been conditioned to
do so. Most individuals recognize the need for discip-
line and are uncomfortable without it. The counselor
must recognize that the individual who is in need of
discipline is in no way different from the counselee
who evidences other problems of adjustment.45
Essentially, the dean is saying that rapport is possible when discipline
is a function of the counselor - just as rapport exists between par-
ents and children.
The historical changes in the administration of discipline has
been revealed in the literature. Disagreements as to the extent various
college personnel should become involved in the area of student conduct,
discipline, and citizenship, are still a matter of debate. However, it
must be stated that in recent years there has been virtually complete
agreement on the best approach to discipline by most college person-
nel involved in this process. The "corrective approach" seems to be
favored over the purely "punitive" approach to discipline. According

to Weinhoff46, the disciplinarian cannot forget that it is his basic

responsibility to foster a change of attitude which will in turn,

 

45Lee, Op. Cit., p. 158.

46J. F. Weinhoff, ”What Are Some Good Practices in Handling Student
Discipline?" Bulletin 2£,N§F19H l Asspeiatign_g£,Secondaty_School
Principals, 44, (April, 1960), pp. 68-70.

-45-

hopefully modify a student's behavior. Good practice in discipline
must always involve a "positive" approach. The student must be able
to see the justice of the action taken. This conviction is still
shared by most student personnel workers today. Punishment without
the goal of restoration of acceptable behavior is a lazy way of solv-
ing the problems of students with regards to their conduct and

observance of institutional social regulatory policies.
THE DEVELOPMENT OF SOCIAL REGULATORY POLICIES AND RULES

Most colleges and universities in the United States are controlled
by a board which has been given official legal authority to govern all
aspects of the institution. These boards are usually made up of lay
citizens rather than professional educators and are designated by a
variety of official titles. The most common of these is the "Board of
Trustees". Regardless of titles, however, the salient fact is that
these boards, in particular, Community College boards, are public
agencies and the ultimate controlling power and responsibility for
developing the objectives and social values of the institution rest
with them.

Each board, in order to carry its objectives, esPecially with
respect to student conduct, citizenship, and discipline, must adopt
policies which, when enacted, will cause these objectives to be ac-
complished. Once having adopted those policies necessary to provide
broad guidelines for discretionary action relative to student conduct
and discipline, which permit administrators to establish rules to

regulate the social conduct of students, the board's third major respon-

-46-

sibility is to appraise the functional results of its policies.

According to Rislov"7

, the very success of a board depends on how
sincerely it concerns itself with the development of policies. A
board can evade its policy-making task but it cannot nullify its
ultimate responsibility, for this responsibility is essentially the
reason for its existence. Spalding48 noted that in the case of
student conduct and discipline, especially, trustees tend to often
neglect to formulate policies governing the administration of disci-
pline. Yet these very policies are what is needed as an administrative
guideline to help the administrator act with a consisflfframe of
references.

In 1962, a study of Board Policy Manuals 13 California Public

Junior Colleges was made by Kintzer49. He noted that, in a survey

 

 

 

made (in 1952) during the St. Louis Convention of the National School
Boards Associated, only 35 percent of the schools represented had
written policies. The use of written policy manuals has increased
since 1952, however, it has only been in recent years that emphasis
has been placed on improving the effectiveness of local boards with
regards to the development of more functional and reasonable policies
governing student conduct and discipline. After completing his

research analysis of 23 community college policy manuals, Kintzer

 

47Sigurd Rislov, "The Board's Responsibility". Junior Collegg
'Journal, 35, (September, 1964), pp. 9-11.

 

48Howard G. Spalding, "What Boardmen Should Know and Do About
Discipline". American School Board Journal, 140, (March, 1960). pp. 18-21

 

9

Frederick C. Kintzer. Board Policy Manuals in California Junior
Colleges. (Junior College Leadership Program) Los Angeles: University
of California, January, 1962. -

-47-

indicated that few manuals reviewed, clearly distinguished between
policy and rules and regulations. He further stressed that the goal
of an efficient community college operation could best be reached

by separating board policy from what should be defined as rules and
regulations -- hence, clearly indicating the relationships between
the board of trustees and its administrative staff.

Most significantly related to this study was Kintzer's frequency
tables listing items pertaining to student conduct, discipline, and
citizenship that were included in the policy manuals of the twenty-
three junior colleges studied. Of the twenty-three manuals reviewed,
the following number of junior colleges had policies listed on the
following subjects:50

1. Smoking, drinking, gambling, hazing, etc. - 2

2. Clubs and organizations - 8

3. Neatness of Dress - 2

4. Secret societies - 2

5. Political activities of students - l

6. Probation and retention - 6

7. Suspension and exclusion - 10
Kintzer concluded that junior college boards did not tend to concern
themselves as much with student activities and student behavior as
they did to other educational business.

Williamson and Cowan agreed with Kintzer's conclusion in their

research on academic freedom for students. They stated that "at the

 

50Ibid., pp. 35-36.

-43-

outset of research we realized that there would be many patterns of
administrative operation, yet we assumed that the existence of
codified policies specifying the institutional position concerning
most aspects of student academic freedom, particularly the various
modes of student expression, would guide presidential decision making
in crisis situations. We were startled to discover that, with the
exception of policies regarding off-campus speakers, only 6 percent
of the responding presidents reported the existence of written
policies for any mode of student expression."51
In her survey of seventy hand books of small colleges and

universities, Carter found that most colleges and universities have
their policies, rules, and regulations on student conduct listed in
their student handbooks.52 This may well account for the paucity of
written policies in this area in board manuals.

A search of the literature revealed that writers tended to shy
away from stating the specific rules or policies that should be set
up to govern student conduct and discipline. It was felt that these
would differ with each institution depending on its community setting.
However, most authors urged that policy statements should, whenever
possible, be written in a "positive" manner rather than a "negative"
one and that they should be developed with the cooperative involve-

ment of students, faculty, and administration.

 

51E. G Williamson and John L. Cowan, "Academic Freedom for Students:
Issues and Guidelines." The College and the Student, edited by Laurence
E. Dennis and Joseph F. Kaufman. Washington D.C.: American Council
on Education, 1966, pp. 268-269.

 

52Cornelia Carter, "Survey of Handbooks in Small Colleges and
Universities," Junior Collegg Journal, 22, (May, 1952) pp. 508-509.

-49-

According to Lozo53

, the value of a student conduct policy lies
mainly in how it was evolved and promoted. He noted that it is not
the code of conduct that matters but rather it is the spirit that
recognizes the need for one, the cOOperation of all in developing
one, and the earnest desire to keep it working democratically over
the years.

The first half of this century saw faculty members becoming more
involved with the development of policies through the organization of
faculty advisory committees or the faculty senates. Today most in-
stitutions in higher education seek the advice of their faculty
committees before determining major policies. This is not true
however in the case of student involvement in the policy-making
process. Williamson and Cowan observed in their study of 1,000 four-
year colleges and universities, that students only held membership on

policy-advisory committees in approximately sixty percent of the

schools surveyed.54

In this regard Paul Woodring, Education Editor of the Saturday
Review, noted that "a properly organized student body with responsible
leadership can play a useful role in making policy on matters of student
discipline, since regulations governing student behavior should reflect

the mores of the current college generation as well as those of the

 

53John P. Lozo, "Can Conduct Codes Favorably Affect Student Attitudes
and Behavior?" Bulletin of the National Association of Secondary School
Principals, 44, (April, 1960) pp. 130-131.

 

 

 

5"E. G. Williamson and John L. Cowan, The American Student's Freedom
‘2: Expression. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1966, p. 134.

 

 

-50-

larger community." 55

From Woodring's point of View involvement of students in the
development of student discipline policies should not be construed
as a superficial process, for if it is the process will break down.

Keeton, for example, noted that too often campus student govern-
ment and college life were so organized and conducted as to arrest
development toward mature responsibility. The areas in which students
had authority and responsibility were often trivial, and their attempts
to influence significant matters were so rebuffed as to discourage
their learning responsible methods of democratic action.56 This is
indeed valid criticism of colleges who manipulate students in a process
of continuous "wheel-spinning."

On the other hand, in colleges where the line between adminis—
tration, faculty, and students disappears, in an attempt to assure
the student that he is an equal, the student is often plunged into
decision-making areas in which he is unprepared. In this respect,
Henderson, as did other writers, cautioned that there should be under-

standing of the scope of responsibility delegated to student groups.

 

He said,

Educational progress is a professional under-
taking and it is essential that faculty and ad-
ministration have full authority over it and student

55

Paul Woodring, "Who Makes University Policy." Beyond Berkeley,
edited by C. G. Katope and P. G. Zolbrod. Cleveland: The WOrld
Publishing Company, 1966, p. 150.

 

SéMorris Keeton, "The Climate of Learning in College", College and
University Bulletin, 15, (November, 1962) pp. 1-5.

 

-51-

relationships to it. Students should participate,
but not control. It does not promote the welfare
of the group as a whole to become democratic toS7
the extent that every body decides everything.
Other literature reviewed by the writer agreed with the author
cited above that students, if given intelligent ground rules, can
effectively participate in policy making, most especially in the area

of student affairs which, to be sure, involves student conduct and

discipline in some measure.
COMMUNICATION OF SOCIAL-REGULATORY POLICIES AND RULES

It is of little value for any community college to go through the
formalities of utilizing the collective efforts of many individuals
to help in the development of written policies, rules and regulations
governing student conduct and citizenship unless students are in some
way informed of them and given some understanding of the reason for
their adoption. The best way to disseminate this type of information
to students has long been a concern to deans and other personnel
workers charged with responsibilities in this area. Many simply
publish written policies, rules and regulations regarding conduct
and citizenship in student handbooks, college bulletins or student
newspaper, assuming, hopefully, that most students will read them.
Others mailed them home in the form of a brochure or had them posted
on campus bulletin boards or discussed them at student assemblies or

orientation sessions. Films and similar media have also been tried

 

57Algo D. Henderson, Policies and Practices ip Higher Education.
New York: Harper and Brothers, 1960, p. 235.

 

 

-52-

and found effective in a number of instances.

Although the procedures mentioned have met with varying degrees
of success depending on how they were planned and the type of
institutional environment in which they were utilized, an examination
of the literature indicated that most colleges favored Orientation
days, Orientation or Freshmen Weeks, and Orientation classes as the
best methods to use to orient their new students to college life.

From the point of view of the college, Blocker58 noted that
orientation programs provide the means by which students may be
informed of specific regulations designed to facilitate their orderly
intergration into the student body. Students, during orientation,
are also explained new terms usually not known to entering college
freshmen. ‘More specifically, the institution expectations of the new
students regarding academic standards, social conduct and citizenship
are thoroughly discussed. It is at this time also that the different
activities and student personnel services offered to students are
introduced and explained so that students can effectively utilize
them as the need arises.

Eddy59, in his book, The College Influence 23 Student Character,

 

 

especially emphasized that of all the discussions planned for an
orientation program it was most important for a college to go out of
its way -- in fact, sometimes far out of its way -- to make known

the under-lying postulates of its program in student conduct and

 

58Clyde E. Blocker, Et. al., Op. Cit., p. 257

59Edward D. Eddy, The College Influence pp Student Character.
Washington, D. C. American Council on Education, 1959, p. 100.

 

-53-

citizenship. Misunderstandings well up quickly. He said, if there
were sound reasons behind the rules, and these were made known to
students, that students were quick to understand both the reasons and
the rules.
Orientation programs should not be planned merely as vehicles
for administrative lectures, but they should rather, according to
Arbuckle, "utilize the services of the entire faculty and of some
of the student body to assist the incoming students as much as possible."60
To this extent new students can recognize the various points of view
from students, faculty members and administrators. And most important,

that orientation is a COOperative venture designed to welcome and assist

students.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS 92 STUDENT CONDUCT AND DISCIPLINE

 

Most charters of institutions of higher education have been
founded under the grants of power extended by the state legislatures
or in some cases, state constitutions. Boards of trustees have gen—
erally been given broad authority to govern and manage their colleges
and universities including the implicit grant to enforce compliance
with those policies and regulations which they establish.61 As it
was noted in Chapter I, the predominant number of community colleges

in Michigan function under this type of broad authority granted by

legislative enactments. Under this type of statute, a board appears

 

6OArbuckle, Op. Cit., p. 68.

61Clarence J. Bakken, The Legal Basis for College Student Personnel
Work. Washington, D. C.: The American College Personnel Association,
1961, pp. 5-7 & 31-32

 

-54-

to have full control over discipline and can delegate its authority

on discipline to the administrators or faculty of the school; that is,
it may assign the responsibility for developing and enforcing rules
and regulations within the framework of board policy to carry

out the various programs and services of the college.

The courts generally have not interfered with disciplinary
action when it was found that it was exercised without malice and for
the best interests of the student body as a whole. In fact, for
years administrators have lawfully restricted and controlled the
actions of students basing their decisions on the concept of "in loco
parentis." Blackwell, writing on college law, cited the court case
involving Berea College in 1913 as an example where this principle of
law was well stated.62 The college in this case prohibited its
students through regulations from entering public eating establishments
in the community. The owners of the restaurants pressed for a court
injunction to force the college to rescind its action. The court,
however, sustained the right of the college to control its students in
the following words:

College authorities stand 15 loco parentis
concerning the physical and moral welfare

and mental training of pupils. For the
purposes of this case, the school, its officers
and students are a legal entity, as much so as
any family, and, like a father may direct his
children, those in charge of boarding schools

are well within their rights and powers when
they direct their students what to eat and

 

 

62Thomas Edward Blackwell, College Law - A Guide for Administrators.

Washington, D. C.: The American Council on EdEcation, 1961, p. 104.

 

-55-
where they may get it; where they may go and what
forms of amusement are forbidden.

The position of public colleges to exercise sufficient supervision
over its students and their social organizations was legally re-
affirmed in many subsequent court decisions, one major one occurring
in 1954. The State University of New York Board of Trustees, in 1953,
resolved by policy that no social organization permitted in any state -
operated unit of the State University shall directly or indirectly
affiliate itself with any national or other organization outside the
particular campus unit or shall operate under any rule which bars a
student on account of race, color, religion, creed, national origin
or other artificial criteria. Six national fraternities petitioned a
federal district court to void the policy on the basis that it de-
prived students of their civil rights to assemble and affiliate with
an organization of their choice. The judge ruled in favor of the
State University of New‘York.64 Although the case was appealed, the
Supreme Court of the United States refused to hear the case thereby
upholding the district court's decision.

In general then, publicly supported colleges and universities
have the power to set up rules and regulations regarding the admission
and supervision of a student. However, the highest court of our land

has, since 1954, clearly enunciated that no student may be deprived

 

63Gott v. Berea College, 156 Ry. 376, 161 s.w. 204 (1913).

6Z'Webb v. State University of New York, 120 F Supp. 554, 125 F.

Supp. 910 (N.D. N.Y. 1954).

-56-

admission to a publicly supported college or in any way be restricted
in his activities solely on the basis of race or color if otherwise
he is eligible to participate as a student.

Other than those cases that have been tested in the courts be-
cause of a claim of racial prejudice, most court cases involving the
student disciplinary procedures or the social-regulatory policies
of institutions of higher education have been heard mainly on the
contention that the institution had grossly violated due process
procedures in considering the facts of the case or because the rules
or regulations of the institution were thought unreasonable and
detrimental to the welfare of the student.

One of the most important judicial decisions concerning pro-
cedural due process as it relates to a student's rights is the case
of Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Education, decided in 1961.65
This case involved six Negro students who were excluded from the
Alabama State College in Montgomery, Alabama, just after there was a
”sit-in" at a publicly-owned grill located in the county courthouse in
Montgomery. Although the students received a letter informing them
of their expulsion from school, they were not notified previous to
their being expelled of any charges against them nor were they given
any opportunity to be heard. The students assumed their expulsion

was related to their alleged participation in the "sit-in" demonstration.

 

65Clark Byse, "Procedure in Student Dismissal Proceedings: Law
and Policy," Journal of College Student Personnel, GHarch, 1963),
pp. 130-143.

-57-

The case reached the U. S. Court of Appeals where Judge Rives,

a highly regarded member of the Federal Judiciary handed down the
majority opinion which was eventually sustained by the U. 8. Supreme
Court. The majority opinion favored the student complaintants who
requested that the college be restrained from preventing their attend-
ance at the school. This historic decision was based on the proposi-
tion that whenever a government body acts so as to injure an
individual, the Constitution requires that the act be consonant with
due process of law. Judge Rives found that the students were injured
without due process in that they were dismissed without proper notice
or foundation of the charges against them or the opportunity to be
heard in their own defense. This in turn deprived the students of
sufficient education to earn an adequate livelihood, to enjoy life to
the fullest, or to fulfill their duties as completely as possible as
citizens. The court further held void the right of a public in-
stitution of higher education to condition the agreements with its
students or the granting of privileges upon the renunciation of the
constitutional right to procedural due process.

Since the Dixon v. the Alabama State Board of Education decision,
many public institutions of higher education have taken a second look
at their social-regulatory policies and student disciplinary pro-
cedures. Increasingly, colleges and universities have shied away from
specific regulations and restrictions regarding off-campus behavior,
leaving much of this concern to become a matter of civil law. This

move is supported by Professor John R. McDonough who recently stated

-58-

that "universities should seriously consider abandoning a quasi-
parental role in setting and enforcing general standards of conduct
for students."66 The Standford University Law School Professor in-
stead suggested that the University's concern should not be as much
with whether a student's conduct conforms to the requirements of

good citizenship as it should be with whether the student's continued
association...would appear to create unacceptable risks to its on-
going educational enterprise. Rather than acting as a moral preceptor
to students, the university as propietor of its campus would promulgate
rules and regulations to insure the health, safety, and mutual con-
venience of all of its members in the academic community. In this
setting students would be treated the same as any other member of the
university's community. Since it is not the proprietor of off-campus
physical domains, the university would entrust the students conduct
off-campus to judgement under civil law.

James A. Perkins, President of Cornell University, was recently
quoted as saying, "The student, in large part by his own choice, is
moving away from the general protection of the academic community into
the general domain of civil law. Education, even higher education, at
public institutions, has become a constitutional right, not just a
privilege, and that right cannot be denied arbitrarily without the

prospect of constitutional review."67 In recent times, more and more

 

66J. R. McDonough, "Standards of Conduct", Schools and Society,
95, (April, 1967) p. 244

67Earl Gottschalk, "Student Power: College Militants Seek Policy
Voice, Stirring Turmoil", The Wall Street Journal, 85, (February 14, 1968)
p. 12. ‘

 

 

-59-

students are taking to the civil courts to sue universities over rules
regarding the setting of fees, curfew hours, freedom to demonstrate,
freedom of speech, etc., and student disciplinary actions. According
to Martha Peterson, former Dean of Student Affairs of The University
of Wisconsin, there is no question that areas of disavowals and
conflict between institutional policies and student values exist. At
the proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual National Conference in Higher
Education, in April, 1964, she stated the following:

Whether these disavowals and conflicts lead to
disruptive controversy or enhancement of learning
opportunities depends to a large measure on the
attitude and practices of an institution in handling
the questions that arise. If an institution provides
a clear and reasonable statement of its intent, dis-
plays willingness to discuss Openly areas in which
students and institutional policies differ, and
guarantees to the students the right of due process
and just penalties, the educational processes should
be enhanced rather than hindered by differences of
opinion; and campus living experiences will have a
direct relationship to the continuing experiences of
a student as a citizen in any community. 8

Although Community Colleges do not have to contend with the
massive problems connected with student housing or dormitory controls,
their problems with student policies and disciplinary procedures are
on a much lesser scale the same with regards to students' rights and
due process. Like other institutions of Continuing and Higher
Education they must be aware of the need to establish clear and

cogently formulated policies that can bear the test of legal challenge

and command the respect of their academic communities.

 

68Martha Peterson, "What Principles Should Govern Decisions When
Students Disavow Institutional Policies?" Nineteenth Annual Conference
‘12 Higher Education, Association for Higher Education, (April, 1964)
pp. 92 and 93.

 

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

 

Chapter two presented a review of the literature pertinent to this
study. The methods of research employed to investigate the topic
selected for this dissertation are described in this chapter.

The procedures used included a search of the literature and other
sources of data for information related to the study and the use of an
interview questionnaire to aid the writer to ascertain the views and
judgements of twelve disciplinary administrators regarding the social-
regulatory practices of their respective community colleges, the process
of selection of twelve community colleges visited, and an explanation of

the treatment of the data collected.

SOURCES 93 DATA

The data gathered for the purposes of this research project were

obtained from a number of different sources. They are listed as follows:

1. A review of the literature pertaining to the historical back-
ground of the subject, and a review of various articles and

books dealing with related aspects of this study.

2. A review of college publications such as student handbooks,
faculty policy manuals, college catalogues, college bulletins

and announcements and school newspapers.

3. Interviews with twelve disciplinary administrators associated

with the colleges selected for this study.

-61-
4. NeWSpaper articles reporting current news items related to

the study area.

REVIEW 9;; COLLEGE PUBLICATIONS

A review of publications and materials of a number of community
colleges and four year institutions of higher education was undertaken
as a preliminary step for developing an interview guide to be used for
interviews with the disciplinary administrators. The purpose of this
procedure was mainly to give the writer a better understanding of the
general concerns and philosophies of different colleges with respect to
their social-regulatory practices, with particular emphasis upon those
policies and rules governing student conduct and discipline. Some of
these publications were found at the Michigan State University and
Wayne State University libraries, while others were received from public
community colleges in Michigan that had enrollments of at least 1500
full-time day students. These colleges were listed in the 1967 American
Directory of Junior Colleges.

The college publications reviewed gave the author of this study an
excellent overview of the extent and ways that various colleges published
social-regulatory policies and rules in their student handbooks, faculty
manuals, bulletins and brochures. The information gleaned from reviewing
these publications formed the basis from which the author formulated the
questions that later comprised the interview guide used to interview the

disciplinary administrators.

DATA-GATHERING INSTRUMENT USED FOR INTERVIEWS

After a most helpful discussion with the author's doctoral guidance

committee, and after seriously considering the various methods that

-62-
could be employed to collect data for this disseration, it was deter-
mined that the most effective and practical way to secure accurate data
for the proposed study was to visit the twelve community colleges
selected for the study and interview the disciplinary administrators
regarding their views on the subject being researched.

As noted previously, the author made a preliminary review of the
literature and of a variety of college publications from which information
was gleaned to help formulate one-hundred-fifty questions which were
grouped into four major areas. This was done so as to obtain data for
the study according to the proposed chapter outlines. They are listed

as follows:

1. General Information
A. Name of College
B. Enrollment

C. Name and experience of the disciplinary administrator

2. The extent and origin of social-regulatory policies and rules
of the institutions under study.
A. Extent of Policies and Rules at each institution.

B. Personnel involved in policy formulation.

3. Effective methods of communicating social-regulatory policies

and rules.

A. written publications

B. Orientation Sessions

-63-
4. Enforcement of social-regulatory policies and rules.
A. Extent of the Problem
B. Contributory factors
C. Enforcement practices
1. Role of disciplinary administrator
2. Role of Counsellor
3. Role of faculty
4. Role of student

5. Legal Implications - due process

Although the questions were formulated to obtain a positive or negative
response from the responder, the interview approach permitted the
interviewer to rephrase any questions that were not clear. A mailed
questionnaire would not have provided this freedom of instrument clarifi-
cation. The instrument was used to record the viewpoints and judgments
of the disciplinary administrators. A copy of the instrument used as

the interview guide can be found in the appendix.
INTERVIEWS WITH DISCIPLINARY ADMINISTRATORS

Interviews with the disciplinary administrators of the twelve com-
munity colleges selected for this study were arranged by personal phone
calls. The disciplinary administrators interviewed are listed in the
appendix.

Each of the interviews was held in the campus office of the adminis-
trator in charge of discipline. All of the disciplinary administrators
visited were generous enough to set aside an adequate amount of time for

an uninterrupted interview. The interviews were initiated by the inter-

~64-

viewer, who briefly explained the purpose of the study. The person
being interviewed was assured that his comments and responses to the
questions asked would not be identified by college. In each instance
informality and a very relaxed atmosphere were the rule rather than the
exception. Although the interview guide was designed as a forced
choice type of instrument, the disciplinary administrators were encour-
aged to comment on their answers to certain questions to give the inter-
viewer a better understanding of the reasons behind their responses.
Most interviews lasted over two hours with one or two lasting a lesser
amount of time.

It is interesting to note that each disciplinary administrator was
very anxious to know how the other administrators responded to the same
questions. Each was assured that upon the completion of the study, a

composite chart of their combined responses would be sent to them.

SELECTION OF THE COMMUNITY COLLEGES FOR VISITATIONS

In selecting the community colleges to be visited for the personal
interviews, several factors were taken into consideration. These factors

are described in the following paragraphs.

._§i£S - One of the factors in the selection process was the number
of full-tflme day students enrolled in the community college. The study
'was limited to those community colleges with an enrollment of more than
fifteen-hundred day students. The colleges selected for visitation ranged

in size from approximately 1502 students to more than six-thousand students.

-65-

Location - The second factor considered important in selecting the
colleges to be visited was that of location. It was considered important
because colleges with a rural or suburban setting would most likely
differ with regards to the types of student behavorial problems and ad-
ministrative vieWpoints, from colleges located in a larger urban or
metropolitan area. Eight of the colleges selected had urban settings,
two had suburban settings and two, rural settings, drawing students

however from both rural and urban populations.

Disciplinaty Administrator's experience - The third factor which the

 

researcher considered in selecting the colleges for this study was the
experience of the disciplinary administrator in terms of years of service.
It was felt that the person in charge of student discipline and respon-
sible for the effective communication of student social-regulatory policies
and rules, should have held his position for at least two years. Hence,
all disciplinary administrators included in the study served in their
present position for at least two years. The writer wished to avoid
interviewing an individual newly appointed to his position, because he
might have been inadvertently placed in an awkward situation as a person

just getting oriented to the job.
TREATMENT OF DATA

Upon completion of the interviews with each of the twelve disciplin-
ary administrators, the questionnaire-type guides were filed separately
along with the handbooks, manuals, bulletins, catalogues, brochures,
and newspapers received from the colleges visited.

To facilitate the handling of the data recorded during the inter-

view, a master chart was made for each major section of the questionnaire

-66-
guide that related to the topic outline of the dissertation proposal.
Responses to questions for each of the sections of the interview were
recorded positively or negatively under each college name, thus providing
for greater ease and efficiency in tabulating the data.

Statistical treatment of the data was accomplished as simply as
possible. Quantitative data that could be subjected to statistical
analysis were not considered as important for the purposes of this study
as were the comments of the disciplinary administrators in response to
the specific questions. However, since each question ultimately required
a forced choice response, simple tabulations were made to provide a
reference point for the disciplinary administrators interviewed as to an
overview of current practices.

After tabulating and analyzing the data gathered, conclusions,
recommendations and implications for future research were drawn from the

findings.

SUMMARY

This chapter described the methodology followed in gathering the
data used for the purposes of this study. The sources of data were
identified. They included (1) literature and research related to the
study (2) various publications and other written materials of the col-
leges selected for this study and other institutions of higher education,
(3) and interviews with the disciplinary administrators of the twelve
community colleges involved in the study.

The means used to secure data for the study were described and

factors considered in selecting the colleges to be visited for the purpose

-67-
of interviews were explained. The procedure followed in arranging for
the interviews was also explained, as was the setting and conduct of
the interviews. The explanation of the treatment and handling of the

data gathered for this study concluded the chapter.

CHAPTER IV

WRITTEN POLICIES AND RULES - EXTENT AND ORIGIN

 

The previous chapters have presented a background for this research
study, reviewed the literature of the subject and described the
methodology used in securing the necessary data for this report. Find-
ings of the study are reported in this chapter and the following chapters
of this dissertation.

In this chapter, findings concerning general information about the
colleges visited are briefly discussed, and the extent (scope) and origin
of social-regulatory policies and rules are analyzed. The origin of
policies and rules refers to the formulator of such rules and policies,
such as the board of trustees, the disciplinary administrator, the
student government, the faculty or a combination of these persons dele-

gated this responsibility.

GENERAL INFORMATION

The interviews with the disciplinary administrators of the twelve
community colleges visited provided the researcher with certain general
information about each college, data regarding the size of the college
in terms of full-time enrollment, and the official title of the discip-
linary administrator, and his years of service. Findings in these areas

are listed below.

Size 2f Colleges Visited
The colleges visited ranged in size from a low of 1502 full-time day

students to a high of more than six-thousand such students. Total enroll-

-69-
ment, including both day and evening students, ranged from a low of
twenty-three-hundred-and-seventy—five students to a high of eleven-
thousand, six-hundred students. The enrollment figures of the fall,
1967, semester at the selected colleges, as approximated by the

disciplinary administrator of the college, are shown in Table I.

TITLE OF DISCIPLINARY ADMINISTRATOR

In Chapter II, the literature reviewed did not reveal any standard
title for the disciplinary administrator at the college level. Although
the position is referred to by a variety of different titles, most of
the deans interviewed noted that to the students they were usually refer-
red to simply as "the dean". The twelve disciplinary administrators of
the colleges visited represented six different titles. The most common
title used was "Dean of Student Personnel Services". Five community
colleges used this title. It is interesting to note that none used the
titles "dean of women" or "dean of men". The official titles of the
twelve administrators in charge of discipline are shown in Table 2. The
range for the years of service, in their official capacities, for the
administrators interviewed was from a low of two years to a high of
twenty-two years. It should be noted however that seventy-five percent
of the administrators interviewed held their present positions for less

than four years, and fifty percent not over two years.

-70-

TABLE I

1967 Fall Enrollment Figures of Colleges Visited

for Personal Interviews - As Stated by Disciplinary

Administrator

 

 

Name of

Community College

 

Delta

Flint

Grand Rapids
Henry Ford
Highland Park
Jackson
Lansing
Macomb
Oakland
Schoolcraft
St. Clair

Washtenaw

Bell-£3112

2750
4900
3015
6400
2090
1502
3200
4243
4800
1969
1560

1600

Approximate Enrollment

Evening

2000
4400
1500
5200
1610
1659
1700
6154

700
1937

900

775

Other

750

Total

5400
9300
5031
11600
3700
3161
4900
10397
5500
3906
2460

2375

 

 

-71-

TAPE—2

Titles of Disciplinary Administrators

at Twelve Selected Community Colleges

 

 

 

 

Official Title of NUmber of Colleges
Disciplinary Administrator Using Title
Assistant Dean of Student Services 1

Dean of Students 2

Dean of Student Affairs 2

Dean of Student Personnel Services 5

Director of Student Affairs 1

Director of Student Personnel Services 1

 

 

-72-

EXTENT OF PRESENT POLICIES AND RULES DELIMITING STUDENT CONDUCT

The first set of questions during the interviews with the
disciplinary administrators was concerned with the extent of written
policies and rules regarding student conduct, discipline, and
citizenship. Data were also secured that revealed the types of
college publications in which current policies and rules appeared.

In instances where the college did not have written policies or
rules in certain areas of conduct, the disciplinary administrator
recognized the possible value of written policies or rules in those
areas which would help to clarify the institutional expectations of

student conduct and citizenship.

AREAS OF WRITTEN SOCIAL-REGULATORY POLICIES AND RULES

Thirty areas of student conduct policies or rules had been listed
in the interview guide form, and the disciplinary administrator was
asked if his community college had written rules or policies in each
of these areas. If he answered negatively, he was then asked to
respond as to whether or not a rule or policy in that area of conduct
would be helpful. The findings are described in the following para-

graphs and are summarized in Table 3.

Student Rights - Only four of the twelve community colleges claimed to

 

have written policies defining the rights of students. An examination
of the student handbooks and catalogues of the institutions answering

in the affirmative revealed that only three of these colleges actually

-73-

had published these policies and that of the three that had done so,
only two were specific in their statements. Of the eight disciplinary
administrators who noted that they had no written policy in this

area, six felt that it would be helpful to have this area defined by

policy while two did not see a need for it.

General Responsibilities and duties 2; student citizens - Nine out of

 

the twelve colleges had broad policy statements in this area reflect-
ing institutional expectations. The disciplinary administrators of
the three institutions that had no policy statement in this area all
stated that they would prefer one to clarify institutional expectations.
One institution published the following policy statement in this area:
As part of the privilege attendant upon
academic freedom, students are expected
to act with a high-mindedness which

integrates self into the well-being of
the total community.

 

Dress and personal appearance - Eight of the community colleges visited
had written statements defining acceptable standards of dress and
appearance of students. The statements on dress and appearance in all
cases except two, gave specific examples of apparel that would be
acceptable for campus wear (some according to seasons) and at specific
college social functions. Of the four institutions that had no

policy regarding dress and appearance, three of the administrators
interviewed did not feel that a policy was necessary, while one felt

a.policy in this area would definitely be worthwhile.

-74-

 

Students' rights £2 assemble - Only two of the community college

disciplinary administrators interviewed noted that they had a policy
or rule in this area. 0f the ten colleges that did not have written
statements in this area, six felt that there was a definite need for
one, while four saw no special reason for having a statement in this

area 0

Student plagiarism - Six of the colleges included in the study had a

 

policy statement regarding this area in their handbooks, while the
other six colleges did not have statements. Of the six who had no

statements, only one felt that one was necessary in this area.

Student cheating - Of the twelve colleges, seven had policy state-

 

ments regarding cheating on school examinations, while five did not
have statements in this area of conduct. Out of the five that had
no policy statement in this area, only one felt that one was

necessary. Most felt that this should be handled by the faculty.

Smoking - Eleven institutions permitted smoking in designated areas
defined by a policy statement or rule, while one college permitted
smoking but had no statement defining Specific areas. The disciplinary
administrator of the college that had no policy or rule in this area
stated that he preferred one. Five of the twelve colleges did not

permit the sale of cigarettes on campus.

Gambling - Eleven of the colleges prohibited all forms of gambling

by policy statements that generally were broad in scope. Although

-75-

one college had no policy in this area, the disciplinary administrator
interviewed felt that there was a very definite need for one. He
'noted that the lack of one was an oversight in the formulating of
social-regulatory policies for students. Two of the twelve colleges

even went so far as to forbid card-playing of any kind on campus.

Campus traffic and parking - Ten out of twelve of the colleges visited
had written regulations governing campus parking and traffic. One

of the two colleges that had no statements of policy in this area

felt that there was a need for one. With the exception of one dis-
ciplinary administrator interviewed in this area, all of the admin-
istrators noted that this was a major area of college concern,

especially since enrollments are rising so rapidly.

Classroom behavior — Five colleges had specific policies or rules in
this area, while of the seven who had no rules or policies in this
area, none saw a need for one. With rare exceptions, most adminis-
trators felt that the instructors by in large handled their own

student problems well.

Games and recreational activities permitted 22 campus - Five colleges
had rules or regulations governing student conduct in this area, while
seven colleges had none. Of the seven that had no rules or regulations

in this area, only one felt the need to have one.

Alcoholic beverages - Without exception, none of the colleges studied

permitted the drinking of alcoholic beverages on campus.

-76-
Litterbuggipg - Only two out of the twelve colleges had written
rules or policies on this aspect of citizenship, while ten did not
have any. Of the ten that did not have statements in this area,
only two felt the need to have one adopted. Others felt that this
should be mainly a problem for student-government to deal with in a

positive educational manner.

Moral behavior (pecking, petting, etc.) - In this particular area
four colleges had policy statements, while eight had none. Of the
eight that had no policy statements in this specific area, none saw
the need for one. Most of these institutions felt that if a par-
ticular case definitely needed some action taken they could function
under such broad policy statements as "the college reserves the right

to take action against any student for unbecoming conduct".

Hazing and initiations - Six colleges had social-regulatory policies
or rules in this area while six did not. Four of the six colleges
that did not have a policy statement on this subject, felt that one

was definitely needed.

The use 2: explosives (firecrackers, etc.) and firearms pp campu -

 

Here again, the colleges selected for this study split evenly as to
their use of a written policy or rule to govern the conduct of

students in this area. Six colleges had statements and six did not have
them. 'Of the six that had none, five wished they had a policy state-
ment and hOped to develop a policy in this area. Of course all students

must abide by state laws in this area.

-77-

On-Campus organizations - Without exception, all twelve of the
community colleges involved in this study had policy statements or
rules regarding the approval of and role of on-campus organizations.
These policies or rules included such stipulations as eligibility

of members, types of meetings permitted, responsibility of the
advisor, etc. Most disciplinary administrators noted that more and
more, the student government is being called upon to help the college

formulate policy in this area.

Vandalism - Seven of the twelve colleges had policies or rules clearly
defined in this area of conduct. Of the five that did not, three
felt that a policy was needed in this area. The other two colleges

considered the situation a matter concerning the civil authorities.

Theft, illegal entry 23 forgery - Seven colleges had statements in
written form about infractions in this area and five had no statements.
Of the five that had no policy statements in this area, only two

felt that this was necessary. Three felt that this was a matter for

referral to the civil authorities.

Identification cards - All except one college had policies relating
to the use of identification cards on campus. The one college that

did not have one, anticipated having one next year.

Conduct gt games 23 other campus activities - Eight of the colleges

 

had policies or rules in this area, while four colleges had no

statement of policy in this regard. Three out of the four institutions

-73-

that had no policy statement reported that problems in this area

were too infrequent to require one.

Poster and advertising limitations - Nine colleges had policies or
rules governing the type of posters and advertising materials to

be permitted on campus. In general activities sponsored by non-
public agencies or groups were not to be advertised on campus unless
they had community-wide welfare implications. Of the three colleges

that had no policy in this area, all saw a need for one.

 

Distribution 2; unauthorized publications 23 campu — Nine colleges
had policies governing unauthorized publications on campus, while
three did not. All felt the need for a policy in this area mainly
for the purposes of controlling unsponsored tabloids of questionable
repute or unsigned literature which may have deleterious effects on

the college or the welfare of its students.

Off-campus behavior detrimental 53 the college - Only three colleges

 

noted that they had explicit policy statements regarding off-campus
behavior detrimental to the college. It is interesting to point out
that only one college of the nine that had no policy or rule in this
area of student conduct, felt that one was necessary. Most of the
disciplinary administrators interviewed thought that all off-campus

behavior should be a matter for civil authorities to handle.

Student financial responsibility - Regarding this area of citizenship

 

and student conduct, nine colleges had stated policies. Of the three

-79-
that had no policy or rule in this area, only one thought a state-

ment was necessary.

Authorization 2f campus publications - Nine colleges had a policy or
rule governing campus publications and defining their scope of
Operation. Although three colleges had no policy or rule regulating
campus publications, each noted that it would be wise to have one
written. Disciplinary administrators by in large felt that students
appreciate written clarification in this area, because it avoids
confusion and misunderstanding regarding the extent of student freedom

of expression.

The falsification 2f records - Written policies in this area were
found in seven out of the twelve colleges visited. Of the five that

had no written policy in this area, four saw a definite need for one.

Authorization 2: guest speakers 23 campus - Eight colleges published

 

policies or rules regarding use of guest speakers on campus requiring
authorization. While four did not have policies in this area, two

of them wished they had them.

Definition 2f penalties for violation 2: regulations - Five colleges

 

 

 

defined and published penalties for specific violations of regulations.
Of the seven that did not do so, only one thought that it would prove

to be helpful to both the student and the college.

Procedures for disciplinary action - Six colleges defined specific

 

procedures for disciplinary action as a matter of policy. The other

-30-
six colleges more or less played each situation "by ear", although
three of the six did express a desire to formulate clearly stated

policies in this area regarding student conduct and due process.

Disciplinary administrators who were interviewed noted that for
the most part they did not experience any particular community
pressure to adopt certain policies, standards or rules. However, they
all stated that there was an increasing concern on the part of students
regarding certain social-regulatory codes affecting campus publications,
dress, and campus organizations, eSpecially pertaining to their in-

volvement in college affairs.

-81-

TABLE 3
Extent and Desirableness of Social-Regulatory Policies and Rules

in Each of Thirty Areas.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Area of Policy or Have a Policy If no, would Total
Rule or Rule You Like One? Favoring
Policy or
.8212...-
Yes Yes No
1. Student Rights 4 10 2
2. Student Citizenship 9 12 0
3. Dress-Appearance 8 9 3
4. Right to Assemble 2 8 4
5. Plagiarism 6 7 5
6. Cheating 7 8 4
7. Smoking ll 12 0
8. Gambling 11 12 0
9. Campus Traffic-
Parking 10 11 l
10. Classroom Behavior 5 5 7
11. Recreation on Campus 5 6 6
12. Alcoholic Beverages 12 12 0
l3. Litterbugging 2 4 8
14. Moral Behavior 4 4 8
15. Hazing-Initiations 6 10 2
l6. Firearms-Explosives 6 ll 1
l7. On-Campus Organization 12 12 O
18. Vandalism, etc. 7 10 2
19. Theft, Illegal Entry,
Forgery 7 9 3

-82-

TABLE 3 (CON'T)

 

 

 

 

Area of Policy or Have a Policy If No, Would Total
Rule or Rule You Like One? Favoring
Policy or
.13.u_1£____
Yes No Yes No Yes No
20. I.D. Cards 11 l l 0 12 0
21. Activity Conduct 8 4 1 3 9 3
22. Posters-Advertising 9 3 3 0 12 O
23. Unauthorized Publi-
cations 9 3 3 0 12 0
24. Off-Campus Behavior 3 9 4 8 7 8
25. Financial Responsib-
ility 9 3 1 2 10 2
26. Campus-Publications 9 3 3 O 12 0
27. Falsification of
Records 7 5 4 1 ll 1
28. Guest Speakers 8 4 2 2 10 2
29. Penalties for
Violations 5 7 l 6 6 6
30. Disciplinary-
Procedures 6 6 3 3 9 3

 

 

-83-

ORIGIN OF WRITTEN POLICIES AND RULES

 

In order to ascertain who wrote the current social-regulatory
policies and rules governing student conduct and citizenship, ad-
ministrators in charge of discipline were asked several questions.

The questions were designed to help determine whether or not the
students and faculty were involved in the process of formulating
college policies or rules in this area, and also to determine the
disciplinary administrator's attitude toward the involvement of
students and faculty members in the establishment of social-regulatory
policies and rules. Practices in reviewing and revising policies

and rules were also ascertained by questions relative to procedure

in this area.

Origin 2f Present Policies and Rules

 

Three of the twelve disciplinary administrators said that social-
regulatory policies or rules were made entirely by administrators or
the board of trustees without any student involvement at all. How-
ever, all twelve of the administrators interviewed definitely felt
that policies and rules in this area should not be developed by ad-
ministrators alone but should rather be developed by consulting
student leaders. In fact, eight out of the twelve disciplinary ad-
ministrators felt that in some areas, especially those not involving
major legal responsibility, social-regulatory policies or rules could
be developed by students alone. Other colleges expressed the con-

viction that students should never be permitted to develop policy or

-34-
rules in this area alone.

Since the reactions of disciplinary administrators to the extent
of involvement of students in formulating written rules and policies
were rather extensive in scope, they in essence painted an excellent
picture of thier attitudes on the subject. Some of the typical re-

actions are listed below:

Rules superimposed on students are never as well

accepted as those made and agreed upon by students.

Social-regulatory policies or rules should be
developed by the student government and the faculty, but

the dean should have the final say.

If we believe in the democratic process, students

must participate in policy or rule development.

Certainly administrative perogative must be re-
served in certain areas as to the amount of student in-
volvement and the areas of involvement in developing

policies or rules.

You get greater cooperation from the students if

they help to develop rules.

Students have "inside information" and can be of
real service to the college in developing acceptable

social-regulatory codes.

Students should be encouraged to participate in

the development of rules and policies in this area, but

-35-
not in connection with classroom behavior or anything

covered by civil law or state school codes.

Students should be of help in areas such as student
government, student activities and students' rights. The

rest should be made by the board or its administrators.

Students are at times too harsh or too indecisive to

do it on their own.

A few campus rebels will always protest no matter

who made the rules.

Although only nine out of the twelve colleges developed social-
regulatory policies on a cooperative basis through consultation with
students, faculty, and administration, all felt that this should be
the practice. It was generally conceded by most administrators that
policies and rules made by a committee on which students and faculty
had representation along with administration would have the highest
degree of acceptance by the student body. Some typical comments

that were made are listed below:

If everybody agrees -- student representatives, faculty,
and administration -- policies and rules will be more readily

accepted.

Committee-made rules generally reflect a cross section

of opinion of all college personnel and students.

Form 2f Written Social-Regulatory Policies and Rules

The question often arises as to whether a rule stated in the

-86-

"positive" or the "negative" approach has any greater affect on the
behavior of students. Should students be advised on what constitutes
acceptable behavior or conduct, or should they be told what not to
do? Disciplinary administrators were ask to answer these questions.

All except two of the twelve disciplinary administrators inter-
viewed generally agreed that they found the positive approach to the
writing of student social-regulatory policies or rules to have the
best effects on students. However, many noted that it was not always
feasible to state all rules in a positive manner. For instance, is
there a better way to prohibit smoking or parking than by simply
stating "no smoking" or "no parking"? Even so, ten administrators
noted that their college rules were mostly stated in the positive,
with a few in the negative style, because they were of the nature that
simply called for this form. The disciplinary administrators
questioned offered excellent rationales for use of the "positive

approac to state rules and policies. Some of these are listed

below:

PeOple tend to react better when told something in a

positive manner.

Students generally hate a whole list of "don'ts".

Students tend to want to test the ”don'ts".

With the so-called "rebels" the positive approach

usually gains more acceptance.

-87-
Students like to be approached in a constructive

manner regarding rules and limitations.

The don't approach to rules reminds students too

much of high school.

Some administrators however, did defend the negative approach

by making the following statements.

The use of the positive approach never quite "draws

the line".

If a rule is reasonable and makes sense, what is

wrong with a "no" approach?

Students don't reSpect a positive but often times

vague approach.

If you're fair and involve students, call "a spade,

a spade".

Review and Revision 2; Social-Regulatory Policies and Rules

Policy statements generally written by the board of trustees are
likely to be broad in scope and serve as effective guidelines to ad-
ministrative rule making for many rules; nevertheless these too must
be occasionally reviewed and even revised. Rules to implement the
policies of the board must be reviewed if they are to be kept current
in terms of changes in the college environment. Several questions
asked in this area produced various answers described in the following

paragraphs.

-88-

Outmoded 23 Outdated Rules - Eight of the twelve disciplinary ad-

 

ministrators interviewed revealed that in some cases their college
rules were outdated. They noted that the areas in which rules
needed to be revised, because of current changes in our society and
new legal interpretations by the courts, were those involving dress
and appearance, off-campus and on-campus clubs, off-campus housing
and off-campus behavior. The tendency is for colleges to become

less involved in these areas as far as regulation and control.

Present Practice regarding review and revision and recommendations -
Six out of the twelve colleges visited reviewed their policies and
rules annually while the other half noted that they have not reviewed
their policies in several years. The large majority of disciplinary
administrators did note, however, that they preferred reviewing
policies and rules for possible revision as the need arises. Six out
of the twelve insisted that rules should be reviewed annually even if
the need didn't arise. They claimed it encouraged colleges to take

a second look at their rules giving them a chance to anticipate any

possible problems.

Summary

General information about the twelve community colleges visited
for the purposes of this study was presented in this chapter. This
chapter also reviewed the extent and origin of existing social-
regulatory policies and rules governing student conduct. It has
reported the disciplinary administrator's views and judgments regarding

the effect of the rules and policies on the student body in terms of

-39-

the origin of the rules and policies, and their written form.

Disciplinary administrators have varying titles, but all seem to
be known to the students as "the dean". The community colleges
visited ranged in size from approximately 1500 full—time students to
more than six-thousand.

The community colleges visited differed significantly as to the
areas in which they thought the need for rules were important. Areas
in which there was unanimous agreement as to the need for written
policy included (1) defining responsibilities of students (2) smoking
(3) gambling (4) drinking (5) on-campus organizations (6) use of
identification cards (7) campus publications (8) advertising and (9)
distribution of unauthorized publications. A great majority supported
the need for written rules and policies governing campus parking,
vandelism, theft, falsification of records, guest speakers and
disciplinary action procedures.

The vast majority of disciplinary administrators felt that students
should participate in the formulation of rules and policies to which
they are expected to conform. It was noted that students involved in
rule making are more likely to comply with them. Students should not
be involved in policy or rule making governed specifically by state
law.

Disciplinary administrators generally agreed that policies and
rules should be written in a style that stresses positive standards of
behavior rather than the negative ones. They also felt that existing

rules should be reviewed annually and revised as the need arises.

CHAPTER V
THE COMMUNICATION 9E SOCIAL-REGULATORY POLICIES AND RULES

This chapter reviews the variety of procedures used by the com-
munity colleges involved in this study to disseminate information about
its student social-regulatory policies and rules governing student
conduct.

The researcher asked the twelve disciplinary administrators of
the colleges visited to respond to a list of ways generally used by
colleges to make students aware of their policies and rules. It was
apparent from the responses made by the administrators that several
different methods were used by their respective institutions to inform
students about student conduct rules and policies. These included both
verbal and written approaches to the problem. The responses by the
disciplinary administrators will be described in the following paragraphs
and summarized in Table 4.

Although social-regulatory policies and rules were communicated
to the students via orientation programs, assemblies, and other meetings,
there was unamimous agreement among the disciplinary administrators
interviewed that statements of policy and rules were most frequently made
and distributed through written materials such as handbooks, college
catalogues, school newspapers, brochures, and, to a lesser extent, letters

to parents.
Faculty policy manuals

The study revealed that, although ten out of the twelve community

colleges visited provided their faculty members with policy manuals,

-91-

only three of the policy manuals made any reference to student conduct
by way of policy, codes, or rules. All of the disciplinary adminis-
trators interviewed agreed with the authorities cited in the review

of the literature that a well-written policy manual helps to improve
the effectiveness of an institution by providing college administrators
and faculty members with basic principles of action that act as guides
for the development of supportive rules and regulations.

The lack of policy on student conduct in a faculty manual in nine
out of the twelve colleges involved in this study was further explained
by the fact that many governing boards assumed that student discipline
was an administrative matter defined in publications such as the
student handbook.

Little standardization was found in current manuals; only two made
a distinction between policy and rules. The author did review the
manual (of one community college) that could be cited as an excellent
example of a policy manual with regard to written guidelines concerning
student conduct, discipline, and student rights. The following excerpts
concerning social-regulatory principles regarding student rights,

expectations, and conduct regulations were taken from that manual.

The most basic necessity for the achievement of
college purposes is freedom of expression and communica-
tion. Since knowledge is as broad and diverse as
life itself, the need for freedom is equally broad.
Yet, absolute freedom in all aspects of life means
anarchy, just as absolute order means tyranny. Both
anarchy and tyranny are antithetical to the purposes
and necessities of the college. Therefore, the
college always must strive to strike that balance
between maximum freedom and necessary order which best
promotes their basic purposes by providing the environ-

-92-

ment most conducive to the many faceted activities
of teaching and learning.

Each right of an individual places a reciprocal
duty upon others: the duty to permit the individual
to exercise the right. The student, as a member

of the academic community, has both rights and
duties. Within that community, the student's most
essential right is the right to learn. The College
has a duty to provide for the student those pro-
tections, opportunities and environment which best
promote the learning process in all its aspects.
The student, in turn, has duties to his fellow mem-
bers of the College -- the most important of which
is to refrain from interference with those rights
that promote the essential purposes and processes
of the College.

The student is not only a member of the academic
community; he is also a citizen of the larger
society. As a citizen, he retains those rights,
protections and guarantees of fair treatment which
are held by all citizens, and neither the academic
community nor the College may deny them to him.

The enforcement of the student's duties to the larger
society, however, is the responsibility of the
authorities duly established for that purpose and not
that of the academic community or the College. But
as is always the case if the student's conduct is
such to detrimentally affect the College, the College
reserves the right to take action that seems approp-
riate.

More specifically, Lansing Community College operates
within the framework of a basic philosophy, stated
purposes, laws and regulations of the city and State

and the expectations of the community in which we are lo-
cated. The College makes the assumption that students
while attending this College will conduct themselves as
responsible citizens of the community in which they live.

We must understand our rights if we are to use them
properly. They include personal rights of life and a
range of significant liberties such as freedom of
speech and the press. They include economic rights
of property and contract and political rights. Each
person, moreover, is assured that there will be no
interference with his freedom or worship according to
his conscience. In addition, there are rights of con-
sul, jury trial and other safeguards to protect in-
dividuals with "due process of law"...

-93-

This Community College policy manual contained another fine
example of written policy which serves as guidance and direction
for all bodies hearing students accused of violating all regulations,
except those involving academic performance and achievement. The

statements regarding "due process" are listed below:

1. The student shall be notified by an appropriate College
official that he is accused of violating a regulation.

2. The student shall be notified that he may elect one of
three courses of action.

a. The student may admit the alleged violation
and request, in writing, that the administra-
tive officer take whatever action seems approp-
riate. Should the student elect this course of
action, he shall be notified that he is entitled
to appeal the administrator's decision to the
Judicial Body.

b. The student may admit the alleged violation,
and request a hearing before the Judicial Body.

c. The student may deny the alleged violation, in
which case the administrative officer shall refer
him to the Judicial Body.

3. Prior to the hearing, the student shall be entitled to the
following.

a. Written notification of the time and place of the
hearing.

b. A written statement of the charges of sufficient
particularity so that the student may prepare
his defense.

c. Written notification of the names of the witnesses
who are directly responsible for having reported
the alleged violation to the Judicial Body, or, if
there are no such witnesses, written notification
of how the alleged violation came to the Body's
attention.

10.

-94-

The student shall be entitled to appear in person and
present his defense to the Judicial Body, and may call
witnesses in his behalf. The student may also elect
not to appear before the Judicial Body. Should he
elect not to appear, the hearing shall be held in his
absence.

The student shall be entitled to be accompanied by
counsel.

The student or his counsel shall be entitled to ask
questions of the Judicial Body or of any witnesses.

The student shall not be required to testify against
himself.

The student shall be entitled to an expeditions hearing
of his case.

The student shall be entitled to an explanation of the
reasons for any decision rendered against him.

The student shall be notified of his right to appeal

the decisions of the Judicial Body. Should the student
appeal, any action assessed by the Judicial Body shall
be held in suspense until acted upon by a higher body.

The above shall serve as general guidelines with reapect to the
hearing of students accused of violating regulations. The imple-
mentation of the guidelines shall be left to the appointed
administrative personnel.

Announcements 25 special bulletins

 

 

All of the disciplinary administrators noted that they used this

means to disseminate information regarding any changes in rules and
regulations, especially if they were made after the annual publications
of the student handbook, catalogue, and other printed materials that

generally refer to these items.

Letters £3 parents

Only three of the twelve community colleges involved in the study

-95-

noted that they used letters to parents explaining the social-regu-
latory policies or rules of the college regarding student conduct and
discipline. The three disciplinary administrators at the colleges
where letters were sent to parents explained that they felt obligated
to keep the parents informed.

The disciplinary administrators at the other nine community
colleges, however, firmly believed that if the community college is
sincere in respecting the dignity of the student as an adult, it should
communicate with the student primarily, and not with the parent. They
were quick to note, nevertheless, that parents were always welcome to

contact the college regarding any particular problem.

Student handbooks

Each of the twelve community colleges visited published a student
handbook and used it to disseminate information about its student
social-regulatory policies and rules. The amount of space allotted
to these policies and rules varied from one page in one college hand-
book to twelve pages in another student handbook. In some cases the
rules were not grouped together. The majority of the handbooks,
however, did have most of the policies and rules on student conduct
grouped together instead of having them scattered. The most commonly
used titles for these groupings were "Rules and Regulations" and
"Regulations". It is interesting to note that, although many handbooks
cited certain rules of conduct, most were negligent in telling students
the reasons for the rules. Disciplinary administrators interviewed

for this study agreed that this is an area that needs to be given more

-95-

attention, especially since students today are more and more inclined

to ask for the rationale behind various rules.

Brochures or letters to students

Ten out of the twelve community colleges visited used brochures and
letters to inform students about rules and regulations. However,
after checking further, it was found that the references to rules and
regulations with regard to students were primarily in the form of a
general statement of expected behavior and citizenship, rather than

rules per se.

College catalogues

 

Although all of the disciplinary administrators interviewed for
the purposes of this study noted that their institutions' catalogues
were used to inform students about student policies and rules, the
author of this study, after examining all of the 1967-68 community
college catalogues, concluded that only eight out of the twelve cata-
logues actually made specific reference to student conduct and citizen-
ship.

Statements in those community college catalogues that referred
to student conduct were, in most cases, statements of policy rather
than a listing of specific rules. Somewhat typical of the statements
found in the catalogues concerning social-regulations and citizenship
was one found by the researcher in the Henry Ford Community College
Catalogue.

College students are considered to be mature
individuals. Their conduct, both in school

-97-

and out, is expected to be dignified and honor-
able. The responsibility for success rests
largely on the shoulders of the individual
students.

The college requires the same degree of per-
sonal responsibility of students as the in-
stitutions to which they may transfer. Not
many rules of conduct are set by the adminis-
tration. On the contrary, it is expected that
students will at all times consider they are
living in a democratic situation and that the
reputation of the institution rests on their
shoulders. Common courtesy and cooperation

at all times make conduct rules unneccessary.

The most extensive and definitive statements regarding student
conduct and discipline, which the author of this study discovered after
reviewing the twelve community college catalogues, were stated in one

of the Community College Catalogues.

Enrollment in the Community Junior College
carries with it obligations in regard to conduct,
not only inside but also outside the classrooms and
students are expected to conduct themselved in such
a manner as to be a credit both to themselves and to
the College. They are responsible to the laws governing
the community as well as to rules and orders of the
College and its officials, and they are expected to
observe the standards of conduct set by the college.

Whenever a student fails to observe either the
general standards of conduct as stated above or any
specific ones which may be adopted by the proper
authorities, or acts in such a manner as to make it
apparent that he is not a desirable member of the
College, he shall be liable to disciplinary action
by the proper authorities.

As indicated in the section on attendance, in-
structors may drop from class any student who has had
an excessive number of absences. Instructors may also
suspend from class any student whose classroom conduct
is improper and refer him to the proper administrative
official for disciplinary action. In all such cases
instructors will notify the Assistant Dean for Student
Personnel Services.

-98-

In addition to the general standards established,
specific violations of regulations which will necessi-
tate disciplinary action are as follows:

1. Unethical conduct during examinations or in
preparation of assignments designated by the
instructor - plagiarism, for example.

2. Falsification of any official records required
of the student by the College.

3. Possession or use of alcoholic beverages on
College property, at any College-sponsored
event, or appearance on campus while under the
influence of alcohol.

4. Reckless driving and unauthorized parking of
student cars on College property.

5. Engaging while on College property in initiation
practices of organizations not offically recog-
nized by the College and which obviously call
attention to the initiates or members of the
organization.

6. Participation in the name of the College in
non-sanctioned activities off campus.

7. Violations of regulations necessary to govern
various facilities and activities of the College
which require special regulations.

8. Violations of any civil or criminal laws (i.e.
theft, gambling, etc.) on campus or at College-
sponsored events. Such violations are also
subject to referral to civil authorities for
investigation and action.

Students who are charged with violating general standards
for good conduct or specific College regulations will be
informed of the infraction in a personal conference with

the Assistant Dean for Student Personnel Services. If,

in his opinion official action by the College is warranted,
the Assistant Dean will notify the student of the subse-
quent action by letter. The nature of disciplinary action
is conditioned by the seriousness of the offense. Discipli-
nary action may be classified in one of the following cate-
gories:

1. Official Warning. The student is notified that
he has violated standards of good conduct or
specific College regulations. A copy of the

-99-

warning letter is placed in his personnel
file and remains there until the student has
completed his work at Flint Community Junior
College. At that time, the student may pick
up the copy of the warning letter and no
further record is kept.

2. Disciplinary Probation. In more serious
cases of a breach of College regulations the
student may be placed on disciplinary pro-
bation. While on disciplinary probation the
student may not participate in the student
activities program, or receive honors or
awards from the College. In some instances,
the student may be prohibited from the use
of a particular College facility if his vio-
lation is related to regulations governing
that facility (i.e. library, student union,
cafeteria, natatorium, laboratory, parking
lot, etc.). Record of the probationary action
is entered in the student's permanent record
although the nature of the offense is not in-
cluded. '

3. Suspension. In those cases where there is a
very serious breach of College regulations, a
student may be suspended from the College for
periods ranging from one week to one or more
semesters. Also, such cases may be referred
to civil authorities if there are obvious
violations of civil or criminal laws. Notat-
ion of the suspension becomes a part of the
student's record.

4. Expulsion. In cases of violations of a highly
serious nature, or in cases of a repetitive
pattern of irregular conduct, a student may be
expelled permanently from the College.

The College makes use of disciplinary action as a means
of educating the student to the realities of his re-
sponsibility as a citizen and also to protect the wel-
fare Of students, staff, and community.

Orientation_ptograms

 

All of the community colleges involved in this study, except

one, held orientation classes for new students. These classes or

-100-

sessions lasted from one to three days and ranged in number from 30

to 400 students, depending on the program that was planned and the
facilities available. The disciplinary administrators who stated

that they had orientation programs at their colleges noted they
generally used the student handbook as an overall outline for the
program. Thus, it was common practice to devote a portion of the
total orientation program to social-regulatory policies and rules.
These programs were primarily structured and carried out cooperatively
by the student government, staff members connected with student
personnel services, and various members of the administrative staff.

In the one college that did not have orientation classes, a
convocation assembly was held for all freshmen at the beginning of
the year, at which time rules governing student conduct and citizen-
ship were reviewed. Attendance at this assembly, however, was not
compulsory.

The disciplinary administrators did note that if the orientation
program was voluntary, it did not tend to serve its purpose effectively
as a method of communication. However, they also stated that if the
program is provided for the students benefit, he must at some time
begin to assume the responsibility for his own ignorance.

Several of the disciplinary administrators interviewed stated
that student sponsored orientation programs should be encouraged more.
They claimed that students who set the example have a far easier
time informing freshmen about campus life, rules, and regulations.

They even predicted that voluntary attendance would increase.

-101-

School newspaper

 

Nine of the twelve disciplinary administrators interviewed
reported that the college newspaper was used to keep the student
body informed about policies and rules that affect them. For
example, one of the headlines of the Jackson Community College

newspaper, The Oracle, on December 15, 1967, read as follows:

 

Policy £2 Restrict Printed Hand-Outs

 

This article that accompanied the above headline explained to
the students the significance of a new policy concerning the distri-
bution of printed material on campus.

The three disciplinary administrators whose colleges did not use
the school newspaper to disseminate information about disciplinary
policies and rules felt that written material of this nature should
only be included in official college bulletins and handbooks. Also,
the paper should be mainly used for student purposes, not as an

administrative vehicle for communication of this type of information.

Special assemblies

Assemblies were certainly not considered a good means to com-
municate with students regarding social-regulatory policies and rules.
Disciplinary administrators, by and large, noted that they did not
think this type of tOpic could be handled effectively through an
assembly procedure. They also noted that it was not really a func-
tional procedure in light of the many student schedule conflicts

and problems with facilities.

-102-

All of the disciplinary administrators pointed out the fact
that although their respective community colleges used a variety of
means to disseminate information relative to regulations and rules
that students were expected to abide by while on campus, they did
not resort to the exertion of pressure or compulsory methods to get
students to read and become familiar with published policies. They
did note that any student who broke a rule probably would not find

it easy to plead his case on the basis of being unaware of the rule.

-103-

TABLE 4

Current Practices of Disseminating Information
About Student Policies and Rules of the Twelve‘

Community Colleges Visited.

 

 

 

Practice Yes No
Faculty policy manual 10 2
Letters to parents 3 9
Student handbook l2 0
Brochures-letters to

Students 10 2
College Catalogue 12 0
Orientation Classes 11 1
School newspaper 9 3
Assemblies 2 10

Bulletins and Announcements 12 0

 

 

 

 

-104-

Effectiveness of various methods pf communication

 

The interviews with the disciplinary administrators revealed
that no one method of communication of social-regulatory policies
and rules was effective enough to reach all of the student body.
Different students apparently reapond differently to certain methods
of communication. It was felt that probably a combination of
methods of disseminating information would prove to be most effective.
The consensus was that the most effective combination of methods of
communicating policies and rules should include both well defined
written materials and well planned orientation classes where the in-
formation could be presented and discussed. When asked which single
method of communication had the potential for being the most effective,
disciplinary administrators indicated that well planned, required
orientation programs would undoubtedly be the best method if sophmores
shared the responsibility of presenting them. Student handbooks,
catalogues, and the school newspaper were considered as good publi-
cations for the dissemination of policies and rules concerning con-
duct. All but one disciplinary administrator noted that most of the

students on campus seemed to be aware of the policies and rules.

SUMMARY

This chapter reviewed the current practices of the twelve com-
munity colleges involved in this study in communicating social-

regulatory policies and rules to the students. The types of written

-105-

materials used to express policy statements and rules were cited,
with excellent examples noted. Communication methods, other than
written materials, were also discussed. The effectiveness of
various methods of communication of these policies and rules was
also reviewed in terms of the views of disciplinary administrators.
It was concluded as a result of a review of the various
methods used to disseminate information that no one method could be
thought of as being effective for all of the students. Community
colleges would be wise, indeed, to use a wide variety of means of
communication to disseminate information about social-regulatory

policies and rules regarding expected standards of student behavior.

CHAPTER VI

 

 

ENFORCEMENT QF SOCIAL-REGULATORY POLICIES AND RULES

The findings of two of the three facets of this study were pre-
sented in the preceding two chapters. Data and information pertinent
to the origin, extent and communication of social-regulatory policies
and rules were discussed. The analysis of these two areas of this
investigation revealed that well thought out and developed social-
regulatory policies and rules, thoroughly communicated to the students
and the staff in a variety of ways, provide for a more effective
administrative process in the community college. The findings of the
third facet of this dissertation, the enforcement of social-regulatory
policies and rules, will be presented in this chapter.

The changing concepts of discipline and the enforcement of
college rules and regulations over the past few centuries were reviewed
in chapter two. The pendulum has swung from the strict authoritatian
enforcement of rules that were so detailed that they sometimes governed
trivia, to a more democratic concept of discipline which emphasized
self-control and citizenship education to eliminate much of the need
for rigid enforcement. To be sure changes have taken place at colleges
and universities with regards to the enforcement of rules just as our
approaches to law enforcement have changed in society in general.
Nevertheless, the problems involved in controlling student behavior
seem still to be with us. Although self-restraint is the ideal goal,
we find that realistically there are still those students who will not

or cannot for various reasons abide by the codes of conduct established

-107-

by the college. In fact, it is hardly news today to note that an
emerging breed of students are coming to the fore on campuses across
the nation: students who are Openly rejecting particular college
or university policies and rules, students who are demanding, and
often getting, a larger voice in campus affairs. The problems exper-
ienced by Columbia University this year and other universities in
the recent past, reflect a growing concern by college and university
officials about the growth of ”student power" as a group force. They
are concerned with the lack of respect for rules and regulations and
the necessity for proper enforcement of policies and rules through
disciplinary measures that are aimed to deter violators and correct
patterns of misbehavior.

It has been noted above that the problem of student conduct at
the four year college and the university has become one of considerable
magnitude. But how extensive is the problem of misconduct in the
larger community colleges of Michigan today? In which areas of student
conduct are the problems most frequent? What are some of the contri-
buting factors that are recognized by disciplinary administrators?
What is the role of the disciplinary administrator, the counselor,
the faculty, and the student in helping to enforce standards of conduct
at the community college? Does the community college accord a student
violator due process? And last but not least, do the present state
laws provide the larger community colleges enough freedom to develop
and enforce their own policies and rules? These were some of the
major areas of inquiry involved in this aspect of the study that are

discussed in this chapter.

-108-

EXTENT 91.: THE PROBLEM

 

The disciplinary administrators interviewed regarding the extent
of misconduct problems at their respective community colleges were
asked to rate the whole student body in terms of the over all fre-
quency of violations. On a three point scale listing, with the
ratings being low, average, and high, all but one of the adminis-
trators listed the frequency of student violations on the whole as
being low. One disciplinary administrator thought that he would rate
the frequency of student violations of college policies and rules as
being average at his institution. All of the administrators noted
that they spent less than ten percent of their time handling problems
concerning student conduct and discipline. On the whole each rated
the behavior of the students as being generally very good.

Some of the comments of the disciplinary administrators relative
to the extent of misconduct problems were most enlightening. A few

of them are listed below:

School Spirit is rather high at this college, so we

deal with a minimal amount of student discipline problems.

The beginning of the school year presents more problems

than the end.

We've had few problems with student discipline to date;
however, the present turmoil in society is bound to
eventually rub off on community college campuses. Just

look at what's beginning to happen in high schools - lunch

room protests, etc.

-109-

With rapid increases in enrollment the problems seem

to multiply - theft and parking are our greatest concerns.

You would think littering wouldn't be a major problem

but it is to us.

Discipline problems of any serious consequence are

few and far between.

We haven't experienced a student protest yet; I guess

we're fortunate.

Certain types of problems seem to be seasonal and crop

up at the same time each year.

Our problems are mainly individual ones. We rarely

experience a group problem per se.

Like many other institutions of higher education, we
have experienced a certain amount of racial tension, but
I wouldn't categorize this with the general run of disci-

pline problems.

We experienced our first student protests this year.
However, our students and the college worked on the pro-

blem at hand and a solution was found.

Frequency 2: Discipline Problems

 

Even though the responses of the disciplinary administrators

of the twelve community colleges involved in this study indicated

-110-

the behavior of the students to be generally quite good, they did
acknowledge the fact that problems of misconduct existed to some
extent. Hence, disciplinary administrators were questioned in this
regard to determine in which areas of student conduct the problems
did most frequently occur.

Although the findings were not conclusive, more than half of
the disciplinary administrators selected four areas in which problems
of misconduct most frequently occured at most of the colleges. Their
selections were made from a list of twenty—four possible areas con-
cerning the violation of social-regulatory rules.

Out of the twelve colleges involved in the study, seven of them
mentioned "drinking" as a most frequent violation of campus rules.
Many of the disciplinary administrators noted that some students just
out of high school and in college for the first time take this route
to assert their independence. To show that they are adults, they have
a few "beers" or other alcoholic drinks before a school affair. Ap-
parently this seemed to be a symbol of maturity to some students.

Disciplinary administrators indicated that the best way to re-
duce the frequency of this problem was to make absolutely sure that
the policy on drinking is well communicated to all of the students and
to impose stringent penalties on those who violate the policy. They
claimed that word soon gets around to students that this type of
behavior is not tolerated. Several administrators quickly pointed out
that they did not state that drinking was immoral or that it should

never be done, but rather that there was a time and place for every-

-lll-

thing. Social drinking to any real extent before attending a campus
activity was considered poor judgment. Students apparently accept
this type of an explanation or even a penalty much better than
"moralistic preaching".

Campus traffic and parking violations was another area of con-
duct where problems of violations most frequently occurred. Nine
out of twelve colleges pointed this area out as one in which violations
became frequent. Some students, according to disciplinary administra-
tors, will park illegally rather than risk being late to class.

Others just hate to walk and will park as close to their classes as
possible, even if it means parking in an area zoned "no parking" or
"fire route". All but three of the colleges visited used security
police to enforce violations in this area. The best deterrent to
illegal parking, according to the disciplinary administrators, was to
ticket the violator, thus punishing him where it hurts the most, his
pocketbook. Cars were also towed away and fines levied by the college
against the violator. In the three colleges that did not use security
police to enforce campus parking and traffic rules, city police were
relied on to aid in the enforcement process.

Disciplinary administrators at eight out of the twelve colleges
visited listed "theft" as a violation of school social-regulatory rules
frequently requiring much of their time alloted to the handling of
disciplinary problems. Theft of books, purses, clothing and other
personal property primarily occurred in various places on campus where
items were left unattended for a few minutes. Items also were taken

from unlocked cars. It is interesting to note that although one college

~112-

attributed the problem of theft to the location and setting of the
college relative to community economic factors, the location and
economic setting could not be considered as the main causal factor in
the cases of the other seven institutions mentioning theft as a fre-
quent problem. In some cases theft was attributed to campus students
who allowed temptation to rule. In many instances, outsiders were
apprehended, especially "teenagers". Disciplinary administrators
generally used strong measures such as suspension or referral to the
civil authorities, depending on the nature of the case. On certain
campuses, the security police worked with the disciplinary administrator
in handling the case.

Cafeteria behavior was another area of discipline in which three
quarters of the colleges involved in this study experienced frequent
violations. Disciplinary administrators cited "poor judgment" and
"immaturity" as the two main factors precipitating problems in the
cafeteria. For example, some students used the cafeteria as a lounge,
a place to play cards or other games, or a place to hold lengthy
discussions with friends. This deprived other students who wished to
eat a meal or have a snack of a place to sit, thereby becoming a
source of potential conflict between students. In cases where students
became involved in fights or serious misunderstandings, students were
placed on sOme form of social probation or temporarily suspended.

Another example is student carelessness with regard to refuse
and litter. It was noted that the throwing of paper or bits of food
as a joke sometimes got out of hand. Disciplinary administrators

admitted that the problem of enforcement in this area is not an easy

one in terms of supervision and personnel. Most agreed that the

-ll3-

situation required student organizational and educational clean-up
campaigns for realistic help. Disciplinary action should be
reserved for gross misbehavior.

Other areas of less frequent misconduct mentioned by disciplinary
administrators included dress and appearance, student protests,
lounge behavior, gambling, cheating, littering, conduct of off-campus
organizations, off-campus behavior, financial irresponsibility, and
racial conflict. Table 5 summarizes the findings regarding the areas

of student conduct in which problems occur most frequently.

-114-

TABLE 5

Areas of Student Conduct in Which Problems Most Frequently

Occur in the Twelve Community Colleges Visited

 

 

 

Area of Student Conduct in Which Community College
Problems Most Frequently Occur Responses
YES NO
Dress and Appearance 1 11
Student Protests 1 ll
Cafeteria Behavior 8 4
Lounge Behavior 5 7
Hazing and Initiations 0 12
Drinking 7 5
Theft 8 4
Moral Behavior (necking, petting, etc.) 0 12
Gambling 1 11
Campus Traffic & Parking Violations 9 3
Cheating 2 10
Behavior at Athletic Events 0 12
Litterbugging 4 8
Classroom Behavior 0 12
Vandalism 0 12
Distribution of Unauthorized Publications 0 12

Off-Campus Organizations 1 ll

-115-

(TABLE 5 CON'T)

 

Area of Student Conduct in Which Community College
Problems'Most Frequently Occur Responses

YES NO
Off-Campus Behavior Detrimental to College 1 11
Library Conduct 0 12
Financial Responsibility 4 8
Carrying of Weapons 0 12
Racial Conflicts 2 10
Smoking 0 12

Narcotics 0 12

 

-116-

FACTORS CONTRIBUTING IQ THE EXTENT AND FREQUENCY OF

STUDENT CONDUCT PROBLEMS

In reviewing the literature, eleven basic factors were found to
generally contribute to the extent and frequency of student conduct
problems. These were used as the basis for questioning the disciplinary
administrators regarding their experiences in dealing with the pro-
blems. 0f the eleven factors mentioned only four were cited by most
of the administrators interviewed as the main contributors to student
misconduct. These factors were personality disorder or emotional
maladjustment, immaturity, tension or conflict at home, and academic
pressure.

In the first case, disciplinary administrators interviewed stated
that those students whose malbehavior could be attributed to emotional
maladjustment or personality disorders were usually referred to counSel-
ling agencies for psychological help with their personal problems and
at the same time placed on social probation. If the problem continued
to cause the student to act contrary to school rules or policy, he
would be suspended or possibly excluded from school.

Many of the student conduct problems that disciplinary administra-
tors adjudicated were of the type that mainly stemmed from immaturity.
Violations of social-regulatory policies regarding drinking and parking,
etc. are good examples of instances where individual maturity could
have made the problem negligible. Administrators noted that many young
students just out of high school who entered community college, sensed

the need to be immediately liberated from parental restrictions.

-117-

They sometimes, however, found it difficult to handle their new
status as adults within the framework of rules and regulations. The
majority of the cases involving immaturity are generally dealt with
through counselling or social probation.

Disciplinary administrators at eleven out of the twelve colleges
visited stressed that even at the community college level, the home
environment can be a disruptive factor in a student's life. Since
most of the students at community colleges reside at home, what goes
on in the family and the degree to which the family meets the needs
of the student is to a large extent the conditioning factor that tends
to motivate a student in either a positive or negative direction.
There are many families in which a psychologically eccentric relation-
ship exists between the parents and the student to such a degree that
it sometimes makes life unrealistic. Disciplinary administrators
noted that even at this age level, they found parents to be too over
protective or at the other end of the scale, too little interest
in the achievements of their sons or daughters. Community college
students often offer this factor as a source of many of their school
problems. In most of these cases, however, the colleges did not take
the initiative in contacting the home.- Instead, they worked through
the student in seeking ways to mitigate his circumstances. If parents
called the school, however, they were invited to the campus to discuss
their problems and the school would offer them any help to resolve
any troublesome situations confronting them or the student. In
two-thirds of the cases where students were involved in violations

of social-regulatory policies or rules, the students were communicated

with directly. Only three institutions contacted the parents in

-118-

discipline cases. The reasons why administrators differed in their
opinions regarding the contacting of parents will be discussed later
in this chapter.

Academic pressure was recognized by seven out of the twelve ad-
ministrators interviewed as a causal factor in certain disciplinary
cases. Students in some instances were found to violate rules involving
cheating and plagiarism mainly because they lacked enough time to
cope with their studies. Many of these students worked at full or
part-time jobs and attempted to carry academic programs that created
too much pressure. In some situations, students who lacked confidence,
or in some cases, particular abilities, became involved in the type
of violations stated above, because of the fear of failure. Depending
on the circumstances involved in each case, social probation, suspension,
or dismissal were generally the disciplinary measures utilized to
enforce the colleges' policies and rules in this area. This did not
negate the use of counselling, however, to help the student to allevi-
ate the pressures that caused him to violate a school rule.

Disciplinary administrators emphasized that their respective
colleges may or may not have experienced certain problems of group mis-
conduct due to the geographical location and population make-up of
their particular institutions. For example, racial tension and con-
flict caused disciplinary problems and violations at only two of the
colleges visited. Although financial insecurity was also a factor
listed as a source of student problems depending on the location of

the college.

-ll9-

With regards to student protests and student administration
conflict, disciplinary administrators noted that unlike the four year
colleges, community colleges in Michigan have not as yet experienced
very extensive student protests or campus upheavals. They cited the
fact that many students in the two-year colleges have work and sChool
schedules that seem to delimit their involvement in too many organized
activities. Also, it must be noted that the first year of community
college is a year of adjustment, and by the time many students
become involved in various activities or social movements during the
second year, they are already involved in either transfer plans to a
four year institution or graduation. All administrators, however,
sensed that this rather peaceful climate may well change in the days
ahead. They sensed that even at the community college, students will
want to have much more say about their personal and institutional
lives on campus and also a stronger voice in the administration of
campus affairs. Table 6 summarizes the factOrs contributing to the
frequency of student violations of social-regulatory policies and

rules.

-120-

TABLE 6

Administrative Perceptions of Factors Contributing To

Student Violations of Social-Regulatory Policies and

Rules

 

_

 

Contributing Factors Community College Responses
YES NO
1. Personality disorders or emotional
maladjustment 10 2
2. Non-Conformist Attitude 0 12
3. Immaturity 8 4
4. Home Environment 11 1
5. Racial Tension 2 10
6. Academic Pressure 7 5
7. Influence of Off-Campus
Organizations 0 12
8. Financial Insecurity 3 9
9. ‘Misunderstanding of Regulations 0 12
10. Student-Faculty Conflict 0 12
11. Student-Administration Conflict 0 12

 

 

-121-

THE ROLE 92 THE DISCIPLINARY ADMINISTRATOR

 

Regardless of the title on the door, the disciplinary adminis-
trator is the person who is charged with the responsibility of seeing
that students conduct themselves appropriately at all times. He is
often forced in the ambiguous position of representing the whole
gamit of law enforcement. For example, he sometimes must play the
role detective, prosecutor, defendant, and judge for a single infraction.
Having to play the alternating role of a sort of pastor and police-
man, sympathetic counsellor and judge, or teacher and tyrant, is by no
means a simple task. '

In an effort to determine the role of the disciplinary adminis-
trator at each of the twelve community colleges visited, a number of
questions were asked regarding administrative procedures and practices.
Responses to this aspect of the interview will be presented in the

following paragraphs.

Administrative structure and procedure

 

It was the practice, at all of the community colleges visited, to
have one administrator charged with the over-all responsibility of the
entire student personnel program. This program generally included
admissions and records, counselling, student activities, student
government, health services, financial assistance and student conduct
and citizenship. Of course the board of trustees in each institution
delegated the responsibility for student discipline to the president

of the college, who in turn delegated the responsibility to the person

-122-

placed in charge of student personnel services. As reported in
Chapter IV, titles of the individual placed in charge of student
personnel services included Assistant Dean of Student Services,

Dean of Students, Dean of Student Affairs, Dean of Student Personnel
Services, Director of Student Affairs and Director of Student

Personnel Services.

Responsibility for Disciplinary Administration

With regards to title, disciplinary administrators were question-
ed as to whether it would be best to divide the responsibility for
student conduct on the basis of the sex of the student - that is -
should there be a dean of men to handle the problems of male students
and a dean of women for female students? The findings revealed con-
clusively that all twelve administrators interviewed opposed a
division of responsibility for discipline on the basis of sex. The
administrators called this administrative approach to handling
discipline problems outmoded. The use of such titles as dean of men
and dean of women were primarily disliked because they implied a
partition of duties that just isn't realistic any more. There was
unanimous agreement that a chief disciplinary administrator was im-
perative to avoid conflicting decisions in similar cases regardless
of the sex of the student. None of the colleges involved in this
study provided for a division of responsibility for the handling of
discipline cases.

Disciplinary administrators also stressed the fact that generally

speaking, less than 10% of their time was spent in the handling of

-123-

discipline problems. This supported the contention that the
over all behavior of the students of the colleges was generally

speaking, good.

Referral Procedures

 

Faculty £2 disciplinary administrator - In response to the
question relating to the existence of written procedures governing
referrals from faculty members to the disciplinary administrator,
nine out of the twelve disciplinary administrators stated that the
referral procedures had been defined in writing but not in great
detail. Three of the disciplinary administrators noted that this pro-
cedure was discussed at the beginning of each school year, however, no-
thing was in writing. Instead, the situation was generally handled by
personal conference or through a phone call. Only one of the three
colleges that had no written procedure in this area felt that they
were necessary.

Most administrators agreed that the listing of referral procedures
was necessary to assure that confidential information was handled

correctly and cases adjudicated on the basis of written facts and
explanations, not merely on what was thought to be the verbal under-

standing of the cases.

Disciplinary administrator referrals t2 staff and agency - Discip-

 

 

linary administrators in eight out of the twelve colleges visited
followed written procedures in making student referrals to other staff
members or agencies. Four administrators made referrals on an informal

basis without following specific policies or written procedures. Even

though these differences existed in terms of the recognition of the

-124-

necessity for policies or spelled out procedures regarding referrals,
all of the administrators stressed the fact that disciplinary adminis-
trators should know enough about the dynamics of behavior to be aware
of normality and abnormality, so that on occasion, disciplinary cases
requiring special help, could be referred to an appropriate profess-
ional person or agency. Those who functioned informally, generally
used a personal phone call or a memorandum as a means of communication.
When questioned about the necessity of policies and procedures regard-
ing student referrals, all except one administrator felt that the

manner in which referrals are made should be clearly defined.

Administrative Practices Regardipg Discipline

The review of the literature revealed that even though it was
considered good practice to formulate clearly defined policies to act
as guidelines for administrative decisions, many institutions of higher
education were negligent in this area and failed to develop policies
which governed disciplinary practices regarding student conduct. It
was also noted that the goal of an efficient community college operation
could best be reached by separating board policy from what should be
defined as rules and regulations -- hence, clearly indicating the
relationships between the board of trustees and its administrative
staff.
Disciplinary administrators interviewed for the purposes of this
study were asked whether their colleges had written policies which
they employed regarding such disciplinary measures as to the placement

of students on probation, or the suspension or dismissal of students.

-125-

Six disciplinary administrators stated that disciplinary actions were
taken according to stated policy, while the other six disciplinary
administrators admitted that the board of trustees of their institutions
had not written policies specifically covering actions in this area.
Thus, administrative action in the latter cases was completely
independent and free from the board's guidelines with the exception of

possible review.

Withdrawal 2: student privileges - Disciplinary action that involved

 

 

the withdrawal of certain student privileges for a specified period

of time was a method that was used by all but three of the disciplinary
administrators interviewed. For example, student violators in some
cases were banned from certain activities for a stipulated time period,
while in other cases students were deprived of the use of a particular
college facility such as the library or cafeteria. Most administrators
noted that the student's activity and identification cards were
collected to insure compliance with the restriction of privileges. If
the student complied, his cards were returned. Although all who used
this method of discipline vouched for its effectiveness, the three
administrators who did not, felt it was ineffective because it was

difficult to enforce.

Probation - Disciplinary administrators in all of the colleges visited
used a system of probation for student violators as a means of cor-
rective discipline. It was generally agreed that placing a student

on some form of probation for his misconduct was an effective means of

-126-

action in cases where it seemed that suspension or dismissal as
penalties "did not fit the crime". The terms of probation, however,
were sometimes imposed as a post suspension requirement. For
instance, if a student was suspended for several days, he could be
placed on probation status for six months with the stipulation that
if the infraction of the conduct code was repeated, dismissal action

would be initiated against the student.

Suspension - In all of the colleges visited for the purposes of the
study, the administrator in charge of discipline was delegated the
authority to suSpend students for violating a social-regulatory rule.
Disciplinary administrators noted that this method of discipline was
rarely used and only in the most serious cases of misconduct or after
other corrective measures had failed to bring about a behavioral
change for the better. In some cases a student was suspended until

a complete investigation of the infraction of school rules was made.
The presidents and boards of each of the colleges visited only became
involved in suspension cases if an appeal was made by the student
requesting a review of the disciplinary action. Eight out of the
twelve disciplinary administrators were required to keep their college
presidents informed of the disciplinary dispositions of student cases

of misconduct.

Dismissal 25 expulsion - The dismissal or expulsion of a student re-
quired board action, in six out of the twelve colleges visited. In
the other six colleges, this action could apparently be taken by the

disciplinary administrator but with the understanding that the board

would review the decision if circumstances necessitated this action.

-127-

Disciplinary administrators were quick to note that this was the
most severe penalty that could be imposed by the college, and that if
possible, every attempt was made to avoid its use. Often a student
was given the option to withdraw from the college instead of going

through the formal expulsion procedures.

Support 2f disciplinary action py administrative superiors- Each of
the disciplinary administrators interviewed stated that they had

the full support of the college president on all disciplinary action.
None could think of a case which they had handled where a superior
administrative officer had reversed a particular disciplinary
decision which had been made. All of the administrators stressed

the fact that responsibility for the control of student conduct was
not practical without the necessary authority to employ a variety of
disciplinary measures to attempt to correct the midconduct. It was
considered most important by disciplinary administrators that students
be aware of this authority, otherwise, the disciplinary control

factor is weakened in the attempt to correct misbehavior.

Notification 2f parents - Although eight out of twelve disciplinary
administrators stated earlier in this chapter that they did not
generally notify parents of disciplinary action against students
because they felt the students had to eventually accept the burden

of responsibility for their actions, most agreed that probably parents
of students under the age of twenty-one years had a right to be in-
formed. Administrative inconsistancy was apparent in this area of

disciplinary procedures. None of the colleges involved had specific

-128-

policies written regarding the notification of parents. Some of the

comments disciplinary administrators made were most enlightening.

Parents should be notified only if the in-

fraction is a major one.

How can you expect the student to mature if
you continue to hold the threat of his parents
over him -- who ultimately has to be responsible

for his actions?

Parents have a right to know if a student is

not twenty one.

Sometimes parents can help correct a situation;
there are many who have a great deal to offer a
student in terms of understanding, guidance and

support.

A student in college needs to stand on his own

two feet -- his parents can't be his crutch.

Records pf disciplinary action - All except one disciplinary adminis-

 

trator stated that they kept confidential files on students who
violated social-regulatory rules of the college. It was stressed,
however, that these files never became part of the student's official
record. One administrator who did not believe in a confidential file,

inserted written summaries of disciplinary cases in the student's

-129-

cumulative record. Because a student's cumulative file was often
referred to for reference information many disciplinary administrators
were reluctant to place certain information in the record that might
be detrimental to the student's future welfare.

There seemed to be a lack of uniform practice regarding the
manner in which information, relative to cases involving disciplinary
action, was handled. 'Most administrators agreed, however, that when
a student transferred from the community college, it was not the
usual procedure to include information on a transcript regarding a
specific disciplinary action. None of the disciplinary administrators
could refer to defined policies that specifically pertained to the
manner of keeping records. The procedures used seemed to be deter-
mined by the particular philosOphy of the individual in charge of

discipline.

THE ROLE OF THE COUNSELLOR

In Chapter II, existing differences between authorities were
reviewed regarding the role of the counsellor. The point in question
was whether or not a counsellor could successfully integrate the
functions of counselling and discipline as a professional respon-
sibility. This question was raised during the interview with each of
the twelve disciplinary administrators. The findings are discussed
in the following paragraphs.

All but one of the colleges visited reported that their counsel-

lors were not involved in the handling of discipline problems from

-130-

the viewpoint of meting out certain penalties. One college noted
that the counselling and discipline functions had been combined for
many years. In questioning the disciplinary administrators further,
however, it became evident that every single one of them felt that
counselling and the task of meting out discipline did not mix as the
functions of one person. In the one college that combined the
functions, it develOped that a reorganization of personnel was being
contemplated to eliminate this dual role concept.

Although all of the disciplinary administrators noted that they
became involved in the counselling process during the course of hand-
ling various discipline problems, they stressed the point that the
student is subjected to their counselling by virtue of authority. The
student-counsellor relationship on the other hand was voluntary, one

evolving out of a search for help.

THE ROLE g: THE FACULTY

 

To what extent do faculty members assume the responsibility for
enforcing social-regulatory policies? The answer to this question was
sought during the interviews with the disciplinary administrators of
the twelve colleges visited.

In partial response to the question asked above, disciplinary
administrators in all of the colleges visited stated that faculty
members were responsible for their own classroom discipline. It was
noted that with the exception of gross misconduct such as fighting,

vulgarity, and plagiarism, etc. which generally was referred to the

-13l-

dean's office, the faculty handled discipline in the classrooms

very well. Responsibility for supervision and control of student
conduct outside of the classroom (athletic events, dances, club
sponsors, etc.) was assigned to faculty members in only six out of
the twelve colleges visited. Only two of the disciplinary admin-
istrators of the six colleges that did not assign faculty members
responsibility for the control of student conduct at certain extra-
curricular student activities and events, felt that this should be
done. Most of the administrators were quick to point out that regard-
less of their individual feelings, this question was unique, because
in Michigan, it most probably would be answered through negotiations.
Unlike most community colleges in the nation, most Michigan Community
Colleges in the past year have been busily involved in collective
bargaining. Reaponsibility for conduct control outside of the class-
room is an item that disciplinary administrators can no longer always
delegate by assignment. It is now an item that is subject to
negotiations as part of the working conditions that become included
in the bargaining process.

Outside of special events that in some cases could be assigned,
all of the colleges reported that faculty members were expected to
report observed infractions on campus to the disciplinary adminis-
trators. Although faculty members never played a direct role in
adjudicating the initial case of misconduct, seven out of the twelve
colleges visited, reported that faculty members participated as
members of judicial review panels for hearing appeals of student

discipline cases.

-132-

Some of the comments on the attitudes of most community college
instructors toward their involvement in the supervision and control
of student conduct beyond the walls of the classroom were not only

informative, but most enlightening.

Non-involvement seems to be just as fashionable
among faculty members as it is in the rest of our
society. They often look the other way rather than

do something about an obvious infraction of the rule.

Most of our faculty members are pretty decent about
helping me do my job. They'll phone me many times to

"nip a would be incident in the bud".

Some faculty members don't have vision beyond the
classroom - what goes on on campus seems to be in an-

another world for them.

Many faculty members don't like to jeopardize
their popularity by doing what should be done about

violations of school policy.

We sometimes expect too much from faculty members.
Surely they should participate in supervising events
as school representatives, but not as disciplinarians.

There should be campus police for that purpose.

-l33-

THE ROLE 92: THE STUDENT

 

The findings reported in Chapter IV regarding the involvement
of students in the development of policies and rules concerning
student conduct, and the review of the literature in Chapter II,
substantiated the fact that it was good practice to encourage student
participation in the formulation of policies and rules. It appeared
axiomatic that those who were governed by rules should have had some
say as to the form in which they were developed. Nevertheless, the
truth of the matter is that policies and rules that had major impli-
cations were deve10ped solely by administrators. Student involvement
in reality was generally encouraged in developing policies and rules
dealing with relatively minor areas of conduct.

In light of the above summary concerning the student's role in
developing policies and rules, what should the role of students be
in the enforcement of social-regulatory policies? Disciplinary ad-
ministrators interviewed had very definite vieWpoints regarding this

question. The findings are reported in the following paragraphs.

Student Courts

 

The use of students to assist disciplinary administrators in en-
forcing social-regulatory policies and rules through a student court
has generated a good deal of controversy. When disciplinary adminis-
trators were asked whether they had a student court on their campuses

to handle student conduct violations, ten out of twelve responded

-134-

negatively. In the two colleges where a student court was used to
assist the disciplinary administrator, cases were generally limited
to dress code infractions or parking violations. The two adminis-
trators did not think that they were too effective. All twelve of
the administrators involved in the interview viewed the use of a
student court to aid in the enforcement of social-regulatory rules as
an undesirable approach to the handling of student cases. They made

the following types of comments.

Students dislike judging their peers one day and
having to rationalize their position as a judge the

next.

Students lack training in this area and sometimes
are harsher than disciplinary administrators in their

penalties.

There are certain types of information that should
never be brought before a student court because of the

harm it could bring to the student on trial.

Students should not be given reSponsibility in areas
where the law implies that the authority and responsibil-

ity rests solely with the college.

Penalties

 

Nine out of the twelve disciplinary administrators stated that

students were not involved in considering the types penalties that

-135-

should be used to help correct violators. Three administrators noted
that although they didn't believe in students playing the role of
judges, there was nothing wrong in their helping an administrator to
develop certain penalties to be used with certain violations. All
of the administrators mentioned the fact that student opinion was
often sought by administrators but that they were not always involved

in the direct development of penalties.

 

Student Involvement ip Hearings

None of the colleges visited permitted students to participate
on panels to hear appeal cases of student violators. Generally the
same reasons for not having students involved as those cited for the

student court were given.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

 

The review of the literature revealed the fact that the charters
of most institutions of higher education have been founded under grants
of power extended by the state legislatures. Boards of trustees
generally have been given broad authority to govern and manage their
colleges and universities including the implicit grant to enforce com-
pliance with those policies and regulations which they establish. The
predominant number of the community colleges visited for the purposes
of this study function under this type of broad authority granted by
the legislature in section 1159, paragraph 12 of the General School

.ngg 2: Michigan. The one exception to this use of broad authority

-l36-

was found in Highland Park Community College, where the college is
physically connected to the high school and under the control of a
K-12 school board. Because of this factor rules sometimes exist
because the college is forced to adhere to certain secondary school
codes adopted by the board. Disciplinary administrators predicted
that in due time all of the community colleges in Michigan will be
organized as separate districts with their own boards, thus eliminat-
ing K-12 boards of trustees and conflict with high school standards
of discipline.

The position of community colleges to exercise sufficient
supervision and control over its students and their social organi-
zations has been legally affirmed. The main questions that have been
raised in the courts regarding discipline, generally center around the
mode of discipline, its reasonableness, and whether a student's basic
rights were violated. Most community college administrators stated
that they had not experienced any legal problems concerning any
disciplinary actions that they had taken. However, they noted that
the legal turmoil being experienced at the university and four year
college level regarding student rights could well filter down to
community college campuses.

In light of this possibility, disciplinary administrators of
the twelve colleges visited were asked several questions regarding the

degree of due process that they accorded students in discipline cases.
Written Notification pf Violation

Disciplinary administrators in seven of the twelve colleges

-l37-

visited notified students in writing regarding the alleged violation.
Five of the administrators noted that they handled this situation

by a personal conference.

Names pf Accuser and Witnesses

Seven out of the twelve colleges reported that students are
notified in writing of the names of the accuser and the witnesses.
Five administrators stated that this procedure was not used but that
they informed a student violator of these facts, if it became

necessary.

Testimony pf Accused

Student violators were required to testify, even if it meant self
incrimination, in seven out of the twelve community colleges visited.
Five colleges did not require students to discuss the apparent facts
in violation cases. However, this did not necessarily eliminate the

possibility of disciplinary consequences.

Privilege pf Counsel

All of the disciplinary administrators interviewed stated that a
student had the right to use legal counsel in cases involving

violations of social-regulatory policies or rules.

Cross Examination pf Accuser gr'Witnesses

 

Disciplinary administrators at all of the colleges involved in

this study stated that the student had the right to cross examine

-138-

his accuser or any witnesses regarding the alleged violation.

Hearings

Students at all of the colleges visited were entitled to expedi-

tions hearings regarding alleged violations.

Reasons for Disciplinary Penalties

All of the disciplinary administrators interviewed stated that
students were entitled to an eXplanation of the reasons for a decision

rendered against him.

Right £3 Appeal

All twelve colleges visited provide students with the right to
appeal the decision of the disciplinary administrator to the Presi-

dent of the college, a special appellate board or the board of trustees.

Most of the administrators felt that, all in all, the state laws
permitted enough freedom for their institutions to develop and en-
force their social-regulatory policies. Several administrators noted,
however, that they felt the state legislature should counter-balance
certain recent court decisions regarding student's rights, with laws
stipulating emphatically the rights of public institutions of higher
education with respect to the preservation of the institution's author-

ity.

-139-

SUMMARY

This chapter reported the findings that dealt with the enforce-
ment of student social-regulatory policies and rules at the twelve
community colleges visited. The items discussed were the extent and
frequency of student violations, contributory factors generally in-
volved in misconduct cases, the role of the disciplinary adminis-
trator and other staff members, disciplinary administrative practices,
and the legal implications regarding the administrative enforcement
of disciplinary policies and rules.

Generally Speaking, student conduct was rated very good by the
disciplinary administrators interviewed. This was supported by the
fact that they all reported having to Spend less than ten per cent
of their administrative time to handle disciplinary problems. The
areas of most frequent concern to the disciplinary administrators
were problems involving "drinking", "theft", "campus parking", and
"cafeteria behavior". Problems involving a lesser frequency of
occurrence were those dealing with "lounge behavior", "litterbugging",
and "financial reSponsibility".

Although titles for disciplinary administrators differed, com-
munity colleges visited had only one administrator handling discipline
cases. At no time was the responsibility divided according to the
sex of the student.

Most disciplinary administrators noted they had written procedures
in use for referral of conduct problems from disciplinary administrators
to the staff and from the staff to them. There was general agreement

that student conduct information should be handled discreetly.

-140-

With regard to disciplinary penalties, suspension and dismissal
from classes were practices not too often used. The less severe
disciplinary measures of probation or withdrawal of privileges were
used more often. If dismissal had to be invoked, a student was
usually afforded the opportunity to withdraw from school.

Disciplinary administrators by in large did not favor the idea
of notifying parents regarding most violations. However, they
generally agreed when questioned further that parents Should be noti-
fied and subsequently involved in the more serious cases. In all
cases, students should be contacted.

There was an apparent lack of uniformity among disciplinary ad-
ministrators regarding their record keeping procedures. Most of the
administrators kept confidential records.

All of the disciplinary administrators felt that the functions
of discipline and counselling should be separated when referring to
the role of the counsellor. Only one college assigned disciplinary
duties to its counsellors.

The faculty of the community colleges visited, generally performed
well in controlling their classroom discipline problems. In half
the institutions they were assigned certain activities in terms of
supervision and control. Generally speaking, faculty members were
not considered to be too effective in enforcing college policies and
rules outside of the classroom. Disciplinary administrators by in
large preferred the use of security police to supervise campus sponsored

activities. At any rate, it was felt that collective bargaining would

-l4l-

probably determine the role of the faculty in this area in the
future.

Disciplinary administrators unanimously agreed that the student
court was not a very effective means to deal with the enforcement of
policies and rules. It was felt that students Should not be in-
volved in judging their peers. Administrators did agree, however,
that students could be consulted regarding the various types of
penalties that they considered fair to impose on student violators
for certain violations.

The legal implications regarding the authority granted community
colleges in Michigan to enforce their rules and regulations were
reviewed. The degree of due process accorded student violators in the

community colleges visited was also discussed.

CHAPTER VII

SUMMARY , CONCLUSJIONS , RECOMMENDATIONS ,

AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE STUDY

 

A summary of this study, the methodology of the investigation,
and the findings are contained in this chapter. Conclusions drawn
from the analysis of the collected data are presented. Included also
in this last chapter are suggested guidelines to aid administrators
in charge of student personnel services in the development, communi-
cation, and enforcement of written social-regulatory policies and
rules governing student conduct, and citizenship at rapidly growing
community colleges in Michigan. Implications for future research and

study are noted in the concluding paragraphs of the chapter.

SUMMARY 9_F_ THE PROBLEM

History is replete with examples of the divergencies of opinion
that have existed in higher education regarding the development,
communication, and enforcement of social-regulatory policies. In
light of this, the author of this dissertation felt that an analysis
of specific social-regulatory practices of selected rapidly growing
community colleges would be most timely.

It was the purpose of this Study, therefore, to make a survey
analysis of specific social-regulatory practices of selected com-
munity colleges in.Michigan to ascertain the prevailing conditions

that exist regarding the following:

-143-

The origin and extent of written social-regulatory policies

and the provisions for change.

The types of rules of conduct.

The communication of social-regulatory policies and rules.

The enforcement of social-regulatory policies and rules.

Data were collected to provide answers to the following questions:

10

What is the extent of written social-regulatory policies
and rules governing various areas of student conduct and

discipline?

What aspects of student conduct and discipline should be

governed by written social-regulatory policies and rules?

Who helped to formulate the written policies and rules

governing Student conduct and discipline?

Who should be involved in developing social-regulatory
policies concerning student behavior and discipline in the
community college and how often Should these policies be

reviewed?

What methods of communication are the most effective in
disseminating information about social-regulatory policies

in community colleges?

What areas of student conduct and discipline present the

most frequent problems and what are some of the contributing

-144-

factors to these problems?

7. What is the role of the disciplinary administrator
and how much time does he spend on the handling of

discipline problems?

8. To what extent should the counsellors, other faculty
members and students be involved in the enforcement of

community college policies and rules?

9. To what extent is due process accorded students in

disciplinary procedures?

10. Do present state laws permit enough freedom for the com-
munity college to develop and enforce its social-regulatory

policies?

SUMMARY 9; METHODOLOGY

The procedures used to study the problem included a search of
the literature, and other sources of data for information related to
the study. College publications such as Student handbooks, faculty
policy manuals, college catalogues, bulletins, announcements and
School neWSpapers were used to obtain certain information. Newspaper
articles were reviewed for items related to the study. The information
gleaned from the review of these publications formed the basis from
Ivhich the author formulated the questions that later comprised the
interview guide used to interview the disciplinary administrators of

the community colleges visited for the purposes of this study.

-145-

The major procedure used, however, to obtain data for this
investigation was that of personally interviewing disciplinary ad-
ministrators to ascertain what their views and judgments were re-
garding the social-regulatory practices of their respective com—
munity colleges. As previously stated, a preliminary review of the
literature and various college publications pertinent to this study
helped to produce the necessary information from which one-hundred
and fifty questions were developed and grouped into four major areas
according to the chapter outlines proposed for the study. The instru-
ment was then submitted to the writer's doctoral committee for review.
The constructive suggestions offered were most helpful in making
final changes in the interview guide. A copy of the instrument can
be found in the appendix.

Each of the interviews were arranged by personal long-distance
phone calls. The factor of time prohibited written requests for per-
sonal interviews. The disciplinary administrators interviewed are
also listed in the appendix.

The interviews were held in the campus office of the administra-
tors in charge of discipline. The persons interviewed were assured
that their comments and responses to the questions asked would not be
identified by name. In each instance, informality and a very relaxed
atmosphere were the rule rather than the exception. Although specific
questions were asked, administrators were encouraged to comment re-
garding the reasons for their responses. Most interviews lasted

over two hours with one or two taking a somewhat lesser amount of time.

-l46-

In selecting the community colleges to be visited for the
personal interviews, several factors such as the size of enrollment
of the college, the location, as well as the experience of the
disciplinary administrator were taken into consideration. The study
was limited to those community colleges with an enrollment of more
than fifteen-hundred day students. It was felt that larger instit-
utions would be more apt to have written policies and rules. Eight
of the colleges selected for this study had urban settings, two had
suburban settings and two had rural settings. The location was con-
sidered important because of the possible differences that various
environments reflect in terms of Student behavior problems. All
disciplinary administrators included in this study served in their
present positions for at least two years. It was felt that it
would be unwise to interview a newly appointed individual because he
might not be too familiar with all of the policies, rules and
problems relating to the social-regulatory practices of the college.

Treatment of the data was accomplished as simply as possible.
Quantitative statical analysis were not considered as important for
the purposes of this study as were the comments of the responders.
Answers to the questions, however, were tabulated and reported. After
tabulating and analyzing the data gathered, conclusions, recom-
mendations and implications for future study were drawn from the

findings.

SUMMARY pg THE FINDINGS

 

Title pf the Disciplinary Administrator

The twelve disciplinary administrators of the colleges visited

-147-

represented six different titles, even though they were usually
referred to simply as "the dean". The most common title used was
"Dean of Student Personnel Services". Five community colleges used
this title. Other community colleges referred to the person in
charge of discipline as, "The Assistant Dean of Student Services",
"The Dean of Students", "The Dean of Student Affairs", "The Director

of Student Affairs", or "The Director of Student Personnel Services".

Experience 3f Disciplinary Administrators

 

 

The range for the years of service in position for the adminis-
trators interviewed was from two years to twenty-two years.
Seventy-five per cent of the administrators interviewed held their

present positions between two and four years.

Extent 2f Present Social-Regulatory Policies 23 Rules

 

Thirty areas of policies or rules related to student conduct and
discipline were listed in the interview guide. Disciplinary admin-
istrators were asked to state whether or not his community college
had a policy or rule in each of these areas. The findings for each

of the listed areas are briefly summarized in the following paragraphs.

Student rights - Only four of the twelve colleges visited

noted that they had written policies defining the rights of
students. All except two disciplinary administrators felt strong-
ly that clearly defined policies in this area would be most

helpful.

-148-

General responsibilities and duties pf student citizens -
Seventy-five per cent of the community colleges visited
had broad policy statements reflecting institional ex-
pectations. Even those that did not have statements,
recognized the need to define institutional expections in

this area.

Dress and personal appearance - Eight of the twelve com-
munity colleges had written statements defining acceptable
standards of dress and appearance. Three of the four
colleges that had no written policy or rules regarding dress
and appearance, felt that there was no need for one. It was
noted that appropriate dress was at times difficult to de-

fine and even more difficult to enforce.

Students' rights 52 assemble - Although only two colleges had
policies in this area, six of the ten remaining colleges
visited felt that their institutions should develop a policy

in this area.

Student plegiarism - Half of the disciplinary administrators
interviewed noted that they had written policies and rules in
this area. Of the remaining six, only one disciplinary ad-
ministrator felt that a written policy or rule was necessary

in this area.

Student cheating - Seven colleges had policy statements re-

garding cheating, while five did not. Only one of the five

-149-

colleges with no policy statements felt that there Should

be one.

Smoking - Eleven of the community colleges visited had
written regulations regarding designated areas in which
students were permitted to smoke. All administrators felt
that smoking should be permitted, but only in designated
areas. Five of the twelve colleges, however, did not

permit the sale of cigarettes on campus.

Gambling - Eleven of the twelve colleges prohibited all
forms of gambling by policy statements that generally were
broad in scope. All disciplinary administrators recognized
a need for policy statements and rules in this area. Two
colleges went so far as to forbid card-playing of any kind

on campus because of gambling problems.

Campus traffic and parking - Ten community colleges had written
regulations governing campus parking and traffic. All ad-
ministrators noted that this was a major area of college
concern, especially with the advent of rapidly rising en-

rollments.

Classroom behavior - Five colleges had written regulations
regarding behavior in this area, while seven did not have
written policies or rules. Instructors apparently set their

own standards.

-150-

Games and Recreational Activities - Only five colleges had
Specific written regulations referring to this area, the
other colleges had none and most felt no need to develop

any written rules in this area.

Alcoholic beverages - None of the community colleges visited

permitted the drinking of alcoholic beverages on campus.

Litterbugging - Only two of the twelve colleges had written
rules in this area. ‘Most of the other colleges saw no need

for definitive rules in this area.

Moral behavior (neckipg, petting,‘e£g.) - Four colleges had
policy statements, while eight had none. The great majority
saw no need for specific written policies or rules in this
area since action could be taken under such broad policy
statements as: "The college reserves the right to take

action against any student for unbecoming conduct".

Hazing and Initiations - Six community colleges had social-
regulatory policies applicable to this area of behavior. All
except two of the other colleges were considering the develop-

ment of policies in this area.

Use pf explosives (firecrackers, etc.) -and firearms pp campu -
Although only six colleges had rules and regulations govern-
ing the conduct of students in this area, most administrators

felt policies should be written to clarify this aspect of

-151-

student conduct. Of course all students must abide by

state laws in this regard.

‘Qp-Campus Organizations - All twelve colleges visited had
policies governing the approval of and role of on-campus

organizations.

Vandalism - Seven of the twelve colleges had policies or
rules relating to this area of student misbehavior. Three
others felt they needed to develop policies, while two
colleges considered the Situation a matter for civil author-

ities.

Theft, illegal entry 23 forgery - Seven colleges had written
rules and regulations regarding infractions in this area and
five had no policies written. Two of the five colleges hoped
to formulate policies, while the remaining colleges consider

this area one which Should be referred to civil authorities.

Identification cards - Eleven had rules regarding their use.

 

One college was develOping policies and rules regarding their

use.

Conduct 35 games pp other campus activities - Eight of the
colleges had policies written, while four saw no need for any

because of the infrequency of problems in this area.

Poster and advertising limitations - Only three colleges had

no policy statements in this area, however, all of the admin-

-152-

istrators interviewed saw the need for clearly defined

policies and rules in this area.

Student financial responsibility - Of the twelve colleges
visited, nine had written policies regarding student re-
sponsibility in this area. Two colleges felt no need to
write policies or rules in this area. One college was in

the process of formulating a policy.

Authorization 2f campus publications - Although only three
colleges failed to develOp written policies in this area,

all recognized the need for them.

The falsification pf records - Written policies in this area
were found in seven out of the twelve colleges visited. Four
of the remaining five colleges saw a definite need for policy

development in this area.

Authorization pf guest speakers pp campus - Eight colleges
published policies or rules regarding the use of guest speakers.
Two of the remaining four colleges planned to develop policies

or rules in this regard.

Definition 2: penalties for violation pf regplation - Only five
colleges defined penalties for Specific violations. Six felt
they did not want to do so, while one college thought it would

develop statements in this area.

-153-

Procedures for disciplinary action - Six colleges had written a
policy defining procedures, while the other six more or less
played each situation "by ear". Three of the six colleges

that had no policies governing this area admitted that they

were desirable.

All administrators interviewed observed an increasing concern
on the part of Students regarding the written policies and rules that
restrict their mode of conduct, especially with respect to their

voice in college affairs.

ORIGIN OF PRESENT POLICIES AND RULES

The social-regulatory policies and rules of three of the twelve
colleges were developed entirely by the board of trustees or admin-
istrators without any student involvement at all. Disciplinary
administrators of the other community colleges did involve students
in the formulation of most of the policies and rules pertaining to
student conduct and discipline. There was unanimous agreement that
Students should be involved in developing social-regulatory policies,
with the exception of those involving legal matters. All of the
colleges felt that faculty should play a role in developing policies
and rules dealing with Student conduct and discipline. The social-
regulatory policies and rules in nine out of the twelve colleges
were developed on a cooperative basis through a joint effort of ad-
ministrators, faculty members and students. ‘Many administrators found

it difficult to explain why some of their expressed beliefs were not

-154-
put into practice.
WRITTEN FORMS QF SOCIAL-REGULATORY POLICIES AND RULES

Administrators interviewed were for the most part in general
agreement that, whenever possible, student social-regulatory
policies and rules Should be written with a positive approach, in-
forming students of what constitutes acceptable behavior. However,
it was noted that it was not always feasible to state all rules in
a positive manner. For example, is there a better way to prohibit
smoking or parking in certain areas than by simply stating "no
smoking" or "no parking"? Even so, ten out of the twelve colleges
visited noted that most of their policies and rules regarding
student conduct were stated in the positive style. The rationale
offered for the positive approach to policy and rule making was that
"people tend to react more positively when told something in a

positive manner".
STUDENT ACCEPTANCE OF SOCIAL-REGULATORY POLICIES AND RULES

Disciplinary administrators in attempting to be as objective
as possible, judged that the policies and regulations of their
respective colleges regarding student conduct were accepted fairly
to very well by students. They admitted, however, that those student
social-regulatory policies which were formulated by a committee
representing administration, faculty and students seem to have the

highest degree of acceptance.

-155-

REVIEW AND REVISION 9F SOCIAL-REGULATORY POLICIES AND RULES

Community colleges involved in this study noted that current
changes in our society and new legal interpretations by the courts
made the review and revision of certain policies and rules im-
perative. Disciplinary administrators claimed that there is a
growing tendency for many colleges to become less involved in areas
involving dress and appearance, off-campus and in many cases on-
campus clubs, off-campus housing and off-campus behavior.

Approximately half of the colleges reviewed their policies and
rules annually. The others reported that they preferred reviewing

them as the need arose.

COMMUNICATION QF SOCIAL-REGULATORY POLICIES AND RULES

Although social-regulatory policies and rules were communicated
to the students via orientation programs, assemblies and other
meetings, there seemed to be agreement among the disciplinary admin-
istrators interviewed that Statements of policy and rules were most
frequently made and distributed through such written material as
policy manuals, handbooks, college catalogues, school newSpapers,

brochures, and to a lesser extent, letters to parents.

Faculty Policy Manuals

 

All but two of the twelve community colleges provided faculty
members with policy manuals. Only three of the manuals provided

faculty members, however, contained policies pertaining to student

-156-

conduct or a listing of any codes of conduct. Many disciplinary
administrators explained the lack of social-regulatory policies and
rules in faculty manuals by noting that most of their governing
boards assumed that student discipline was an administrative matter
that would be published in the student handbook. Only one college
manual had separated board policies concerning student conduct and
discipline from administrative rules and regulations. All adminis-
trators admitted that there seemed to be a laxity in this area of
policy development. Disciplinary administrators agreed that policy
guidelines approved by boards of trustees would prove to be a valu-
able reference when developing codes of conduct. There was complete
agreement with the authorities in the literature that institutional

expectations Should be spelled out in well developed written policies.

Announcements pr special bulletins

 

 

All colleges use this means to disseminate information regarding
social-regulatory policies and rules, especially if changes occur

after major publications are distributed.

Letters £2 parents

Most colleges in most instances preferred communicating with their
students and generally refrained from communicating with parents re-
garding social-regulatory policies and rules. They firmly believed
that if the community college is sincere in respecting the dignity

of the student as an adult it should communicate primarily with the

-157-

student and not the parent. Three colleges felt that parents had
a right to be informed. A11 administrators, however, welcomed any
contacts by parents and stressed that they would be more than happy

to cooperate with the parents in any way possible.

Student handbooks

All of the community colleges visited published student hand-
books and used them to disseminate information about its student
social-regulatory policies and rules. The amount of space alloted
to student conduct and discipline varied markedly from just one page

in one college handbook to twelve pages in another college handbook.

Brochures or letters to students

Ten of the twelve colleges felt a need to use brochures and
letters to inform students as to rules and regulations. The disci-
plinary administrators from the other two colleges felt that all of
the other publications used to disseminate this type of information

were sufficient.

College catalogues

Of the twelve 1967-68 community college catalogues examined,
only eight made reference to student conduct and citizenship and
most of these references were broad statements regarding the in-
stitutional expectations of students with regard to conduct and
citizenship responsibilities. Flint Community College had the most
extensive and definitive statements regarding student conduct and

discipline.

-158-

Orientation classes

All of the community colleges involved in this study except
one held orientation classes for new students. These classes or
sessions lasted from one to three days. Student handbooks were
generally used as the texts. Thus, it was somewhat common practice
to devote a portion of the total program to discussion_pertaining to
social-regulatory policies and rules. One college held an orienta-
tion assembly at the beginning of the School year. Attendance,
however, was not compulsory and many students did not attend, even
though social-regulatory policies and rules were reviewed. Several
disciplinary administrators suggested that these programs would be

more effective if student leaders presided over them.

School newspaper

 

Nine of the twelve disciplinary administrators interviewed re-
ported that the college newspaper was used to disseminate information
about social-regulatory policies and rules. Three colleges did not
feel that the newspaper should be used for administrative communi-

cations.

Special assemblies

Disciplinary administrators, on the whole, did not think that
assemblies were an effective means of communicating with students
regarding student conduct policies and rules. They claimed that con—
flict in student schedules made it impossible to reach the vast majority

of students.

-159-

Effectiveness pf various methods pf communications

 

 

Interviews with the disciplinary administrators revealed that
no one method of communication of social-regulatory policies and
rules was effective enough to reach all of the student body. Most
were in agreement that the most effective combination of communi-
cation methods for informing Students about social-regulatory policies
would probably be the use of handbooks, catalogues, newspapers and
compulsory orientation programs where student government officers
would share the responsibility for planning and presenting the pro-

gram.

ENFORCEMENT QB SOCIAL REGULATORY POLICIES AND RULES

Extent pf the Problem

 

On a three point scale ranging from low to high, all except one
of the disciplinary administrators listed the frequency of student
violations as being low. One administrator stated that the frequency
of student violations at his institution was average. On the whole
each disciplinary administrator rated the behavior of students as
being generally very good.

The majority of community college disciplinary administrators
stated that they spent less than ten per cent of their time in hand-

ling conduct and discipline problems.
Frequency pf Discipline Problems

Of the twenty-four areas of conduct listed in the interview

~160-

guide, fourteen different ones were mentioned as problems of fre-
quency. The areas of misconduct most frequently mentioned included
campus parking, theft, cafeteria behavior, and the drinking of
alcoholic beverages. Other conduct areas mentioned by disciplinary
administrators included dress and appearance, student protests,
lounge behavior, gambling, cheating, littering, conduct of off-campus
organizations, off-campus individual behavior, financial irresponsi-
bility, and racial conflict. The same problems were not common to

all colleges in terms of frequency.

FACTORS CONTRIBUTING 1‘9 THE EXTENT AND FREQUENCY 9g:

STUDENT CONDUCT PROBLEMS AS PERCEIVED BY ADMINISTRATORS

 

The following are a summary of the contributing factors:

1. Many of the student conduct problems handled by the disci-
plinary administrators were of the type that mainly stemmed from im-

maturity.

2. Since most of the students attending community colleges
reside at home, the home environment can have a tremendous bearing
on whether or not a student will violate rules and regulations.
What goes on in the family and the degree to which the family meets
the needs of the student is to a large extent the conditioning factor
that tends to motivate a student in either a positive or negative

direction.v

3. Academic pressure was cited by many administrators as a

factor which sometimes motivates a student to violate rules pertain-

-161-
ing to cheating or plagiarism.

4. Location and setting undoubtedly was a factor which con-
tributed to violations of rules in certain areas of misconduct
such as parking, theft, racial conflicts, and financial respon-

sibility.

5. Racial conflict, although not a major problem was noted

as a causal factor of certain violations of school rules.

6. Financial insecurity was also mentioned as a contributing
factor to the frequency of certain violations, especially those in-

xolving theft of money and books, etc.

7. Many administrators noted an increasing amount of emotional
problems and personality disorders as contributing factors to the

frequency of violations in various areas.

ROLE'QF THE DISCIPLINARY ADMINISTRATOR.AND

DISCIPLINARY PRACTICES

The disciplinary administrator of each of the colleges visited
was charged with the major responsibility of directing the entire
student personnel program. One aspect of his over all duties was
student discipline. His authority in this area was usually delegated
to him directly by the board of trustees according to policy or by
the president of the college. The following Statements reflect
briefly the responses of disciplinary administrators as to certain

practices relative to the administration of discipline:

-162-

1. All administrators opposed a division of responsi-
bility according to sex. This approach was thought to be
outmoded. A single person in charge avoided conflicting

decisions in similar cases.

2. Nine of the twelve college administrators noted that
written referral procedures were important in handling
student conduct problems. It was felt that this was impera-
tive to assure students that facts were placed in writing

and handled properly.

3. All administrators stressed that some knowledge of the
dynamics of behavior was essential in helping to recognize
when cases should be referred to another agency for pro-

fessional help.

4. Six administrators interviewed functioned according to
written policies defining disciplinary penalties, while six
'were free to take disciplinary action independently, for they

had no board guidelines.

5. Nine administrators reported that they often found the
method of withdrawing privileges for a period time as an

effective corrective disciplinary action.

6. The system of probationary status for Student violators
was used as an effective corrective action in disciplinary
cases. This procedure allowed for flexibility in various

cases .

-163-

7. All twelve disciplinary administrators were delegated
the authority to suspend students for violating a social-
regulatory rule. This method was rarely used, however,

except in the most serious cases of misconduct.

8. Dismissal or expulsion of a student required board
action in six out of the twelve colleges visited. In the
other colleges it was understood that even though the
board didn't initiate the action, it reserved the right to
review or disapprove it. Since this was considered the
most severe penalty that could be imposed by a college, a
student was often given the option to withdraw from school

in advance.

9. Eight of the twelve disciplinary administrators noted
that they did not make a practice of dealing with a student's
parents. In respecting the dignity of the student, they
thought it best to deal directly with him. Some adminis-
trators were quick to Stress that a parent had a right to be
informed of all cases involving infractions of college rules.
None of the colleges had written policies in this area. In
extreme cases most administrators admitted that if the
student were under twenty-one years of age, they would con-

tact the parents.

10. Record keeping procedures were not uniform. They seemed

to be determined by the philosophy of the individual adminis-

-164-

trator. All except one administrator kept confidential
records, because they were reluctant to place certain in-
formation in a student's file that might serve as a detri-

ment to him, even after he had corrected his ways.

11. All disciplinary administrators were supported by

their superiors.

THE ROLE OF THE COUNSELLOR

 

Eleven of the twelve colleges visited reported that their
counsellors were not involved in discipline. None of the
disciplinary administrators felt that the function of
counselling and discipline should be integrated as a single

responsibility.

ROLE _O_F_ THE FACULTY

 

The following findings summarized the extent to which faculty

was involved in discipline:

1. With the exception of extreme cases, faculty members
were responsible for their own classroom discipline in all

of the colleges visited.

2. Only six administrators assigned faculty members to

Special events. Others employed security police.

3. Many faculty members, however, did sponsor certain activi-

ties and hence were reSponsible for the discipline of the group.

-l65-

4. Most administrators felt that faculty members were
obligated to report infractions of college rules, however,
they noted that most faculty members objected to this

type of involvement.

5. ‘Most administrators noted that the role of faculty in
the area of enforcement will more and more be determined by
collective bargaining negotiations. Unlike most community
colleges in the nation, most Michigan Community Colleges in
the past year have engaged in the collective bargaining pro-

cess regarding working conditions and wages.

6. In most of the colleges, faculty members did participate

on panels reviewing cases that have been appealed.

THE ROLE OF THE STUDENT

1. Although not accepted as a desirable means of enforcing
social-regulatory policies by most of the twelve colleges, two col-
leges did use a student court to enforce rules not involving legal

matters .

2. Most administrators felt that students dislike judging their

peers.

3. It was felt that students lacked the training in the area Of
disciplinary enforcement and are sometimes harsher than disciplinary

administrators in their penalties.

-166-

4. Most administrators Stated that student violators gener-

ally didn't want certain facts presented before their peers.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

 

The main questions that have been raised in the courts regarding
discipline, generally focus on the mode of discipline, its reason-
ableness, and whether due process procedures were employed in de-
ciding the case. The following statements summarize the findings

regarding administrator's responses to questions in this area:

1. Disciplinary administrators in seven of the twelve colleges

notified students in writing regarding the alleged violation.

2. Students are notified in writing of the names of the accuser

and the witnesses in seven of the twelve colleges.

3. Student violators are required to give testimony in seven
out of the twelve colleges. Disciplinary administrators noted that
the colleges were not courts and were not obligated to function as

such.

4. All of the colleges permitted the student to use legal counsel

in cases where rules were violated.

5. Disciplinary administrators at all of the colleges stated
that students had the right to cross examine his accuser or any

witnesses regarding the alleged violation.

-l67-

6. Students at all of the colleges were entitled to expedi-

tions hearings.

7. Students were entitled to an explanation of the reasons

for a decision rendered against him.

8. All twelve colleges visited permitted a student to appeal
his case to a Special appellate board of faculty members and admin-

istrative officers or the board of trustees.

Most of the administrators interviewed felt that, all in all,
the state laws permitted enough freedom for their institutions to
develop and enforce their social-regulatory policies and rules.
Several administrators, however, strongly urged the legislature to
enact laws to strengthen the authority of colleges with regard to
self preservation during times of student-revolt or protest. It was

their feeling that institutional authority is slowly being eroded.

CONCLUSIONS

 

The findings presented in this dissertation were based upon the
responses of the disciplinary administrators interviewed for the
purposes of this study. Their views and judgements along with the
review of the literature and related research, helped to form the

basis for the following conclusions:

1. Most of the larger community colleges in Michigan are in
need of more carefully defined social-regulatory policies and rules

governing student conduct and discipline than they presently have

-l68-

written.

2. Many community colleges did not make a clear distinction
between policy statements written by the board of trustees and

administrative rules and regulations implementing policy.

3. Social-regulatory policies and rules are more likely to be
reasonable and more readily accepted when students, faculty members,

and administration share the responsibility for their formulation.

4. Although exceptions can be cited, students generally
respond more favorably to policies and rules stated in positive

terms rather than negative ones.

5. Community college students tend to comply with rules and
regulations more readily if the reasons for their existence are

clarified.

6. Communication of social-regulatory policies and rules is
more likely to be effectively achieved when they are published and
distributed and discussed at scheduled orientation sessions that
are planned and presided over by administrators, faculty members

and student leaders.

7. Misbehavior, aside from that which may originate from
pathology, is either (1) an outgrowth of the individuals' home
environment, (2) a matter of immaturity, (3) or an outgrowth of the

individual's past or current problems of adjustment.

-l69-

8. A student court system of enforcement of social-regulatory
policies and rules is not perceived by the participating adminis-

trators as an effective means to handle infractions.

9. Faculty members tend to ignore infractions of various
college rules outside of the classroom, because they are reluctant

to become involved.

10. The involvement of faculty members in the enforcement of
student conduct policies at certain campus events is more and more
being determined by collective bargaining negotiations. Michigan
seems to be a leader in this new venture in determining professional

roles and working conditions.

11. The single disciplinary administrator concept is preferred
over the concept suggesting a division of reSponsibilities accord-

ing to sex.

12. The counselling and disciplinary tasks are not considered
compatible functions for one person. Counsellors are rarely involved

in the administration of discipline.

13. Student probation and withdrawal of certain campus privi-
leges are the most widely used methods of discipline when infractions

of rules occur.

14. Dismissal, expulsion and suspension of community college
students for violating social-regulatory policies or rules are

used as disciplinary measures only in the most extreme cases. Stu-

dents are in some cases given the option to withdraw in situations

-170-

which might demand this type of penalty.

15. Michigan community college laws did not seem to restrict
the colleges from developing their own policies and rules governing
themselves. Section 1159, paragraph twelve of the Michigan General
School Laws is apparently broadly stated to permit a great degree of

freedom in terms of the determination of college policies and rules.

RECOMMENDATIONS

 

Undoubtedly the results of this study indicate that more attent-
ion must and will be focused upon the research of the behavioral
sciences for some answers to the ways in which the administration
of discipline can be most effectively accomplished. Certainly not
all disciplinary administrators, faculty members, students and
behavioral scientists always agree upon the answers to the problem,
however, this should never deter the search for a common core of
agreement that could be referred to as a guideline in dealing with
the administration of discipline. The personal, ethical, moral,
and political implications of todays student unrest makes this task
imperative. The following criteria are offered as broad Standards
by which major social-regulatory practices in Michigan community

colleges can be clinically judged as satisfactory:

1. CLEARLY AND COGENTLY FORMULATED WRITTEN SOCIAL-REGULATORY
POLICIES SHOULD EXIST AND SHOULD BE PUBLICIZED.

Rationale: The college must assume its
obligation to define its expectations of

2.

3.

4.

-171-

students. The enlightenment of students as to
their defined roles on campus is an important
part of the educational process.

SOCIAL-REGULATORY POLICIES SHOULD BE FORMULATED COOPERATIVELY
AND DEMOCRATICALLY.

Rationale: It would seem desirable to have admin-
istrators, faculty members, and students share

in some way in the formulation of policies for it
seems reasonable to assume that people who are
involved in the policy-making process will be more
likely to accept the policies formulated.

POLICIES AND REGULATIONS SHOULD BE SYSTEMATICALLY REVIEWED
PERIODICALLY.

Rationale: Policies and regulations governing the
social order of the community college may well
meet the needs of common utility at a particular
period of time in the development of the college;
but, in the further process of this development,
they may cause anti-social effects if they are out-
dated and are not progressively changed as the
social, customs and mores of the college community
change.

THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE ROLE OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES
AND THE ROLE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR REGARDING THE SOCIAL-
REGULATORY FUNCTIONS IN COMMUNITY COLLEGES SHOULD BE RECOG-
NIZED AND MUTUALLY RESPECTED.

Rationale: The line between policy-making and ad-
ministrative function is often difficult to determine,
but it is a necessary one to define. The board,
representing the public interest, should make the
broad policy-making decisions of the college. It
should also make sure the college is well managed, but
should not become involved in the process of manage-
ment. In exercising the authority derived from the
board, the administrator should establish and be
responsible for an organization to adequately carry
out the management of the college. The administrator

-172-

would be wise to keep the board well informed
regarding the various aspects of the management
process. A well informed board would be more
likely to make intelligent decisions, especially,
during troublesome times.

5. A COLLEGE, REGARDLESS OF ITS SIZE, SHOULD HAVE SOME OFFICIAL
WITH PROFESSIONAL TRAINING IN THE BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES AND

ADMINISTRATION RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF STUDENT

DISCIPLINE.

Rationale: The administration of discipline is
a vital part of the education process and Should
be carried out by a professionally trained person
who has a good conceptual understanding of the

disciplinary process and social-regulatory policies
of the institution.

6. CONSISTENT IMPLEMENTATION OF SOCIAL-REGULATORY POLICIES SHOULD
BE ENHANCED BY OPEN AND SYSTEMATIC COMMUNICATION BOTH

HORIZONTALLY AND VERTICALLY.

Rationale: Two-way communication is one of the
major conditions of effective administration. It
requires that all persons whose interests are
vitally affected by a proposal be able to partici-
pate in the discussions from the time the problem
is defined until a decision is reached.

7. DUE PROCESS SHOULD BE DEFINED BY THE COLLEGE TO SAFEGUARD THE
STUDENT FROM ANY POSSIBLE ABUSES AND INJUSTICES IN CASES IN-
VOLVING POSSIBLE DISCIPLINARY ACTION.

Rationale: Although colleges are not, in a true
sense, microsms of society, and although campus
citizens do not exercise the same political control
of the educational community as they do in civil
government, the american tradition of fair play
makes it seem that colleges are morally bound to
provide violators of its codes with procedural
guarantees for a fair and just hearing of the

charges and the right to appeal a decision to the
highest authority of the institution.

-173-

8. PENALTIES SHOULD BE CHOSEN PRIMARILY WITH THE AIM THAT
THEY WILL ASSIST IN THE REHABILITATION OF THE STUDENT.
Rationale: The major purpose of the disciplin-
ary process, aside from keeping the law, Should
be the education of the student.
9. THE CONFIDENTIALITY AND PRIVILEGED CHARACTER OF STUDENT
DISCIPLINE RECORDS SHOULD BE SAFE-GUARDED BY THE COLLEGE.
Rationale: Disclosure of confidential infor-
mation, under any circumstances, except by
court order, would make it impossible for
colleges to hold hearings and expect students
to tell them the truth.
A clinical judgement of the social-regulatory practices of the twelve

colleges visited for the purposes of this study, according to the

criteria Stated above, can be found in Table 7.

-l74-

TABLE 7

Clinical Judgements of Social—Regulatory Practices of the Colleges

Selected for this Study According to Specific Criteria.

 

 

CRITERIA

An "X" denotes that the college's
Social-regulatory practices are
judged to be satisfactory accord-
ing to the specific criterion.

 

COLLEGES VISITED
A B C D E F G H I J K

 

1.

Clearly and cogently formulated
written social-regulatory policies
should exist and be publicized.

Social—regulatory policies should
be formulated cooperatively and
democratically.

Policies and regulations shOuld
be systematically reviewed per-
iodically.

The differences between the role
of the Board of Trustees and role
of administrator regarding the
social-regulatory functions in
community colleges should be
recognized and mutually respected.

A college, regardless of its size,
should have some official with
professional training in the be—
havioral sciences and administra-
tion responsible for the adminis-
tration of student discipline.

Consistent implementation of
social-regulatory policies Should
be enhanced by open and systematic
communication both horizontally
and vertically.

Due process should be defined by
the college to safeguard the stu-
dent from any possible abuse or in-
justice in cases involving possible
disciplinary action.

 

 

 

X X X
X X X X X X
X X X X X
X X X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-175-

TABLE 7 (CON'T)

A "X" denotes that the college's
social-regulatory practices are
judged to be satisfactory accord-
ipg to the specific criterion.

Colleges Visited

 

CRITERIA A B C D E F G H I J K L

 

8. Penalties are chosen primarily

with the aim that they will assist x X X X X X X X X
in the rehabilitation of the
Student.

 

9. The confidentiality and privileged
character of student records
should be safe—guarded by the X X X X X X X X X X X
college.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The researcher wishes to emphasize that the judgements in Table 7
were not based on an in-depth study of the operational functions of the
respective institutions. The judgements were clinically based on the
impressions that the investigator of this study gained from interview-
ing the disciplinary administrators with regard to their perceptions
of the social-regulatory practices of their respective institutions.

The following guidelines are also recommended by the investigator
of this study to assist Michigan community colleges in their efforts to

develop effective social-regulatory policies, rules, and practices:

1. The ultimate aim of any discipline program from its inception
should be to foster the growth of self-control, the student's accept-
ance of basic responsibility for his own actions, as well as the
acceptance of external limitations which are necessary for all members

of the college community.

-176-

2. The policies governing social-regulatory practices should
be carefully defined in statements that suggest the reasons for
their being. "Prevention" should be given as much attention as

"cure", if not more.

3. The policies established by the board of trustees Should
be clearly distinguished from administrative codes designed to

implement policies.

4. All policies and rules that are developed should strive to
strike a balance between the protection of the rights of individual
students and rights of the larger college community so that both

can be permitted to achieve legitimate educational objectives.

5. Policies should, whenever possible, be formulated in

positive rather than negative terms.

6. When discipline problems arise, methods of adjudication
or counselling should be consistant with the best known theories
and principles of psychology. Regardless of how much firmness the
case demands, each individual Should be treated with respect as a

human being.

7. Disciplinary action should be consistent with established

board policy.

8. The board should delegate full authority as well as

responsibility for discipline to the disciplinary administrator.

-177-

9. Referrals of discipline problems Should be made promptly,
and whenever possible, on a written form which offers information

that will support any action to be taken.

10. A system of record keeping regarding disciplinary cases
should be developed and established as standard procedure for all

personnel involved in this area.

11. Expulsion or suSpension should be used as penalties only

in extreme cases.

12. A system of probation and/or withdrawal of privileges is

excellent as a corrective measure to be used in certain cases.

13. Counsellors should counsel offenders but should not be

the disciplinarians.

14. The responsibility for discipline should not be divided

according to the sex of the student.

15. Faculty members and Students should, as citizens of the
college community, report infractions that may be or are harmful
to the welfare of others. They should not, however, have to be

the enforcers. Campus police should be employed for this task.
IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

This investigation of the social-regulatory practices of
selected community colleges in the State of Michigan has convinced
the author that community college deans of student personnel ser-

vices must find time in their hectic schedules for dialogue with

-l78-

faculty members and students. It is imperative that their views be
taken into account before formulating meaningful conclusions on
current crucial issues in higher education relating to policies
and rules governing student behavior.

Continuous research is needed to aid community college admin-
istrators to come to grips with the increasing amount of problems
in this area of study. In light of this, the ideas generated by
this study regarding future research needs in this area are
delineated below by listing questions to which answers can be sought

through well-designed studies.

1. Are there differences between the perceived academic
freedoms of students on community college campuses and actual
freedoms? Are there certain freedoms or opportunities that they

consider to be more important than others?

2. What should the essential purpose be of student publications?
To what extent do students, faculty and administrators agree on this

question, eSpecially in terms of the right to dissent.

3. What are the basic causes of student protest? How can
provisions for dissent and criticism be provided for to avoid

disruption of college activities?

4. What type of students are actively protesting?

5. What is the student's perception of procedural due process

that should be used in the adjudication of student conduct cases?

-l79-

6. What criteria should be used to determine which data
should be treated confidentially in Student records? Who should
have access to these records? What are current practices and how

do they affect students?

7. How effective are student governments in improving student
citizenship? How do they perceive their roles in terms of the

development and enforcement of social-regulatory policies and rules?

8. Do campus disciplinary codes of multi-campus community

colleges differ? If so, why?

It is hoped that some of these questions can be answered through
investigation and study. In the midst of a rapidly changing
society, one fragmented by a variety of critical issues, it is most
difficult to keep fundamental values in focus. Answers to the
questions proposed for future research should prove to be most help-
ful in considering changes necessary in community college policies
and rules and hopefully, changes in attitudes of all of the members

of the academic community.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

-180-

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Arbuckle, Dugald S. Student Personnel Services in Higher

Education. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1953.

Bakken, Clarence J. The Legal Basis for College Student
Personnel Work. Washington, D. C.: The American College

Personnel Association, 1961.

Blackwell, Thomas E. College Law - A Guide for Administrators

 

Washington, D. C.: The American Council on Education, 1961.

Blocker, Clyde E., et. al. The Two-Year College: A Social

Synthesis. Englewood Cliffs: Prentis-Hall, Inc., 1955.

Bogue, Jesse P. The Community College. New York: McGraw-Hill

Book Company, Inc., 1950.

Brady, Thomas A. and Snoxell, Leverne F. Student Discipline

 

In Higher Education. Washington, D. C.: The American

College Personnel Association, 1965.

Clark, Burton R. The Open Door College: A Cast Study. New

York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1960.

Dunbar, Willis F. The Michigan Record In Higher Education.

Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1963.

Eddy, Edward. The College Influence on Student Character.

Washington, D. 0. American Council on Education, 1959.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

-181-

Eells, Walter C. The Junior College. Boston: Houghton Mifflin

Company, 1931.

Fields, Ralph C. The Community College Movement. New York:

 

McGraw Hill Book Co., Inc., 1962.

Cleazer Jr., Edmond J. (Ed.) American Community Colleges.

 

Washington, D. C.: The American Council on Education,

1967.

Harding, Arthur L. The Rule of Law. Dallas: Southern

 

Methodist University Press, 1961.

Harper, William A. (Ed.). The 1967 Junior College Directory.
Washington, D.C.: The American Association of Junior

Colleges, 1967.

Henderson, Algo D. Policies and Practices in Higher Education.

 

New York: Harper and Brothers, 1960.

Hofstadter, Richard and Smith, Wilson. American Higher

 

Education - A Documentary History. Volume I. Chicago:

 

The University of Chicago Press, 1961.

Lee, W. Storrs. God Bless Our Queer Old Dean. New York:

 

G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1959.

Lindsay, E. E., and Holland, E.O. College and University

 

Administration. New York: The MadMillan Company,

 

1930.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

~182-

Lineberry, William P. (Ed.) Colleges at Crossroads. New

York: The H. W. Wilson Company, 1966.

Lunn Jr., Harry H. The Student's Role In College Policy-
Making. Washington, D. 0.: American Council on

Education, 1957.

Maslow, Abraham H. Motivation and Personality. New York:

Harper and Brothers, 1954.

McKown, Harry G. The Student Council. New York: McGraw-

 

Hill Book Company, 1946.

Medsker, Leland L. The Junior College: Progress and Prospect.

 

 

New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1960.

Nash, Paul H. Authority and Freedom in Education. New York:

John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1966.

Rogers, Carl R. Counselling and Psychotherspy. Boston:

Houghton-Mifflin Company, 1942.

Rudolph, Frederick. The American College and University.

 

New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1962.

State of Michigan. General School Laws. Lansing: Legisla-

tive Service Bureau, 1960.

Van Dalen, Deobold B. and Meyer, William J. Understanding

 

Educational Research. New York: ‘McGraw-Hill Book

Company, Inc., 1966.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

-l83-

Williamson, E.G. Student Personnel Services In Colleges

and Universities. New York: McGraw Hill Book Company,

 

1961.

Williamson, E.G. and Cowan, John L. The American Students

Freedom of Expression. Minneapolis: University of

 

Minnesota Press, 1966.

Williamson, E.G. and Cowan, John L. "Academic Freedom for
Students: Issues and Guidelines." The College and The
Student. Edited by Dennis, Lawrence E. and Kaufman,
Joseph F. Washington, D.C.: American Council on

Education, 1966.

Williamson, E.G. and Foley, J.D. Counselling and Discipline.

New York: McGraw Hill Book Company, Inc., 1949.

Woodburne, Lloyd S. Principles of College and University

Administration. Stanford: Stanford University Press,

 

1958.

Woodring, Paul. "Who Makes University Policy". Beyond
Berkeley, edited by C.G. Katope and P. G. Zolbrod.

Cleveland: The World Publishing Company, 1966.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

-184-

PERIODICAL ARTICLES

 

Byse, Clark. "Procedure in Student Dismissal Proceedings:

Law and Policy". Journal of College Student Personnel,

 

March, 1963.

 

Carter, Cornelia. ”Survey of Handbooks in Small Colleges and
Universities." Junior College Journal, 22, May, 1952.
Cortale, Michael J. "Counsellors and Discipline". Personnel

and Guidance Journal, 39, January, 1961.

 

D'Amico, Louis A..and Raines, Max R. "Employment Character-
istics of Flint Junior College Students", 28, Junior

College Journal, December, 1967.

 

Gottschalk, Earl. "Student Power: College Militants Seek

Policy Voice, Stirring Turmoil", The Wall Street Journal,

 

85, February, 1968.

Hawkes, Herbert E. "Constructive Discipline", Vol. XIV,

No. 3, American Colleges and Universities Bulletin, 1928.

 

Keeton, Morris. "The Climate of Learning In College", 15,

College and UniversityiBulletin, November, 1962.

 

Lozo, John P. "Can Conduct Codes Favorably Affect Student

Attitudes and Behavior?" Bulletin of the National

 

Association of Secondarnychool Principals, 44, April, 1960.

 

 

 

 

 

-185-

43. McDonough, J.R. "Standards of Conduct", 95, Schools and

 

Society, April, 1967.

44. Novak, Benjamin J. "Let The Counsellor Counsel". The Phi

Delta Kappan, 43, January, 1962.

 

45. Peterson, Martha. "What Principles Should Govern Decisions
When Students Disavow Institutional Policies?"

Nineteenth Annual Conference in Higher Education,

 

Association for Higher Education, April, 1964.

 

46. Rislov, Sigurd. "The Board's Responsibility". Junior College

 

Journal, 35, September, 1964.

47. Russell, John H. "Why Fourteen Colleges Changed Their Names",

31, Junior College Journal, 31, 1961.

 

48. Schetlin, Eleanor M. "Disorders, Deans, and Discipline", 33,
k

The Education Digest, December, 1967.

 

'49. Spalding, Howard G. ”What Boardmen Should Know and Do About

Discipline", 140, American School Board Journal, March,

 

1960.

50. Weinhoff, J.F. "What Are Some Good Practices in Handling

Student Discipline?", 44, Bulletin of the National

 

Association of Secondary School Principals, April, 1960.

 

—186-

51. Williams, E.G. and Cowan, John L. "Academic Freedom for

Students: Issues and Guidelines". The College and the

 

Student, Washington, D..C.: American Council on

Education, 1966.

PAMPHLETS

52. Academic Freedom and Civil Liberties of Students, New York:

 

American Civil Liberties Union, August

53. Community Colleges. Lansing: The Department of Education,

 

State of Michigan, 1963.

54. Kinster, Frederick C. Board Policy Manuals in Califognia

 

Junior Colleges. Los Angeles: University of California

 

Press, January, 1962.

BULLETINS, CATALOGUES AND HANDBOOKS

 

55. Delta Community College Bulletin, 1967-68. University City,

Michigan: Delta Community College, 1967.

56. Delta Community College Student Handbook, 1967-68. University

City, Michigan: Delta Community College, 1967.

57. Flint Community Junior College Catalog, l966~68. Flint,

Michigan: 1966.

58. Flint Community Junior College Student Activities Policies,

1967-68. Flint, Michigan: Flint Community Junior College,

1967.

59.

60.

61.

62.

63.

64.

65.

66.

67.

68.

-187-

Grand Rapids Junior College Catalog, 1967-68. Grand Rapids,

Michigan: Grand Rapids Junior College, 1967.

Grand Rapids Junior College Student Handbook, 1967-68. Grand

Rapids, Michigan: Grand Rapids Junior College, 1967.

Henry Ford Community College Bulletin, 1967-69. Dearborn,

Michigan: 'Henry Ford Community College, 1967.

Henry Ford Community College Student Handbook, 1967—68.

Dearborn, Michigan: Henry Ford Community College, 1967.

Highland Park Community College Catalog 1967-68. Highland

Park, Michigan: Highland Park Community College, 1967.

Highland Park Community College Student Handbook, 1967-68.
Highland Park Michigan: Highland Park Community College,

1967.

Jackson Community College Catalog, 1966—68. Jackson, Michigan:

Jackson Community College, 1966.

Jackson Community College Student Handbook, 1967-69. Jackson,

Michigan: Jackson Community College, 1967.

Lansing Community College Catalog, 1967-68. Lansing, Michigan:

Lansing Community College, 1967.

Lansing Community College Student Handbook, 1967-68. Lansing,

Michigan: Lansing Community College, 1967.

69.

70.

71.

72.

73.

74.

75.

76.

77.

-188-

Macomb County Community College Bulletin 1967/68. Warren,

Michigan: Macomb County Community College, 1967.

Macomb County Community College Student Handbook 1967-68.

Warren, Michigan: Macomb County Community College, 1967.

Oakland Community College Bulletin 1967-68. Bloomfield

Hills, Michigan: Oakland County Community College, 1967.

Oakland Community College Student Handbook of Auburn Hills
Campus, Highland Lakes Campus, and Orchard Richard Campus,
1967-68. Bloomfield Hills: Oakland Community College,

1967.

Schoolcraft Community College Catalog, 1967-68. Livonia,

Michigan: Schoolcraft Community College, 1967.

Schoolcraft Community College Student Handbook, 1967-68.

Livonia, Michigan: Schoolcraft Community College, 1967.

St. Clair County Community College Catalog 1967-68. Port

Huron, Michigan: St. Clair County Community College, 1967.

St. Clair County Community College Student Handbook, 1967—68.
Port Huron, Michigan: St. Clair County Community College,

1967.

Washtenaw Community College Catalog 1967-68. Ann Arbor,

Michigan: Washtenaw Community College, 1967.

-189-

78. Washtenaw Community College Student Handbook Manscript
1968 (unpublished). Ann Arbor: Washtenaw Community

College, 1968.

APPENDIX A.

LETTER OF INTRODUCTION

BY

DOCTORAL ADVISOR

-190-

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

To Whom it May Concern:

Martin Hollander, one of my doctoral students, is conducting a study of
social regulatory policies and practices in the larger community colleges
of Michigan. He plans to visit with a number of chief administrators
regarding matters of policy development and implementation.

He is a competent writer, and I feel he will do an outstanding job. I am
sure you agree that his study is a timely one. He will, of course, make
his findings available to you. YOur assistance and time will be appre-
ciated.

Sincerely,

/’?’//L)(' A 'M4 1""?

Max R. Raines
Associate Professor

MRR:rm

APPENDIX B.

DISCIPLINARY"ADMINISTRATOR

INTERVIEW GUIDE FORM

-l91-

Social Regulatory Practices
Questionnaire
Ior
AdUlinlstrator In Charge 0f Discipline

I. Informet10ngi Data
A. Name of Community College:
E. Year Collage Has Founded:
C. Current Enrollment: Day Night__ Total_w~_

D. Name of College President:

 

E. Administrator in Charge of Discipline:

Esme:

 

Official Title:

 

Years of Service in Position:

-0-.‘~-- -.— . -.—

 

Female

a
H
0

ex

U)

-.n-HM got.—

II. A ggrvey pg Writteg Epcial Regulatory Policies egg aulee

A. Does your institution have a written social regulatory

policy or rule that: (please circle
yes or no)
1. De_fines students rlrhts. YES NO
If ansv.:er L DC, WOOld one be helpful? YES NO

2. Defines gene ral_ responsibilities ape
dULles 9i student citi"hn YES NO
Y .

ES LO

If answer it LO, “would one be helpful?

 

 

J. Defi.nes dress and personal eppearance

9f stu. nts? YES NO
1i RU, Would one be helpful? YES NO
4. Dellhits Itoe students right to assemble? ES NO
If no, WOUld one ”be helpiul?” ES NO

5. Refers to student plevierism? y 3 NO
If no , would one be helpiuli YES NO

-l92-

(please circle
yes or no)

 

 

6. Dll-§ W133 giggcrt _KFEELRA YES NO

If u , Would one be kelp 141? YES NO
7. ke§j1_ ts gen 1*? in areas ean raved 11

"LR; 1118 A‘WWAFcI.EAl1( YES NO

If Ac, Wouiu OuB be helpful? YES NO
8. tion‘Witq ggu'li'§_ H;§%W:gg? YES NO

11 Av, Hbu1d one be ue1piu13 YES NO
9. Leals with oemuus traffi_c and Earninr? Y”S NO

ii Au, would One be U”Ly1U1{ yes no
10. ‘-els Wfi 1th clfec'ooe ggm§g_oz? YES H0

11 no, would one no help Lu 1: YES A0
11. §_§iree and de limits c.e nee an.d recreational

gtti'itica yer: ittri on ca"'ue? YES NO

If 1H1, "would one we .ASlpluLt 11:0 11'
12. lronibits students from drinking alconolic

*"v;.1 as 31 c.. .us. Y33 NO

11 no, wou1o one oe helpful? YES NO
13. ‘“13 W itn litterouLWinh? YES NO

lfm AC, W:Ould one be whelpful? YES A0

?

14. D‘“le "itd goral Wergvior (necking,

pgttlub, etc. )(M 1'23 1';

If AG, would one be helpful? Ybfi N0
15. Qegle hflltl h: zin7 ard initigtiogg? YES NO

11: 1‘30, hOuld one be GULPLQI? 1113 N0
16. l; (in... itits tile 4.9.3.9. _of exxlo‘iy35

likggc. Qi?1"v gt", .l and iirwerwe 9n

11" AU, Would one be helpful? YES NO
17. De 1311.§h tfig g_p;r rOWel of 333 .912 3“

923.73.-. 133:1 U»...- -3132 09.9? 153 NO

1.1 At, Would one be ceipiul: YES NO
18. L-."‘~‘.1.SV"L*'1 3:3. 2.31.13. ...zid. 923.39.91-31 saf.

Arum.“ yes NO

11 1o, Would one be helpful? YLS A0
19. Deals with theft, illeral entrx g£_§ggeegg? YES NO

11 WU, hvulu Uue be uGAWLu11 165 NO

B.

22.

23.

24.

25.

30.

-l93

Deals with the use of 113? itificetion Cards?
If 50, would one he helpzul?

 

 

 

 

Def c:o diet at games or other caTjuo
aCtl’lCl
If no, would one be helpful?

and edwx rtioing

 

eels Ir§.L . 33
Iifi'sf'um ulC.’ TEEN

If no, would one be helpful?

 

Deals 1-th the distribution of unauthorized
FUJ1”1tl“YH on olnouo?
If to, would one be helpful?

 

Df‘als With Off—Campus behavior detriju
to t: e 001105 e?
If ho, would one be helpful?

 

D 13 "ith 3tud ant fi-3ncial rosooneitilitz
go camoue?
l

 

‘f no, would‘one be helpful?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Deelg with euthorized campus publicatio e?
If 50, would one be helpful?

Dealg with the falei.ficetion g” _g_ordg?
If uQ. would one be wfhelplul:

goals wit the outhori zetion 2_ uoet
eoeaeere 93 campus?

If 50, would one be helpful?

Deals nith tb .9 definition of penalt we
Whore re5ulatiore are V101: ii

If 5v, would one be helpluli

Defines procedure for disciplinary action?

 

If 50, would one be helpful?

(please circle
yes or no)
YES NO
YES NO
YES 1:0
YES NO
YES NO
YES NO
YES NO
Yb. NO
YES NO
YES 5
YES NO
Yes 50
33 NO
YES NO
YES NO
.34 1‘50
YES NO
YSS NO
YES NO
53 NO
YES NO
YES NO

Would you say that the written social regulatory policies of

your institution:

1.
2.

Are developed by administrators only?

Should he develOped by administrators only?

(please circle
yes or no)
NO

YES

YES NO

-194
(please circle
yes or no)

3. Are develOped by involving students and
administrators in specific areas? YES NO

A. Should be develOped by consulting student
lenders r in some cases directly involving
tr] Eff: YES NO

5. Should in some areas be develoyed ty
studen 3 alone. YES NO

6. Are in some areas developed by students
alone. 33 N0

7. Are developed ccorerativcly through
consultation with student, faculty, and

administration. YES NO
8. Should be develOped cOOpGratively throagh

consultation with student, faculty, and

administration. ' Y5: 30

cf

9. Are nos 1y stated in a "positive approach".
That is, in terms of what can be done
rather than that cannot. YLS H0

10. Are wast.y stated in the "negative
approach". - YES NO

11. Should mostly be stated in "the positive

approach". YES NO
12. Should mostly be stated in "the negative

approach". - YES NO
13. Have been accepted fairly to very well by

student . YES NO
14. Have been accepted rather poorly by

students. YES KO
15. Permit student government to develop certain

conduct, discipline and citizenship rules. YES NO
16. Should permit at dent government to

develOp certain conduct, discipline, and

citizenship rules. YLB E
17. Are in some can 3 outmoded or outdated. YES K
18. Are reviewed annually. YES NO

-195-

(please circle
yes or no)

19. Are reviewed as need arises. YES NO
20. Have not been reviewed in several years. Y33 NO
21. Should be reviewed annually. YES NO
22. Should be reviewed as need arises. Yrs NO

C. Does your college disseminate informat on about its student

policies and rules: (please circle
yes or no)
1. Through publications and written materials? YzS NO
2. By providing faculty members with a policy
manual? YES NO
3. Through bulletins or announcements. YES NO
4. Through letters to parents. YES KO
5. Through distribution of a student handbook. YES NO
6. Through distribution of brochures or
letters. YSS E0
7. Through a college catalogue. YES NO
8. Through orientation classes. YES NO
9. Bhrough school DGWSpapeP. YLS N0
10. Through assemblies. Yes no

11. By exerting pressure or influence to get
students to read and become familiar with
published policies. Y33 NO
D. In your opinion, which of the following methods of disseminating

information about student policies and rules would appear to be

effective: (please circle
yes or no)

1. Student Handbook YES NO

2. Assemblies YES NO

-l96-

(please circle
yes or no)

3. School NeWSpaper YES NO
4. Orientation classes YES NO
5. Classroom discussion YES NO
6. College Catalogue YES NO
7. Student bulletins and announcements ES N0
8. Letters to parents YES NO
9. Student Government Involvement YES NO

B. Do you feel most of the students are aware of

student rolici s and rules? YES NO

(U

III. Xiglagions of Social R gulatory Policies agg_nules.

 

A. The areas of student conduct in which problems are the most

frequent are: (please circle

yes or no)
1. Dress and appearance YES NO
2. Student protests YES NO
3. Cafeteria behavior YES NO
4. Lounge behavior Y5: NO
5. Hazing and initiations "ES NO
6. Drinking r33 r0
7. Theft YES NO
8. Loral behavior (necking, petting, etc.) YES NO
9. Gambling YES NO
10. Campus Traffic and Parking Violations '23 NO
11. Cheating YES NO
12. Behavior at athletic events YES NO

13. Litterbugging . YES NO

B.

C.

14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
21 .
22.
23.
24.

In

all

Whi

fre

1.

f0
0

h‘ \N

-4 (m \n
I

‘197-

Classroom Behavior

Vandalism

Distribution of unauthorized publications
Off-campus organizations

Off-campus behavior detrimental to colleg
Studslt political demonstrations

Library conduct

Student financial responsibility

Carrying of weapons

Racial conflicts

Smoking
rating the frequency of violations of sol

student body-~please check one of tg~

II '1. g; h A v e re. ,3; e

 

‘

’3!

(please
yes or

YES

n...
‘1

11.0

V 1’53“
A

Yes

.4
L6
Cu

>4
m
CH

circle
no)

NO
NO
N0
N0
N0

T‘f

KO
HO
NO
NO

NO

over-

 

ch of the following factors help to contribute to the

quency of problems?

Personality disorders or emotional
maladjustment.

Non-conforuist attitude

Immaturity

Home environment

Racial Tension

ressure

V

Off-campus influence of clues or
organizations

(please circle
yes or no)

YJJ

a” 'a
Mt.)

Yza
YES

1 '1'.
.‘JJ

KO
HO
HO
NO
NO
NO

NO

IV.

8.
9.
10.
11.
12.

‘198-

(please circle
yes or no)

Financial insecurity YES
disunderstanding of regulations YES
Student-Faculty conflict YES
Student-Administration conflict YES
Student-Student conflict YES

Enforcement of social regulatory policies and rules.

A.

Which of the following best describes disciplinary

administration in your college? (please
yes or no)

1.

2.

3.

5.

The administrator in charge of the entire

student personnel program handles most of

the discipline problems. YES

The person in charge of discipline is called:
a.) Disciplinary Administrator YES
b. Dean of Men YES
0. Dean of women ‘ YES
d. Dean of Student Affairs YES

NO
N0
N0
N0

N0

circle

NO

NO
NO
N0
NO

NO
NO

The person in charge of discipline spends
the following amount of his time handlin
student conduct and discipline: (please check one
answer)
a.) More then 50;
b.) Between 25% and 503 _
0.) Less than 253
d.) Less than 10%
Responsibility for discipline is divided
on the basis or the sex of the student
(Dean of Men for male students and Dean
of Women for female students). YES
If NO, should this be done? YES
There are written procedures governing
referrals from faculty members to the
disciplinary administrator. ES

If no, should there be? YES

NO
NO

-199-

(please circle
yes or no)

6. There are written procedures governing
referrals from disciplinary administrators
to other staff member (Psychological
Diagnostician, etc.). ES NO

If NO, should there be? YES NO

7. Makes up its own policy as day to day need
arises. YES NO

8. Employs written policies passed bygthe
governing board regarding the suspension,
probation, or dismissal of students. YES NO

9. Employs a procedure of disciplinary action
that results in the temporary withdrawal of

certain student privileges? as NO
10. Has the authority to suspend or place

students on probation. YES NO
11. Does not have the authority to permanently

dismiss a student from college. YES NO
12. Has complete backing of superiors. YES NO

13. Respects students rights and employs due
process procedures in handling cases. YES NO

14. Notifies parents if student is guilty of
misconduct. YES NO

15. Disciplinary actions are meant to be more
corrective than punitive. YES NO

16. hust notify the college president, or other

superiors, of disciplinary disposition of

student cases. YES NO
17. Keeps confidential records of

disciplinary action administered to

students for misconduct. YES NO

B. Which of the following statements best describe the
counselors role in enforcing student social regulatory

policies?

1. The counselor counsels students YES NO

- 200,-

(please circle
yes or no)

2. The counselor disciplines students YES E0
If no, should they? YES NO
If YES, should they not? YES NO

0. Which of the following statements best describe the role of the

faculty in enforcing student social regulatory policies?

1. Responsible for classroom discipline YES NO

2. Responsible for supervision and control of
student conduct outside of class (athletic

events, dances, etc.) YES NO
If E0, should they be? YES NO

3. They on the whole handle discipline in
the classroom well. YES NO

4. Responsible for student citizenship
training as:

a.) Participant in Orientation Sessions YES NO

b.) Sponsor or Faculty Adviser of
Student Government YES N0

0.) Faculty Adviser of campus
organizations YES NO

5. Participate as members of Judicial review
panel for hearing appeals of student

discipline cases. YES NO
6. Contribute to the formulation of social-
regulatory policies of the college. YES NO

D. Which of the following statements best describes the role of

the student in enforcing student social regulatory policies?

1. There is a student court. YES NO

If NO, should there be one? YES 1 NO

— 201-

(please circle
yes or no)

2. Participates in developing penalties for
certain areas of misconduct. YES NO

3. Permitted to participate on panel to hear

appeals of student disciplinary action. YES NO

If no, should this be allowed? YES NO
4. Serves in an advisory capacity regarding

student discipline. , YES NO

If NO, should this be initiated? YES NO

E. The following due process is accorded students in
disciplinary procedures:
1. Student is notified in writing of the
alleged violation. YES NO

2. Student is notified in writing of the ,
names of the accuser and the witnesses. YES E

3. Student may admit his guilt or seek

Judicial review. YES No
4. Student is not required to testify

against himself. YES NO
5. Student is entitled to counsel. YES NO
6. Student is entitled to cross examine

accuser or witnesses. YES NO
7. Student is entitled to expeditious hearing. YES NO

8. Student is entitled to an explanation of
the reasons for a decision rendered against
him. YES NO

9. Student has right to appeal his case to a
higher body.

*4
to
o:
*2:
O

F. Do present state laws permit enough freedom for
your institution to develOp and enforce its

NO

0'}

social-regulatory policies? YE

APPENDIX C.

CHARACTERISTICS OF COMMUNITY

COLLEGE FRESHMEN ACCORDING

TO WEIGHTED NATIONAL NORMS

-202—

AMERICAN COUNCIL ON EDUCATION
OFFICE OF RESEARCH FALL 1967

WEIGHTED NATIONAL NORMS FOR ALL FRESHMEN

 

 

 

 

 

 

A11 2-Year Colleges

2-Year

C0113. Public Private
Age, In Years, as of
December 31, 1967 (1)
16 or Younger A 0.0 0.0 0.1
17 2.3 2.0 3.7
18 68.5 68.2 70.2
19 18.9 19.2 17.5
20 3.3 3.4 2.9
21 1.2 1.1 1.3
Older than 21 5.8 6.1 4.3
Average Grade in High School**
A or.A+ 1.0 0.9 1.7
A- 2.9 2.7 3.5
8+ 8.1 8.0 8.9
B 20.1 20.1 20.0
B- 17.0 17.2 15.7
C+ 24.1 24.3 23.1
C 25.2 25.2 25.4
D 1.6 1.5 1.8
Secondary School Achievements**
Elected President Std. Orgnz. 14.3 13.7 17.5
High Rating State Music Contest 7.3 7.0 9.1

State/Regional Speech Contest 3.4 3.1 5.2

-203-

 

 

All 2-Year Colleges

2-Year

Calla; Public ' Private
Major Part in a Play 13.3 12.7 16.6
Varsity Letter (Sports) 30.3 31.1 26.3
Award in Art Competition 5.3 5.3 5.3
Edited School Paper 6.8 6.6 8.0
Had Original Writing Published 9.8 9.3 12.2
NSF Summer Program 0.4 0.3 0.4
St/Regional Science Contest 1.3 1.5 2.2
Scholastic Honor Society 10.2 9.9 11.9
National Merit Recognition 2.4 2.4 2.2

(1)Age was reported as percentage of students nineteen or older in
the 1966 Ace Reports. '

**Note -- Items indicated by ** are repeated as shown from the 1966
Survey, and also in the 1966 National norms (Ace Research
Reports, Vol. 2. No. 1 and appear as shown.

-204-

AMERICAN COUNCIL ON EDUCATION
OFFICE OF RESEARCH FALL, 1967

WEIGHTED NATIONAL NORMS FOR ALL FRESHMEN

 

 

 

 

 

 

All 2-Year Colleges

2-Year
Number of Applications E9112; Public Private
to Other Colleges
None 66.0 68.2 54.0
One 17.2 16.3 22.3
Two 9.5 8.9 13.3
Three 4.2 3.8 6.1
Four 1.8 1.6 2.7
Five 0.7 0.7 0.9
Six or More 0.6 _0.6 0.7
Number of Acceptances
by Other Colleges
None 61.1 62.8 53.0
One 25.5 24.5 30.3
Two 9.7 9.1 12.6
Three 2.7 2.6 3.3
Four 0.7 0.7 0.5
Five 0.2 0.2 0.2
Six or More 0.2 0.2 0.2
Major Influences in Deciding
to Attend this College
Parent or Other Relative 48.8 48.4 51.0
H.S. Teacher or Counselor 22.7 23.2 20.1
Friends Attending this College 14.8 14.2 18.0

-205-

Grad or Other Coll. Repr.
Counseling or Placement Service
Athletic Program of the College
Other Extracurricular Activities
Social Life of the College
Chance to Live away from Home
Low Cost

Academic Reputation of the C011.
Most Students are Like Me

Religious Affiliation

A11

2-Year
Colls.

9.7
5.4
5.0
3.1
5.4
6.5
33.4
26.5
9.1

6.3

2-Year Colleges

 

Public Private
8.5 16.3
5.5 5.0
5.3 3.5
3.0 3.2
4.8 9.0
5.6 11.1

37.2 12.6

24.9 35.4
8.1 14.6
1.2 33.9

~206—

AMERICAN COUNCIL ON EDUCATION
OFFICE OF RESEARCH FALL 1967

WEIGHTED NATIONAL NORMS FOR ALL FRESHMEN

 

 

 

 

 

 

All 2-Year Colleges

2-Year
Region of Home State (2) Colls. Public Private
Middle States 26.8 27.9 20.7
New England 2.1 0.2 12.5
North Central 31.9 37.0 23.1
Northwest 1.9 0.2 11.6
Southern 13.9 10.9 29.9
Western 19.9 23.4 0.8
Foreign 0.5 0.3 1.4
Fathers Education
Grammar School or Less 14.9 15.3 12.6
Some High School 23.3 23.8 20.4
High School Graduate 32.2 32.5 30.7
Some College 15.8 15.4 18.0
College Degree 10.1 9.5 13.4
Postgraduate Degree 3.7 3.4 4.9
Mothers Education
Grammar School or less 9.5 9.8 7.4
Some High School 20.5 21.0 17.7
High School Graduate 44.4 44.4 44.5
Some College 15.6 15.3 17.4
College Degree 8.6 8.1 11.5
Postgraduate Degree 1,4 1.3 1.5

~207—

Racial Background

 

Caucasian

Negro

American Indian
Oriental

Other

Religious Background
Protestant

Roman Catholic
Jewish

Other

None

Present Religious Preference

 

Protestant
Roman Catholic
Jewish

other

None

A11

2-Year
92112.

87.7

51.7

33.6

1.6

10.6

2.6

46.6

32.9

1.5

11.4

7.6

2—Year Colleges

 

Public Private
87.6 88.3
3.4 1.8
1.3 0.8
0.6 0.8
7.1 8.3
52.4 48.8
34.5 28.4
1.5 2.2
8.8 20.1
2.8 1.4
46.9 44.9
33.8 28.0
1.4 2.1
9.5 21.5
8.3 3.5

-208-

AMERICAN COUNCIL ON EDUCATION
OFFICE OF RESEARCH FALL 1967

WEIGHTED NATIONAL NORMS FOR ALL FRESHMEN‘

 

 

 

 

 

All 2—Year Colleges

2-Year

Colls. Public Prifiate
Fathers Occupation
Artist (Incl. Performer) 0.6 0.6 0.5
Businessman 23.6 22.6 29.3
Clergyman 0.7 0.5 1.8
college Teachers 0.2 0.2 0.2
Doctor (M.D. or D.D.S.) 0.7 0.7 1.0
Educator (Secondary) 1.3 1.3 1.4
Elementary Teacher 0.2 0.2 0.2
Engineer 6.3 6.4 5.5
Farmer or Forestor 8.6 8.5 9.1
Health Professional (Non-M.D.) 1.0 1.0 . 0.8
Lawyer 0.4 0.4 0.7
Military Career 1.6 1.6 1.4
Research Scientist 0.3 0.3 0.4
Skilled Worker 16.4 16.7 14.8
Semi-Skilled Worker 10.8 11.3 8.4
Unskilled Worker 5.2 5.5 3.9
Unemployed 1.2 1.2 10.8
Other 20.9 21.1 19.8
Estimated Parental Income
Less than $4,000 5.9 6.1 4.5

$4,000 - $5,999 , 11.6 11.4 12.3

—209-

 

 

 

 

 

All 2—Year Colleges

2-Year
(Estimated Parental Income (con't) Colls. Public Private
$6,000 - $7,999 16.1 16.2 15.3
$8,000 — $9,999 14.7 14.9 13.3
$10,000 - $14,999 19.8 20.1 17.6
$15,000 - $19.999 5.8 5.8 5.6
$20,000 - $24,999 2.2 2.1 2.7
$25,000 — $29,999 0.9 0.8 1.2
$30,000 or More 1.6 1.5 1.9
Have no Idea 21.5 20.8 25.2
Major Sources of Financial
Support During Freshman Year
Personal Savings or Employment 39.0 41.6 24.9
Parental or Family Aid 44.6 42.7 54.9
Repayable Loan 9.4 8.3 15.5
scholarship/Grant/or Other Gift 11.5 11.4 11.7
Concern About Financing Educ.
None 35.7 35.6 36.4
Some Concern 55.6 55.6 55.6
Major Concern 8.7 8.8 8.0

-210-

AMERICAN COUNCIL ON EDUCATION
OFFICE OF RESEARCH FALL 1967

WEIGHTED NATIONAL NORMS FOR ALL FRESHMEN

 

 

All 2-Year Colleges

2-Year

‘ggllgg 'Pgblig Private
Highest Degree Planned
None 8.6 8.9 6.8
Associate (Or Equivalent) 20.7 21.7 15.4
Bachelors Degree (B.A., B.S.) 38.0 37.5 40.7
Masters Degree (M.A., M.S.) 21.7 37.5 40.7
PH.D. or ED.D 4.5 4.4 5.1
M.D., 0.0.3., or D.V.M. 2.3 2.4 2.2
L.B. or J.D. 0.5 0.5 0.4
B.U. 0.4 0.4 0.4
Other 3.3 3.3 3.2
Probable Major Field of Study
Agriculture (incl. Forestry) 4.3 4.8 1.7
Biological Sciences 2.4 2.5 2.0
Business 26.5 27.3 22.5
Education 9.1 8.4 12.9
Engineering 10.9 11.1 9.9
English 2.2 2.1 2.7
Health Professions (Non-M.D.) 6.8 6.9 6.5
History, Political Science 4.2 4.2 4.1
Humanities (Other) 2.9 2.2 6.5
Fine Arts 8.4 8.3 8.8

Mathematics or Statistics 1.6 1.6 1.5

-211-

Physical Sciences
Pre-Professional

Psychol, Sociol, Anthropol
Other Fields (Technical)
Other Fields (Non-Technical)

Undecided

Probable Career Occupation

 

Artist (Incl. Performer)
Businessman

Clergyman

College Teacher

Doctor (m.D. or D.D.S.)
Educator (Secondary)
Elementary Teacher
Engineer

Farmer or Forestor
Health Professional (Non-M.D.)
Lawyer

Nurse

Research Scientist
Other Choice

Undecided

A11
2-Year

Colls.

4.9

14.2

1.3

0.7

1.6

3.7

1.2

28.4

9.1

2—Year Colleges

 

 

Public Private
1.3 1.1
4.4 3.7
5.2 7.3
5.1 2.8
2.4 3.6
2.1 2.2
4.8 5.2

14.6 12.1
0.3 6.7
0.6 0.8
1.8 1.8
9.2 10.5
6.1 10.2
8.7 8.6
3.7 1.6
4.5 4.1
1.7 1.3
3.7 3.5
1.2 0.8

29.2 23.7
9.2 8.9

-212~

AMERICAN COUNCIL ON EDUCATION
OFFICE OF RESEARCH FALL, 1967

WEIGHTED NATIONAL NORMS FOR ALL FRESHMEN

 

 

 

 

 

A11 2-Year Colleges

2—Year

Colls. Public Private
Objectives Considered to Be
Essential or Very Important
Achieve in a Performing Art 9.1 8.6 11.5
Be an Authority in my Field 62.5 62.3 63.3
Obtain Recognition From Peers 36.6 36.4 37.7
Perform or Compose Music 6.3 6.1 7.5
Be an Expert in Finance 12.4 12.9 11.6
Be Administratively Responsible 26.1 26.2 25.6
Be very Well-off Financially 46.8 48.0 40.1
Help Others in Difficulty 57.2 55.0 69.1
Join the Peace Corps or Vista 15.2 14.7 17.9
Become an outstanding Athlete 14.2 14.4 13.2
Become a Community Leader 18.7 17.5 25.6
Contribute to Scientific Theory 8.4 8.5 7.8
Write Original Works 9.0 8.9 9.8
Not be Obligated to People 25.8 25.8 26.0
Create Works of Art 14.4 14.4 14.5
Keep up with Political Affairs 41.5 41.0 44.3
Succeed in my own Business 50.5 50.9 48.6
Develop a Philosophy of Life 75.9 74.7 82.4
Students Estimate Chances are
Very Good that they will
Get Married While in College 8.5 8.4 9.3

~213-

 

 

All 2-Year Colleges

2-Year

Colls. Public Private
Marry Within a year after Coll. 21.5 20.9 24.4
Obtain Avrg. Grd. of A- or Higher 2.2 2.2 2.4
Change Major Field 11.6 11.6 11.5
Change Career Choice 12.8 12.8 12.8
Fail one or More Courses 2.8 2.8 3.1
Graduate with Honors 2.8 2.7 2.8
Be Elected to a Student Office 1.7 1.6 2.3
Join Social Frat. or Sorority 22.0 20.4 31.0
Author a Published Article 3.0 2.9 3.8
Be Elected to an Honor Society 1.3 1.3 1.4
Participate in Demonstrations 3.6 3.7 2.8
Drop out Temporarly 1.1 1.1 1.1
Drop out Permanently 0.6 0.5 0.8
Transfer to another College 18.4 18.2 19.9

“214‘

AMERICAN COUNCIL ON EDUCATION
OFFICE OF RESEARCH FALL 1967

WEIGHTED NATIONAL NORMS FOR ALL FRESHMEN

 

 

 

All 2-Year Colleges

2-Year

Colls. Public Private
Can Presently Do This Well
Type 40 Words per Minute 42.6 42.3 44.3
Sketch Recognizable People 9.1 9.3 8.2
Speak Second Language Fluently 10.1 10.6 7.7
Break 100 in Golf 12.3 12.7 10.2
Water Ski 34.7 34.7 34.2
Ski on Snow 15.3 15.4 14.8
Sight-read Piano MUsic 16.3 15.4 21.1
Read Music (Singing) 26.4 25.1 33.4
Identify 13 Species of Birds 18.2 18.6 16.1
Refree a Sporting Event 34.8 35.1 33.6
Recite Long Passages from Memory 9.9 '9.5 12.0
Identify Architectral Styles 11.6 11.5 11.9
Sail a Boat 14.7 14.7 15.1
Identify Constellations of Stars 7.9 7.9 7.8
Use a Sewing Machine 37.9 37.2 41.6
Use Roberts Rules of Order 12.1 12.3 10.7
Mix a Dry Martini 21.3 22.4 15.1
Set a Table for a Formal Party 39.2 38.6 42.1
Name Players of Profl. Athl. Team 30.7 31.3 27.5
Score a Tennis Match 28.7 29.5 24.4
Identify Many Music Compositions 9.7 9.6 10.1
Program a Computer 1.3 1.3 1.0

~215-

 

 

A11 2-Year Colleges

2-Year

Colls. Public Private
Use a Slide Rule 23.4 23.4 22.9
Swim a Mile Without Stopping 25.4 26.7 24,5
Name the Animal Phyla. 7.7 7.7 7.6
Describ Diff. Between Stocks/Bonds 37.8 38.7 33.2
Develop and Print Photographs 8.1 8.6 5.9
Bake a cake from Scratch 42.0 41.2 46.7
Describe the Bill of Rights 41.4 41.1 42.6
Do at Least 15 Push-Ups 70.9 72.1 64.1
Aggee Stronglyior Somewhat
Faculty Should Make Curriculum 84.4 83.9 87.0
Married Women Belong at Home 63.3 62.3 68.8
Discourage Large Families 42.0 43.2 35.5
De-emphasize College Sports 20.5 20.3 21.6
Publish all Scientific Findings 43.6 44.1 40.9
Individual Cannot Change Society 34.2 35.2 29.0
Benefit of College is Monetary 68.9 70.1 61.4
My Beliefs are Similar to Others 73.0 72.4 76.5
Base Faculty pay on Student Eval. 60.3 60.5 59.8
Std. Publications Should be Cleared 61.3 59.8 69.6
Women Should be Drafted 23.3 24.1 18.6
Voting Age Should be 18 64.8 65.2 62.7
College Has Right to Ban Speaker 44.8 43.5 51.7
Give Disadvantaged Pref. Treatment 50.5 49.9 53.9
Colleges too Lax on Std. Protests 54.1 52.9 60.7

-216‘

AMERICAN COUNCIL ON EDUCATION
OFFICE OF RESEARCH FALL 1967

WEIGHTED NATIONAL NORMS FOR ALL FRESHMEN

 

 

 

 

A11 2-Year Colleges

2-Year

Cgllg. Public Private
Percentage of Students Reporting
That During the Past Year They
Voted in Student Election 67.5 66.5 72.7
Came Late to Class 56.6 56.8 55.8
Played a Musical Instrument 36.7 35.8 42.0
Studied in the Library 38.5 37.9 41.5
Checked out a Library Book 48.3 47.0 55.6
Arranged Date for another Std. 52.6 51.8 58.2
Overslept and Missed a Class 22.8 23.2 20.6
Typed a Homework.Assignment 22.4 22.0 24.7
Participated in Demonstrations 15.7 16.0 13.7
Was late with Homework Assgnmt. 76.6 76.8 75.7
Argued with a Teacher in Class 42.8 43.9 36.8
Was Guest in a Teachers Home 31.7 31.0 35.5
Rode on a Motorcycle 61.2 61.8 58.1
Slept or Dozed in Class 45.4 45.1 46.7
Studied with other Students 89.4 88.9 92.0
Did Extra Reading for a Class 11.5 11.3 12.4
Took Sleeping Pills 5.7 5.7 5.6
Tutored Another Student 34.1 33.4 37.7
Played Chess 38.0 38.3 36.1
Saw a Foreign Movie 6.1 6.1 5.9
Took a Tranquilizing Pill 10.5 10.2 11.7

-217-

Discussed Religion

Took Vitamins

Visited Art Gallery or Museum
Took Trip of more than 500 Miles
Got a Traffic Ticket

Missed School because of Illness
Smoked Cigarettes

Discussed Politics

Played Tennis

Drank Beer

Played Bridge

Discussed Sports

Asked Teacher for Advice

Had Vocational Counseling

Stayed up all Night

Dating Pattern in High School

 

One Steady Girl or Boy Friend
A series of Steady Dates

A Few Friends, But no Steadies
Pretty Much Played the Field

Seldom or never Date

All

2-Year
Colls.

25.7

59.4

64.6

64.2

24.7

19.4

16.8

52.1

55.3

41.9

21.5

62.1

63.2

23.5

19.5

22.5

17.8

16.7

2-Year Colleggs

 

 

Public Private
23.5 37.7
58.9 62.3
64.1 67.7
64.0 65.1
25.3 21.3
3.5 3.4
19.6 18.3
16.7 17.4
52.7 48.7
57.7 42.1
6.2 9.2
41.8 42.2
20.7 25.3
61.9 62.7
63.6 60.6
23.7 22.4
19.4 19.9
22.0 25.2
17.9 17.1
16.9 15.4

APPENDIX D.
Michigan Community Colleges
Selected for Interviews

With Disciplinary Administrators

-218-

COLLEGES SELECTED FOR INTERVIEWS

WITH DISCIPLINARY ADMINISTRATORS

1. Delta (Community) College
History - Founded in 1957. Opened in 1961. Absorbed
the old Bay City Junior College.
Location -University Center, Michigan, 48710
Control - By public. Delta College Board of Trustees -
9 elected board members.
Disciplinary Administrator. Palmer B. Kern, Dean of

Student Affairs.

2. Flint Community Junior College
History - Founded in 1923 in old high school. Moved to
present campus in 1955.
Location - Flint, Michigan, 48503
Control - By Public. City of Flint Board of Education - 9
Selected board members.
Disciplinary Administrator - Dr. Donald Stanbury, Assistant

Dean for Student Personnel Services.

3. Grand Rapids Community College
History - Founded in 1914 as part of high school. Moved
to present location in 1925.
Location - Grand Rapids, Michigan, 49502
Control - Grand Rapids City Board of Education - 9 elected
board members.
Disciplinary Administrator - Donald R. Black, Assistant

Dean of Student Services.

 

 

-219-

4. Henry Ford Community College
History - Founded in 1938. Received present name in 1952.
Location - Dearborn, Michigan, 48121

Control - Public. Board of Trustees - 6 elected board

members.

Disciplinary Administrator - Wallace Smith, Dean of

Student Personnel Services.

5. Highland Park Community College
History - Founded in 1918.
Location — Highland Park, Michigan, 48203
Control - By Public. School District of Highland Park

Board of Education - 7 elected board members.
Disciplinary Administrator - John Harmon, Director of

Student Affairs.

6. Jackson Community College
History - Founded in 1928
Location - Jackson, Michigan, 49201
Control - By Public. Board of Trustees of Jackson Com-

munity College District, - 7 elected board members.

Disciplinary Administrator - Russell Hanson, Dean of Students.

7. Lansing Community College
History - Founded in 1957.
Location - Lansing, Michigan, 48914
Control - By Public. Board of Trustees - 6 elected board
members

Disciplinary Administrator - Kenneth Sproull, Dean of Student

-220—
Personnel Services.

8. Macomb County Community College
History - Founded and opened in 1954.
Location - Warren, Michigan, 48093

Control - By Public. Board of Trustees - 7 elected board

members.
Disciplinary Administrator - Richard DeCosmo, Dean of

Student Personnel Services.

9. Oakland Community College
History - Founded in 1966
Location - Bloomfield Hills, Michigan

Control - By Public - Board of Trustees - 6 elected board

members.

Disciplinary Administrators - Dr. Harlacher, Vice President
of Campus Administration, Arthur Jalkanen, Dean
of Students at Auburn Hills, Ned A. Brodbeck,
Dean of Students at Highland Lakes, Dean of

Students not appointed as yet at Orchard Ridge.

10. Schoolcraft Community College
History - Founded in 1961. Opened in 1964.
Location - Livonia, Michigan, 48151
Control - By Public. Board of Trustees - 8 elected board
members.
Disciplinary Administrator - Edward V; McNally, Dean of

Student Affairs.

-221-

11. St. Clair County Community College

 

History - Founded in 1923

Location - Port Huron, Michigan, 48060

Control - By Public, Board of Trustees - 7 elected board
members.

Disciplinary Administrator - Chester A. Aubuchon, Director

 

of Student Personnel Services.

12. Washtenaw Community College

 

History - Founded in 1965

Location - Ann Arbor, Michigan

Control - By public. Board of Trustees - 7 elected board
members.

Disciplinary Administrator - David Pollack, Dean of Student

 

Services.

l...

mu”

3 1293 03

ll!IIHIUIHHIIHIIIUHI