.- -nm

‘6 .’I.'1

 

“‘3

. w, -
13w" «cw

.g. ~

Jwaw

\

.-...
I .~ '
C" '

.u-‘.
. s

' v‘xqw‘gu/

 

., 13‘“
.w , .
A a- L.

lutitw‘ ;,

 

 

 

K .
, ‘ ¢ . .
«u 1.?33;3,;*«_

. swrfirg ‘-
lk ‘ . u
”flax“ ~25“
Mm . .r . 7.
.4 " ‘ 1:53 '. . N

 

 

 

M .

‘ nub. ‘L

5‘.» J-dddl
x _ m,” - _,m\.. ..
.- "“ A.) . 1 :15- $31. .zzmflwktfi‘im 1:141»:

.. ‘ . .
, v 'mr, ‘ v r “2"- ' . . w“ :51" *rwxm}
\‘H }?..".'\'t«‘."; r _ .

'.‘.~._‘....3..- ‘ . ~ . .. ‘v
thy]. ”CL: 5):» 3:1-

'5
.

.1.

a...

a?
51;?

hfié’ ‘

no... :5de
“A; 1.15.33...‘
' ante-(.1.

.a. . -
IL:
' II . . . ’
:1 M“ a..- .3 tax“ am
‘, ‘ 2 ‘J , x _ w w. c.
a fi- '5 - ":" I». v4“...
:. 2-“.“3 V 1‘.»- a...

. tusr
ml» Mi
amt»: ,

u \‘k”

N-

x-
a

 

z.» .

< J)... W‘L..-
.4 gw.d-.. ‘v‘z u.“ »
rr--nq.-n.u '. A :1“.
q 1.! y-nlua- A-m ““131"
, . .u ‘41.,
“1““. 2%)}? -" ‘ “
crux V

. u"?
'.:.'\n,1| q.—
rm
.. ,

' I}: ”w- ‘r : .Lr.
’L .- . , ‘3'
l‘ - ; N-‘v‘cm...7J L ' ‘a :3“ ”X
m suit “hm-‘4." A , ». . ‘
5.55m “(raw ‘5?” ‘ M W
“mango r “ 3“. ‘
. .. x

,J 4; 1:1,“
1%-

u
u.

«L
a.
..

, .

. . ”r...
lJ;L ~
' rt.

.Hmnru
,..

I

, uu'
" «a
At‘v>. '— 'l

p“

- .. . .
rm. , .
mu..- 1-.
u...”
‘r‘hl

~.‘.~.~-

L: , .4
.. u... gs.
«a ”If?
h...
“m

.tv ‘5 t
2313?:

~16
-fivfiyuum

.J .-

.4.. h ‘

M, £1: 7. J
-~*. ‘6 'I‘a‘

n5 ‘. ~.~

. .p. .

 

 

CHIGAN STATE NIVERSITY LIBRARIES

IMMH‘HI“\liiiliililmiW rm Hi

I
3 1293 00885 01 9

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

CHARACTERISTICS OF STUDENT OFFENDERS AT MICHIGAN STATE
UNIVERSITY: A COMPARISON OF SELECTED DEMOGRAPHIC
CHARACTERISTICS USING A BASELINE POPULATION

presented by
FLORA LEE JENKINS

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

 

Ph.D. College and University

Admiinistration.

_ //
11/14 ‘7‘" ' ,1 MM

(/ Z Major 70fessor

degree in

 

 

  

Date ///// L/e/

MS U i: an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771

 

F fl.
LIBRARY
Mi“listen: State

i University

u J

*—

~—_

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

’__Jl___
ll

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CHARACTERISTICS OF STUDENT OFFENDERS AT MICHIGAN STATE
UNIVERSITY: A COMPARISON OF SELECTED DEMOGRAPHIC
CHARACTERISTICS USING A BASELINE POPULATION

By
FLORA LEE JENKINS

A DISSERTATION
Subrdtted to

Nfichigan State university
in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Educational Administration
1991

~67Z 6’

wk

’1

68

ABSTRACT
CHARACTERISTICS OF STUDENT OFFENDERS AT MICHIGAN STATE

UNIVERSITY: A COMPARISON OF SELECTED DEMOGRAPHIC
CHARACTERISTICS SUSING A BASELINE POPULATION

By
Flora Lee Jenkins

The purpose of this study was to address the methodological
concerns related to research on student discipline and to up-date the
studies which had. been previously conducted at Michigan State
university over twenty years ago.

The methodology used in this study included the identification
and comparison of several demographic characteristics of student
offenders and the undergraduate student population for 1987-88 which
was used as the baseline comparison group. The variables under study
included class standing, place of residence, academic college, gender,
ethnic status and grade point average. .A random.sample consisting of
184 student offenders was drawn from the judicial files of students who
had admitted guilt or been found guilty of violations at Nfichigan State
university for academic years 1986-87, 1987-88, and 1988-89. The data
on the student offender group were compared to the baseline population
and analyzed using proportional analysis which entailed calculation of
z—scores to test whether there existed any statistically significant
differences between the two groups. Proportional analysis was also
performed for differences between repeat offenders and the baseline
population. Chi-square analysis was perfOrmed.controlling for type of

offense by gender to determine whether there were any differences in

the types of violations committed. by males and females. Chi-square
analysis was also used the analysis of type of offense by place of
residence. The t-statistic was used to determine the significance of
grade point averages for the two groups.

Based upon the results of the proportional analysis one can
conclude that there appears to be some relationship between the
variables of class standing, gender, place of residence, and academic
college fer those enrolled in the Undergraduate University Division for
the offender group. Ethnic status was feund to be insignificant.
Ethnic minorities are no more or less apt to violate university rules
and regulations than their Caucasian counterparts. The type of
offenses that occur most frequently are those in the individual and
alcohol categories. Student offenders also had significantly lower

GPAs than the baseline population.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables ....................................... ‘vi
List of Appendices ................................... vii
Chapter I - THE PROBLEM ............................. 1
Introduction to the Prdblem ............. 1
Purpose ................................. 2
Statement of the Problem ................ 3
Basic Research Questions ................ 5
Hypotheses ..... ......... . ............... 5
Need fOr the Study ....................... 6
Basic Assumptions ........................ 8
Definition of Terms ...................... 8
Delimitations and.Limitations
Of the Study .......................... 10
Summary ................................. 10
Chapter II - REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ............. 12
Introduction ............................. 12
History of Discipline in the U.S ......... 14
Legal Considerations ..................... 16
Theoretical Considerations ............... 18
Descriptive Studies ...................... 21
Summary .................................. 34
Chapter III - METHODOLOGY ............................. 36
variables .............................. 36
Population ............................. 37
Sample ................................. 37
Sampling Technique ...................... 39
Survey Instrument ....................... 41
Pilot Study ............................. 42
Data Collection ........................ 43
Treatment of the Data ................... 44
Summary ................................ 45
Chapter IV - ANALYSIS OF THE DATA .................... 47

Comparison of Offenders and

General undergraduate

Student Population ................... 48
Comparison of Repeat Offenders

and General Undergraduate

Student Population ................... 55
Gender Differences ...................... 58

iv

Chapter V'- SURNRRX, CONCLUSIONS AND

RECOb/ME'NDAT IONS .......................... 6O
Iifljmxkflogy .............................. 6O
Findings ................................ 61
Summary of Findings ..................... 67
Conclusions .............................. 69
Recommendations .......................... 72
Bibliography .......................................... 73
Appendices ............................................ 77

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE

1 Summary of Characteristics of Undergraduate
Population for 1987-88

2 Summary of Commparison of Student Offenders
and General Undergraduate Student Population

3 Summary of Types of Offense by Place of
Residence

4 Summary of Comparison of Characteristics of
Repeat Offenders and.General Undergraduate
Student Population

5 Summary of Type of Offense by Gender

vi

PAGE

38

49

53

56

59

APPENDIX

LIST OF APPENDICES

Judicial Record Survey Sheet

JUdicial Affairs Summary of Number of
JUdicial Reports by Categories of
Behavior

UCRIHS Application and.Letter of
Approval

Letter to Marie Hansen

Pilot Study Evaluation Form

vii

PAGE

77

78

79
84

85

MI

Student discipline has been recognized and.widely accepted as
an important aspect of student affairs administration on the college
campus. LeMay (1968) suggests that the area of discipline and
misconduct on the college campus has been a prdblem. and concern for
student personnel administrators and.workers since the field of student
personnel began (LeMay 1968, p. 492). Tracey, et. al. (1979) make this
point even more emphatically by stating:

The existence of student offenders and the

need for discipline procedures were central

to issues in the arergence of the student

personnel profession (Tracey, et. al., 1972,

p. 492) .

The literature contains much research that focuses on
discipline in the elementary through secondary grade levels, but the
manner in which college student discipline is approached as a research
topic is not as thoroughly investigated (Williams and.Nelson, 1986 p.
39). This is a consistent criticism feund in the literature (Elton and
Rose, 1966;2an$y, 1968; Tracey et.al., 1979 and. Janosik, Davis, and
Spencer, 1985).

In addition, one of the major weaknesses cited in the
literature regarding research in the area of college student discipline
is that most of the research is old and may no longer apply to the
present college environment (LeMay, 1968) . Much of the previous

research on college Student discipline occurred.between the mid 1950’s

to the late 1960’s with a brief renewal of interest in the late 1970’s

to mid.1980’s. According toiMaYhew (1977) the decades of the fifties,
sixties, and seventies witnessed a great deal of change not only in
student attitudes, but also in the overall campus environment (Mayhew,
1977, p. 2). The period between 1968 and 1970 gave witness to profound
changes on college campuses as a result of the civil rights movement,
and. an affirmation of students’ freedom of speech and other legal
rights.

In addressing psychological characteristics of 1980’s
college students Stodt (1982) stated:

In certain ways college students of the
’80s resemble their predecessors; but
significant differences in attitudes, values,
and. behavior are apparent to researchers and
observers of campus life. Furthermore, the
psychological shifts in students of this
decade are magnified greatly by the
demographic changes in the student
population.
(Stodt, 1982, p. 3).

Additional studies taking these issues into consideration
are very limited. Reviewers also indicate that the research which does
exist fails to provide an adequate descriptive analysis of student
offenders (Ieflbyy 1968; Tracey, et.al., 1977; and Janosik, Davis, and

Spencer, 1985).

The purpose of the present research was to address the
methodological concerns related to research on student discipline and
to up-date the studies which had.been previously conducted at Michigan
State university. One of the major problems encountered with research

methodology. was the lack of comparison of characteristics of student

offenders to a baseline population. By using characteristics of a
‘baseline population fer comparison to the student offender population
one gains a clearer picture of the similarities and differences of the
two groups. A.review of these similarities and differences can provide
student affairs professional with infermation that may assist in
implementing educational activities that may prevent certain
disciplinary'prOblems.

The student population at Nuchigan State university, like
many other institutions, has experienced. many changes in terms of
cultural diversity, social environments, and student attitudes. The
‘major studies conducted at Michigan State University in the area of
student discipline were completed. over twenty-three years ago by
Cumm'ns (1964), Bealer (1967) and Costar (1958). The present research
was intended to update information regarding characteristics of student
offenders at Michigan State University. This information may assist
those professionals in residence halls and judicial affairs in
designing proactive or preventive disciplinary programs on campus.
Such programs or activities can serve the broad. purpose of educating
all students about student rights and.responsibilities while
emphasizing the need to be aware of special circumstances that may lead
to disciplinary concerns.

 

The non-academic disciplinary reports at Nfichigan State
University have shown an increase in the number of judicial cases
processed each year since the 1986-87 academic year. In its 1988-89

annual report the staff of the Office of JUdicial.Affairs at Muchigan

State university reported.that 2000 non-academic disciplinary reports
were filed by faculty, staff, and students at the university. This
number represented an increase of 14% over the previous year’s cases.
Given such increases, it is highly unlikely that student discipline
‘will cease to be a problem.on campus within the ferseeable future. In
order to design.proactive or preventive student disciplinary programs
on canpus, it would be helpful for student affairs professionals know
more about selected characteristics of students 'with disciplinary
prdblems.

These selected characteristics then need.to be compared with
the general student population to determine whether any differences
exist. The specific problem.addressed.by the present research was made
up of two parts. First, the researcher sought to improve on previous
researdh methodologies as mentioned in the Introduction. Second,
student discipline was examined at lMiChigan State university in order
to update prior research. .As a research area student discipline at
Nuchigan State University has not been studied for more than twenty
years. In addressing these two issues the researcher sought to: a)
update previous researdh, and.b) expand that research.by incorporating
a number of demographic characteristics not previously included in a
comparison of student offenders and the general undergraduate student
population at Michigan State University. The research covered the
three year academic time period from.1986-87 to 1988-89.

The researcher used the suggestions for improving research
methodology as presented by Tracey, Foster, Perkins, and Hillman (1979)
and LeMay (1968) to address the stated. problem. The specific
methodology will be discussed in detail in Chapter III.

As stated.earlier Tracey and associates, and LeMay indicated

two major weaknesses found in the research on student discipline, i.e.,
the lack of up-to-date research and the limited scope of the research.
The research is limited in scope Since researchers reviewed only a few
variables that are easily collectable and there was a lack of
carparison to a baseline population. The research also lacked
generalization across campuses . In addition, such research tended only
to cover one year time periods. These researchers also suggested that
descriptive studies be conducted and that the male and female offenders

should be studied separately .

W

The basic research questions addressed in this study are:

1) Is there a relationship between student misconduct and
selected demographic characteristics of student
offenders at Michigan State University?

2) How do student offenders at Michigan State University
differ from non-of fenders with regard to demographic
characteristics such as class standing, place of
residence, academic college, gender, grade point
average and ethnic origin or race?

 

Based upon the research questions previously stated, the
following null hypotheses were developed:

1. There is no significant difference between the
proportion of student offenders who are freshmen and
sophomores and those who are upperclassmen when compared
to the general undergraduate student population .

2. There is no significant difference between the
proportion of student offenders from large residence
halls and other on and off-campus residences when
carpared to the general undergraduate student

population .

6

There is no significant difference in the proportion of
student offenders enrolled in the various academic
colleges when compared, to the general undergraduate
student population.

Proportionately, there will be no significant difference
between the incidence of male offenders and female
offenders when compared to the general undergraduate
student population.

Proportionately, there is no significant difference
between majority and.non-majority student offenders when
compared to the general undergraduate student
population.

There is no difference in the GPAs of student offenders
and the general undergraduate student population.

Among student offenders there is no
difference in the types of offenses committed.by place
of residence.

LNEEDIEQB_IEE_SIUD¥

In conducting this research, the researcher first sought a

workable definition of college student discipline. One such

definition is suggested. by Michael Dannels (in Packwood, 1977) in a

brief history of student discipline covering the Colonial Period

through the late 19703. In defining discipline, Dannels offers the

fbllowing:

student discipline in higher education today is one that is concerned

Within the context of higher education there
are two definitions of discipline. One refers
to the external control of behavior and
connotes punishment and the placement of
restrictions or obligations on violators of
laws and mores. The other refers to the

internal control of’ behavior, or
self—discipline, and involves a personal sense
of responsibility and orderliness.

(Dannels, in Packwood, 1977, p. 232)

According to Dannels, the commonly accepted definition of

with internal control of behavior. According to this view the student
is a selfedirected individual, who must recognize and accept
responsibility for his/her actions. In the internally directed.model,
disciplining of a student is considered to be a part of the educational
process.

This definition of discipline is also consistent with
Williamson and. Foley’s earlier concept of discipline which was
developed in 1956. These authors state that:

...discipline, the result of "bad” behavior is

conceived as inherent in the

educational process itself, and thus is not

imposed directly and arbitrarily from external

authorities.

OWilliamson and Foley, 1956, p. 2)

Under this concept, disciplining a student who has been feund guilty of
"bad? behavior is a.vital part of the educational process. Williamson
and.Foley advocate disciplinary counseling which includes both personal
and. group programs designed. to prevent misconduct and to provide
effective means of reeducation for those students whose behavior
conflicts with that of other individuals, with the group mores of
student life, or with society in in general (Walliamson and Foley,
1956, p. 2).

Given that these are the concepts upon which current
disciplinary programs are based, it would. follow that if one could
determine whether certain characteristics are associated.with students
who have been classified as student offenders then one might be able to
identify problem. areas and, to develop educational programs or
activities designed to promote responsible behavior in these areas.

Such educational activities could be made available to all

students and would provide a means by which students could become more

aware of campus resources aimed at minimizing disciplinary problem
areas. Such areas may include, but are not limited to, substance abuse,
destruction of property, physical violence, and sexual assault.
Educational programs designed to address these issues can be
successfully inplenented if more relevant descriptive information is
known about students in general and about student offenders in
particular. The information gained in the present research and others

similar to it, may be used to assist in these efforts.

W

The following basic assumptions were made in conducting this

research :

1. There is a relationship between behavior and certain
demographic characteristics .

2. Student discipline and misconduct on campus is likely to
continue to be an area of concern for student affairs
administrators and other professionals.

3. If it is possible to correctly identify the
characteristics of the potential student offender, then
better programs and services can be developed and
implemented to prevent predictable patterns of
misbehaviors.

W

W; Selection of a field of study as a preference.

W Indicates that no major preference has been selected.
The student is given an opportunity to sanple courses from a variety of
fields.

         

CI :,. It! 0!: II 0.». 0; it All!» Li. ._ _ _ For purposes of
registration, and determining eligibility for certain student academic
activities, a classification of students is made by the Office of the

9

Registrar at the end of each term on the basis of the number of credits
earned and according to the following schedule:
Term Credits Earned (Quarter System) Class

Less Than 40 Freshman

40 - 80 Sophomore

85 - 129 JUnior

130 - and.more Senior
W

Nflchigan State university employs three systems of grading: a
numerical system, a supplemental credit-no credit system and a limited
pass-no grade system.

‘NQMEBIQAL_SXSEM; The numerical system consists of the following scale:
4.0, 3.5, 2.5, 2.0, 1.5, 1.0 and 0.0.

IHE__CBEDII::NQ_CBEDII_§I§TEMI The credit-no-credit system is intended
to allow students to study in areas outside the major field of study
'without jeopardizing their grade-point averages. In the credit-no
credit system the following symbols are used.
CRrCredit-means that credit is granted and represents a level of
perfbrmance equivalent to or above the grade-point average required
fer graduation. Thus, undergraduate students must perform.at or
above the 2.0 level befOre credit is granted; graduate students must
perform at or above the 3.0 level.

NCeNo Credit--means that no credit is granted.and represents a level
of perfbrmance below the grade-point average required. for
graduation, i.e,. belOW' 2.0 fer undergraduate students, below 3.0
for graduate students.

IHE___EA§§:NQ__§BADE__§I§IEM‘ This system is used only in courses
specifically approved. by the university Committee on Curriculum.
NOn-credit courses and.those involving field experience are the usual
types of courses approved for P-N grading. Courses‘ approved for P-N
grading are so marked.in the Schedule oj’gourses

SIEIILIEHIHLBNEBEGESI

1) Term; To compute the GPA for a term, the total points
earned fer the term is divided. by the total credits
carried fer the term excluding credits under the
CRrNC or P-N systems.

2) cumulative: To compute the cumulative GPA, the total number
of’ points earned for all terms is divided. by the
total credits carried for all terms excluding all
credits carried.under the CRHNC or P-N systems.

W The Office of Judicial Affairs and Student Records
staff provides direction and coordination for the development and
administration of judicial policies and.procedures. Duties include the
development of programs that help the university community to
understand the need fOr cooperative community living and a judicial
process. The staff serves as trainers for judicial bodies, judicial
hearing officers, administrators of judicial records, and advisors to
judiciaries.

10

W; A formal written report which provides
specific details of alleged violations of rules and regulations by the

student .

W The individual initiating or filing the disciplinary
complaint. W The individual who has been identified in the
disciplinary complaint as allegedly having violated university rules
and/or regulations.

W Apply to CODdUCt Of all registered
students and organizations. Enforced by all students, faculty, and

administrative personnel, with the support of the Department of Public
Safety.

W Michigan State University Spartan
Life Student Handbook and the Michigan State
University Catalog.

 

The study is delimited. because it only involves review of
student demographic characteristics for one institution. The study is
further delimited.by the fact that the graduate student population at
Midhigan State University is not included in the study.

There are also several limitations inherent in the research
design. The study is limited by the fact that collection of some data
depended on the fhll cooperation of university offices and.personnel
and the researcher had no control over the complete accuracy of data.
It is also limited in that since it was conducted at only one
institution care must be taken in generalizing the results to other

institutions.

This chapter sets forth the purposes, limitations,

methodology, and need for the present research. A review of the

11

literature which includes a review of the historical, legal, and
theoretical aspects of student discipline along with related
descriptive studies is presented in Chapter II. Chapter III contains
an explanation and overview of the methodology used in the study.
Chapter IV contains the results of the data analysis. Finally, Chapter
V contains a brief summary of the present research along with
conclusions based upon the findings, and recommendations for future

research in the area of student discipline.

GIAPTERII

One of the major criticisms about research in the area of
student discipline is that there is a lack of descriptive research and
that whidh has been conducted.is relatively old. This literature review
is an attempt to update prior research. In 1968 LeMay presented a
comprehensive review of the literature on student discipline up to that
particular period in time. Although this review is now over 20 years
old it is relevant to the present study in that it was the only
comprehensive critical review of the literature on Student discipline up
to that date. LeMay stated that his purpose for conducting this review
was:

because of the need of college student
personnel workers to aid disciplinary
offenders in making more satisfactory
adjustments and due to the lack of research in
college discipline and.misconduct, it was felt
that a comprehensive review of the literature
would. help make personnel workers more aware
of the need for new ideas and.would stimulate
additional research in this vital area (LeMay
1968, p. 180).
As a result of this literature revieW' LeMay concluded that
there were several problems concerning research on discipline and
college misconduct. Based upon his findings he offered several

criticisms and suggestions for improving research in the area of campus

discipline. These observations included the following:

12

13

1. There is a need for more psychiatric
description and research on personnel
literature.

2. There is a void concerning the
disciplinary aspects of the use of
drugs on campus.

3. There is a need for more descriptive
studies of the students referred. for
disciplinary action.

4. Role and female offenders should. be
studied separately since research has
shown the importance of sex differences.

5. Descriptive studies should. also control
for the type of offense committed and
students who have more than one referral
should.probably be grouped for comparison
to other misconduct referrals. In order
to do this a descriptive study should
cover at least a five or six year period
(LeMay 1968, p. 182).

Since this review by LeMay appeared there have been few studies
on discipline, but his work has prompted researchers such as Tracey,
Foster, Perkins, and.Hillman (1979); Janosik, Davis, and Spencer (1985);
vanKuren (1987), and vankuren and Creamer (1989) to conduct studies that
address the concerns raised.by'IeRayu However, these studies still tend
to rely heavily on prior studies conducted.by Cummins (1965), Lemay and
iMurphy (1967), Tisdale and.Brown (1965) and Williamson, Jorve, and
Lagerstadt-Knudson (1952) as their knowledge base in the formation of
their hypotheses about student offenders.

The present review of the literature consists of a brief review
of the history of student discipline in the U.S.,and legal, and

theoretical considerations associated. with student discipline. A

review of those studies that examine demographic and/or personality

14

characteristics of student offenders is also included.

.flISIQBXlQELDISCIELINE_IN;IHEIU.§.

Dannels (1977) provides an excellent presentation of the
history of campus discipline in the U.S. from.the Colonial Period
(1630-1780) up to the late 19705. During the early history of student
discipline it was considered.a part of moral and.ethical training of
students and.was used for total behavior control. The administrative
responsibility for discipline fell to the President of the institution
and sanctions included corporal punishment and.public ridicule. By the
beginning of the Civil War enrollments at the nation’s institutions of
higher education had increased significantly. The responsibility of
disciplining students was often given to a faculty member assigned as a
discipline specialist by the President. Counseling became a viable means
of carrying out the disciplinary fUnction and corporal punishment for
the most part was no longer utilized.

By the end of the Civil war up to the early 19005 there was a
major shift away from rigid behavior control and greater emphasis on
student self-discipline and self—governance. By the end of Wbrld.War II
major changes in the way discipline was administered on campus occurred.
It was during this period that the President and faculty on most
campuses were relieved of their disciplinary duties by the appointment
of deans of men and deans of women. The concept of "the student as a
whole person" began to develop and disciplinary counseling (Williams and
Foley, 1949) as a form. of corrective action became popular. This was
really the beginning foundation of present disciplinary programs.

In discussing current disciplinary concerns Georgia (1989)

15

states that there is a conflict between the expectations for college
student behavior and the more permissive mores of society at large.
Dalton and Healy (1984) state that "Student conduct problems are on the
increase at most colleges and universities and.require more time and
attention by university officials" (p. 19). According to Gehring, Nuss,
and Pavela (1986):

Data collected during the past 10 years

demonstrates a shift in student values and

interests: to a worldview' characterized by a

present orientation, hedonism, a concern for

rights, and duty to self (pp.2-3).
Georgia (1989) insists that disciplining today’s students in light of
the permissiveness of the larger society requires that students be
accorded an active role in the educational process to maximize their
development potential and among other things, that educators place

their educational mission above personal, political, and other

considerations.

Legal considerations as they relate to student discipline have
been updated.by Buchanan (1979), Gehring (1983), Caruso (1979), Dannels
(1977) and Sivulich (1975). One of the first questions dealt with in
addressing legal aspects of discipline is "what right does the
institution of higher education have to discipline?" (Callis, 1970).
This right to discipline students has been discussed in terms of the
relationship that the institution has with the student (Callis, 1970;

Dannels, 1977).

l6

Callis (1970) suggests that the relationship between the
college and student needs to start with the fundamental mission of the
college. He states that:

.A college is a corporation, and it has a legal
entity as such. It may have been created.by a
charter, by a provision of a state
constitution or an act of a state legislature.
The college has a purpose or mission as set
forth in its charter. That purpose is to
educate (Callis, 1970, p. 91).

Brady and Snoxell (1965) fermulated.the desired relationship
between the college and student as an "educational" one. The
educational purpose theory limits the institution’s disciplinary control
to student behavior that adversely affects its educational mission. The
mission that a college is authorized to perfOrHl is education, and
therefore, whatever operational procedures and regulations that a
college wishes to adopt that can be justified as aiding and abetting the
education of students must be considered. proper (Callis, 1970). In
addition to the educational relationship the constitutional relationship
has also been identified as an important aspect of student discipline.

The constitutional rights of students in disciplinary cases
center primarily around the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States
Constitution, and the guarantee of due process and equal protection.
The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was the basis for one
of the most significant decisions in higher education, Dixon vs. Alabama
State Board.of Education, 186 F. Supp. 945 (D.C. MLD. 1960) rev’d 294 F.
2d 150 (5th Cir. 1961), (as cited. by Gehring, 1986, p. 221). The
Fourteenth.Amendment provides in part:

...nor shall any state deprive any person of

life, liberty, or property without due process
of law. (Buchanan, 1979, p. 95).

17

The ‘Dixon decision provides that under the "state action"
doctrine, the Fourteenth Amendment is applied to protect the rights of
students attending public colleges and universities against
unconstitutional disciplinary practices instituted. by a state agency.
In discussing due process Gehring states that a "fair summary of due
process is that the greater the right sought to be deprived, the greater
the process due" (Gehring, 1983, p. 222).

While public institutions are not required to follow any set of
standards for procedural due process it has been found.that most of them
do (Wichers, 1968). Wichers (1968) conducted a study to determine the
extent to which the publicly supported. colleges in.thhigan follow the
legal framework in carrying out the disciplinary function. He found
that there is considerable judicial concern fOr the safeguarding of
students rights, both procedurally and.substantively. Sivulich (1975)
identified. and compiled legal decisions and interpretations which have
influenced student disciplinary procedures in higher education. He
concluded. that due process is required in all public institutions of
higher education, but that it can be satisfied with basic administrative
.procedures which are grounded in fairness and reasonableness.

In addition to being aware of the legal issues underlying
Student discipline student affairs administrators are concerned.with
continuing to provide quality student development programs. Lambert
(1985) conducted a study in which he attempted to answer the question of
whether there can be a single system of discipline fOr non-academic
misconduct which satisfies the student’s legal rights and his/her
developmental needs. In other words can discipline be simultaneously

legal and developmental. Lambert concluded that through a blend of

18

substantive due process and clear values statements and values
confrontation on campus, discipline for non-academic misconduct can
treat the student as both a citizen and a developing individual.
However, Caruso (1978) warns that:

The inevitable growth in the legal,

adversarial nature of the discipline process

will make it extremely difficult and

challenging to work developmentally with

students (Caruso, 1978, p. 116).
These legal considerations are important to student discipline research

because they describe the philosophical and legal context under which

disciplinary programs on campus must be administered.

mam CONSIDERATIONS

According ‘Van Kuren and.Creamer (1989) most studies on student
discipline have focused on identifying demographic characteristics of
student offenders and have taken an atheoretical approach to the problem
(VanKuren and Creamer, 1989, p. 257) For the most part those concerned
with campus discipline have tended to rely on student development
theories in formulating disciplinary programs.

Rodgers (1979) identifies three families of theories that
underlie student development: Psychosocial Theory; Cognitive
Developmental Theory and Person-Environ- ment Interaction Theory.
Psychosocial theory is concerned.with identifying developmental tasks
that occur throughout the life cycle, while the cognitive developmental
theories f0cus on how individuals reason, think and or make meaning of
their experiences. The Person-Environment Interaction theories
emphasize a congruent person-environment "fit". Rodgers suggests that

these theories can provide the basis for many applied responses. In

 

19

addition, if appropriate developmental tasks can be identified.they can
become content and criteria for mapping and.evaluating past programs and
services and for planning appropriate future programs, services and
environmental designs (Rodgers, 1983).

van Kuren and.Creamer (1989) conducted a study in
which they attempted to advance a theoretical model that is particular
to disciplinary problems. The purpose of the study was to construct and
test a theoryébased causal model of disciplinary offender status. van
Kuren and.Creamer hypothesized that students involved with conventional
campus activities would.be less likely to become disciplinary problems
than those who were not involved. Two research questions were posed:
(a) what background, personal, and social variables directly or
indirectly influence the disciplinary status of students? and (b) what
background, personal, and social variables directly or indirectly
influence the disciplinary status of male or female college students?

Pace’s College Student Experiences Questionnaire (CSEQ) was
used to collect data on types and.quality of campus involvement
exhibited. by the sample groups. The CSEQ contains the following
sections: (a) Background Information, (b) Quality of Effort Scales, (c)
Satisfaction with College and. writing and Reading Activities
Information, (d) Characteristics of the College Environment, and (e)
estimate of Gains. These sections measure the relationship between
quality of effort and student attainment. In addition to the variables
measured.by the CSEQ, other variables used included.parent’s educational
level, educational aspirations and year in college.

The results of the path analysis indicated that parent’s

education level, year in college and opinion about starting the same

 

20

college again if given the opportunity, had significantly direct effects
on disciplinary status. Of the three variables the students’ assessment
of whether they would enroll in the same college if they had the
opportunity to start their college careers over was the strongest
influence on disciplinary status. Research question 2 required.that the
path. model be tested using gender as an interactor with the independent
variables in the model. No significant difference was found indicating
that the model works similarly for men and.women.

Year in college as a direct influence on disciplinary status
was an expected finding. It was consistently significant in other
studies of student offenders. van Kuren and.Creamer state that this
suggests that the maturity level and the developmental status of student
offenders may be the underlying reason for the variable's continued
significance over the years. van Kuren and.Creamer conclude that the
study failed to account for a majority of the variance in offender
status. One explanation is that the data from the CSEQ did not fit the
causal model. The model may be more usefu1 in understanding disciplinary
problems if it is retested.with.more precise instrumentation. .Although
modest in magnitude, the results parallel the reported findings of other
researchers on the potency of the student-campus fit and suggest that
disciplinary status can be added to the list of factors affected.by
student-campus fit (van Kuren and Creamer 1989, p. 264). Realizing the
lack of a suitable theory of its own, campus administrators must, at
least for the time being, rely on those theories of Student development

that are most relevant to discipline.

21

DESCRIPTTVE STUDIES

The first study to be reviewed.was that conducted.by Tracey,
Foster, Perkins, and Hillman (1974). Tracey et al. began this study by
stating that in addition to the concerns which LeMay (1968) outlined
there appeared to be two other problems. One was that there had.been no
systematic use of baseline comparisons in the analysis of student
discipline and the other problem was that all the research was old and
thus not particularly generalizable to today’s populations and
institutions. The purpose of their study was to address LeMay’s
concerns as well as the other two methodological problems identified by
the researchers.

A random sample of 131 case files was drawn from the records in
the judicial programs office of an Eastern state-supported university of
35,000 students. The data were from those students who either admitted
guilt or had been found guilty of a violation of the university rules
and regulations for the academic years 1973-74, 1974-75, and 1975—76.
The sample contained no instances of recidivism, therefore, all files
were for first-time offenders. The variables under study were sex,
place of residence, division affiliation (academic college), and class.
The differences between offenders and non—offenders were examined for
each demographic variable.

Data from student offenders were compared.with the university
population (1974-75) using chi-squares fOr class, place of residence,
division and sex. Further chisquare analyses were performed on kind of
offense by place
of residence and.by sex. To achieve the appropriate cell expectancies

for the chi square analyses, the offense categories were combined into

 

22

the following: human safety, theft, academic dishonesty, and violations
of drug policy and financial obligations policy. Also, the groupings
fer place of residence were combined to form.the categories of large
dorms (greater than 500 residents), small on campus units (small dorms
with. less than 200 residents), campus apartments, Greek Houses, and
commuters (offecampus). This particular combination was used.to check
the relationship between the size of the living unit and kind of
offense.

The initial results of the chi-square analysis performed.on the
differences in class frequencies between offenders and students in
general was significant. This result was attributable to the lower
representation of graduate students in the offender sample. To verify
this hypothesis, and to investigate differences between frequencies of
undergraduate classes, another chi-square analysis was perfOrmed.with
all graduate students deleted. The result of this analysis was not
significant. All undergraduate classes were proportionally represented
in the offender sample, while graduate students were significantly
underrepresented.

The analysis comparing place of residence for student offenders
and the general population yielded significant results. Students
residing in large dorms were overrepresented in the offenders sample,
while commuters were underrepresented. Student offenders were not found
to be significantly different from.the university population in terms of
divisional affiliation. Finally, males were shown to be significantly
over- represented in the offender sample.

The data comparing place of residence by kind of offense

indicated that commuters committed a disproportionate amount of theft,

23

but this was thought to be attributed to the fact that they spend less
time on campus and would.be less likely to commit safety ‘violations.
Offenders residing in large dorms were overrepresented in the safety
violation group, but underrepresented in the theft group. Finally,
those residing in smaller living units were involved in fewer academic
dishonesty offenses than would.be expected. The analysis of the kinds
of offenses committed by sex yielded no significant differences.

These results indicated that size and.place of residence was
one of the most significant predictors of offender status. One of the
problems encountered in the study was that because male and female
offenders were grouped it was not really possible to determine the
relationship between sex and offender status. Another interesting
result was the proportional representation of students by class.

This study by Tracey et al. along with that of Janosick,
Spencer and Davis (1985) provides the general foundation for the present
research. The use of a baseline population and Lemay’s suggestion for
improving research have been adapted for the present study.

Janosik, Davis, and Spencer (1985) conducted a study to
investigate the nature of repeat student offenders. According to these
researchers few, if any studies have dealt effectively with repeat
offenders. These researchers also used the suggestions from LeMay
(1968) as well as those from Tracey et al. (1979).

The 340 case files of repeat undergraduate offenders were drawn
from the records of the judicial system at a comprehensive, land grant
university in the southeast with an enrollment of 18,00 undergraduates
and 3,500 graduate students. Demographic data for student offenders

taken at the time of the second offense were compared to the

 

 

24

universitydwide population data during the

same six year period from 1978-79 through 1983—84. The variables
included sex, place of residence, class status, college affiliation and
GPA. These were consistent with the variables that Tracey et al. (1979)
used. The first five variables were analyzed.using chi squares while
grade point average of repeat offenders was compared ‘with the average
GPA of the university (2.60) during the same 6 year period.

Place of residence was categorized as small residence halls
(350 students or less), large residence halls (600 students or more),
and off-campus. The chi square analysis performed on the differences in
sex between repeat offenders and students in general was significant.
Among repeat offenders, men were significantly overrepresented and.women
were significantly underrepresented. The analysis comparing place of
residence for repeat offenders and ‘the general student body population
also yielded significant results. Students residing in residence halls
‘with more than 600 residents were significantly overrepresented,
off-campus students were significantly underrepresented. Residents in
large buildings were also overrpresented.when compared to those students
living in smaller residence halls.

Sophomores were the most overrepresented. group followed.by
freshmen. JUniors and seniors were underrepresented. Janosik et al.
stated that this result supported the findings reported in the analysis
of place of residence because the off-campus population was largely
composed of juniors and seniors. However, this was not consistent with
Tracey’s (1979) finding ‘which showed that all classes were equally
represented. proportionally. It was also concluded that repeat

offenders in the colleges of business, and arts and sciences were

25

overrepresented. when compared. to the general population.' This
particular finding seemed.gender specific with regard to male repeat
offenders. The analysis performed on the differences in GPA.proved to
be significant. The GPA of repeat offenders (2.25) was significantly
lower than that of the general student population (2.60). Frequencies
for kind of offense committed. by repeat offenders was also tabulated.
The majority of repeat offenders were involved.in violations of a less
serious nature.

Janosik et al. concluded that additional research is needed to
determine real differences between repeat offenders and first time
offenders. This study was extremely important to the present research
because it provided.much of the methodology that was used. The present
study incorporated the same variables listed by Janosik, Spencer, and
Davis ‘with the addition of ethnic origin. The present study also
examined. both first-time and repeat offenders who were drawn in the
sample. A.comparison of the results of the present study and the study
by Janosik et al. can be made to determine whether there are any
similarities among disciplinary offenders across institutions.

TWO earlier studies which involved a comparison of demographic
characteristics worth mentioning were those of Bevilacqua (1972) and
Brousseau (1969). Bevilacqua examined selected.measures of demographic,
social, and.academic characteristics for a male disciplinary population
at ‘Villanova University. The hypotheses tested.whether there would be
significant differences between male disciplinary students, graduate and
non-graduate, and a comparison group of‘Villanova male students in two
succeeding graduating classes on the selected.variables.

Data were gathered for all male disciplinary subjects in the

26

graduating classes of 1968 and 1969 including 32 subjects in the 1964-68
time period, and 47 for the 1965-69. An equal number of students not
involved in disciplinary situations was selected for the comparison
group from the graduating classes of 1968 and 1969. .All group members
were matched.on the basis of entrance date. Forty-Seven non—graduating
disciplinary referrals in the classes of 1968 and.thirty in 1969 were
also selected for comparison.

The results of this study revealed that disciplinary students
who graduated tended to be residents and sons of college graduates.
Disciplinary students who did not graduate were more likely to have
lower GPAs, were less involved.in activities, were sons of white collar
workers and college graduates, and were more likely to come from public
secondary schools and non—manufacturing hometowns than comparison
students.

In the class of 1969, graduating disciplinary students were
more likely to have higher SAT math scores and grade point averages, and
to be college prep graduates, athletes, and sons of professional workers
than comparison students. Non—graduating disciplinary students were more
likely to be campus residents, have lower grade point averages, higher
Sat verbal and cooperttive reading scores higher secondary school ranks,
to have come from home towns with less manufacturing emphasis and to
have graduatedf from.public secondary schools than comparison students.
The stepwise multiple regression analysis showed.that predictability of
male disciplinary referrals using the selected. variables fOr this
population was minimal.

This study showed that there was no consistent evidence that

disciplinary students really differed academically or intellectually

27

from non—disciplinary students. However, it did show that current
disciplinary students were more likely to be residing in on-campus
housing and have higher GPAs than the comparison group. The implications
are that for whatever reason, either through direct intervention of
campus disciplinarians, or individual growth and maturity while in
college, student offenders as a group can be quite successful
academically.

Brousseau (1969) conducted a study at marquette University that
dealt specifically with an all female population. Brousseau’s study was
concerned with the determining of characteristics and differences among
women resident offenders and non-offenders for 1967-68.

WOmen residents disciplined by one of three oncampus judicial
boards were classified as offenders. A. random sample of non-offenders
was selected from. the residence hall population. A. comparison of
university and. demographic variables, GPAs and results of subjects
College Entrance Examination Board.tests and.the Adjective Check list
was completed. These comparisons indicated that the disciplined group
tended to be younger and.were in the lower three-fOurths of their high
school graduating class. It was also noted that offenders showed a
higher economic background and they had lower GPAs than the comparison
group.

This study is significant to the present study because it too
validates the use of certain demographic variables as potential
predictors of misconduct. This study could.have been enhanced.by doing
a simultaneous comparison of male offenders. This may have offered
valuable insight into the disciplinary differences between males and

females.

28

The previous studies have supported. the notion that there are
certain demographic characteristics that distinguish student offenders
from non-offenders. The next series of studies under discussion are
those that focus on personality differences between student offenders
and.non-offenders. One should note that these studies also include some
of the same demographic variables mentioned in the previous studies
under review.

Cummins (1964) conducted a study to determine selected
cognitive and affective characteristics of student offenders and.how
they differed.from non-offenders. The population consisted of the 1958
entering freshman class at Michigan State University. The sample
population of student offenders were drawn from the disciplinary files
at NBU'which included. 95 males and 49 females. A.control group was
selected. and. matched to the disciplinary group on the basis of the
College Qualification Test Score and the Socio-Environment Education
Index Score.

The College Qualification Test and the Test of Critical
Thinking were used. to measure cognitive characteristics and the
Inventory of Beleifs, Rokeach’s VDogmatism.Scale, and the Differential
values Inventory were used. to measure affective characteristics. The
results of the study supported the hypothesis that there would.be no
significant differences among the feur groups of disciplinary offenders:
1) very severe, 2) severe, 3) moderately severe, and 4) minor offense.
The hypothesis that there was no difference between the offenders and
non-offenders was also supported. Cummins concluded that disciplinary
students are essentially similar to non-disciplinary students with

regard to those factors measured in this particular study. He also

29

suggested that differences between the two groups could.he due more to
environmental factors as opposed to cognitive and affective
characteristics.

This study was one of the fGW'that involvedeichigan State
University students. While Cummins’ study was concerned with
identifying the affective and cognitive differences the present researdh
focuses on the demographic or environmental variables which he suggested
might make a difference.

Elton and Rose (1966) posed.the hypothesis that freshmen whose
behavior constitutes an infraction of generally accepted. ways of
dormitory living would. exhibit less impulse control than students who
are able to live in harmony with others. This study was in response to
the analysis presented.by Sanford (1962) in which he hypothesized.that
freshmen, although exhibiting some mastery over their impulses, are
still in a stage of development in which the controls for inhibiting
impulses are subject to new situations of ego threat.

The subjects for this study were entering freshman classes of
the University of Kentucky from 1962 through 1964. The subjects studied
were from a population of 520 freshman males living in the largest
dormitory at the University. The Omnibus Personality Inventory (OPI)
was administered to all entering freshmen.

The scores on the 16 scales of the OPT were factor analyzed and
five factors (Tolerance and.Autonomy, Suppression-Repression, Masculine
Role, Scholarly Orientation and Social Introversion) were extracted. The
composite ACT score was also considered as a variable. The head
resident of the largest dormitory in cooperation with a counselor

nominated 45 student in each of three categories: repeat reprimands,

30

single reprimands and.non-reprimands. The reprimanded. students were
involved. in the following representative types of behavior stealing,
drinking, gambling, starting fights, damaging property, exploding
firecrackers, and.emptying fire extinguishers.

Chi-square tests were computed for each of the two discriminant
functions to determine the significance of discrimination along each
dimension separately. The predictors providng the largest contribution
to Function I were ACT, Suppression-Repression and Social Introversion.
This function was described as a combined intellectiveepersonality
dimension whiCh effectively separated.the reprimanded students from the
non-reprimanded. The differences found. between the 3 groups on
Suppression—Repression supported the hypothesis that disciplinary
students exhibit less impulse control than non-disciplinary students.

The non-reprimanded group also exhibited.an averageness across
the group that was noticeably different from the variability apparent in
the reprimanded.profiles. Elton and.Rose suggested.that these patterns
appeared. to offer additional support for the generally held assumption
that it is the conforming student who adapts best to the large,
impersonal educational institutions (Elton and Rose, 1966, p. 434).
However, ‘vanKuren and.Creamer (1989) would argue that this could be
attributed to student-campus fit.

LeMay and Murphy (1967) conducted.a pilot study to determine
the feasibility of the Minnesota.uultiphasic Personality Index.(NNPI) as
an aid in the understanding of the dynamics behind the disciplinary type
behavior, and to determine what differences exist between students
involved in the various categories of misconduct.

Two groups of 70 undergraduate male college students at Oregon

31

State University were used for this study. The first group consisted of
students referred to the Dean of students for misconduct during the
spring term 1965. The second.group was composed of non-offenders. One
hundred and fifty students were randomly selected.and asked to take the
NRPI. Of the 116 students responding, the 70 students most nearly
matdhing individuals in the referred.group were selected for the control
group on the basis of class, major and.age forming 70 matched.pairs.
The matched. pairs were grouped. into five additional subgroups for
statistical comparison. Groups were determined.by type of infraction:
"Alcohol Misconduct", "Theft and. Burglary", "Manor Misconduct",
"Disorderly conduct", and."NfiscellaneouS Offenses".

The referred group and the five subgroups were compared
statistically to their respective matched control groups by use of the
t-test.

The subjects in the referred.group, alcohol misconduct group,
and. disorderly conduct group had significantly higher mean scores on
the Psychopathic Deviate (PD) and.Hypomania (MA) scales. Statistically
significant differences in means was also fOund on the
L scale for the theft and.burglarly group.

Lemay and.Murphy warn that any interpretation of these data
must take into consideration the small number of subjects in the various
groups and. the fact that interpretation of group means is not
necessarily considered valid.

Although this study was not conclusive it did reinforce the
need to look at category of offense as they suggest that those who are
involved in more serious offense such as alcohol misconduct, and theft

may have prdblems managing their emotions. Again, this has serious

32

implications for those who must work with students on campus to
implement educational programs that will facilitate growth and
development.

Jehnson (1969) conducted a study of educational and
personality characteristics between two groups of male college student
disciplinary offenders and a random sample of non-offenders. The
student offenders attended. the University of Minnesota starting as
freshmen between July 1, 1963 and June 30, 1964. One experimental group
consisted of 93 male "minor misconduct" offenders and the other
experimental group consisted of 135 male "Theft and.Burglary" offenders.
The control group of 103 male "non—offenders was randomly selected. The
students from all groups came only from the four largest undergraduate
colleges (College of Liberal .Arts, Institute of Technology, General
College and the College Education). The variables studied included:
College Residence, Admission Year, Age at Admission, Urban/Rural Status,
Academic Aptitude Test Rank, High School Rank, Course Withdrawals,
College GPA, Graduation/Non-Graduation status, and the raw scores as
well as T-scores of the thirteen basic scales of the MMPI. These
variables were investigated from a Single as well as by several
Nudtivariate Approaches. The multi-variate approaches included.NRPI
profile analysis by high point code types, six different step-wise
multiple regression analyses on combinations of the 3 criterion groups
and six different discriminant function analyses on all variables.

The single variable analysis yielded no statistically
significant differences among the three criterion groups on: College
Residence, Admission Year, Age at Admission, Academic Aptitude Test

Rank, High School Rank and College . However, rural students were found

33

to be involved in both types of offenses more often than the urban
students. The disciplinary students had.more course withdrawals than
the non-offenders but graduated from.the university more often than
non-offenders. The NNPT showed statistically significant differences
among the three groups on eight of the thirteen basic scales.

This study, similar to that of Bevilacqua (1972) , showed that
there were no significant differences academically, and residentially
between student offenders and.non-offenders. However, offenders tended
to withdraw from courses more often and. there was support for
personality differences among the three criterion groups. This study
again reinforced the need for more empirical research in the area of
student discipline, and.provides the use of admission year as a possible
variable of predictability. One should also note that this study was
very limited in terms of the type of offenses studied yet quite
extensive in terms of the other demographic and. personality
characteristics used.

In a more recent study van Kuren (1987) attempted to determine
the feasibility of using a social-causal model approach to college
student discipline offender status. van Kuren initiated this study to
find out why certain students end. up as violators of campus social
policies. She constructed and tested a causal model of college student
disciplinary status using containment theory, control theory, and
involvement theory as the theoretical fOundation. variables in the
model were operationalized from the College Student Experience
Questionnaire (van Kuren, 1987).

Results of the study indicated that there was only partial

support for the linear causal model tested. Significant findings were:

34

(a) background. variables directly affected. disciplinary status, a
finding consistent with.previous research; (b) the model did not

work differently for males and females; (c) students’ satisfaction with
their choice of college directly impacted on disciplinary status and (d)
students perceptions of the campus interpersonal environment and.their
personal vocational gains indirectly affected disciplinary status when
mediated.by the satisfaction with their college choice.

In general, person-environment fit was proposed as the factor
having an overall effect on disciplinary disciplinary status. The
importance of this study to the present research is the overwelming
support for demographic characteristics as predictors of student

offender status.

The preceding literature review contains a great deal of
information regarding the various aspects of campus discipline
(historical, legal, theoretical, and related.studies). The researcher
presented the information in this fashion in order to first establish
the general context and circumstances under which discipline occurs and
secondly, to support the methodology being used for the present
research.

Discipline in higher education in the U.S. has undergone a
transformation from strict, religiously based regulation of behavior to
primary consideration of the development of the student as a "whole"
person. Legally speaking, in matters concerning discipline, the
student-institution relation is simultaneously educational and

constitutional. Theoretically, the institution must be concerned with

35

the student's personal and social growth and development as well as with
the attainment of his/her academic goals. Student development theories
consider all aspects of the student’s campus life and make certain
predictions and assumptions about the student’s behavior. These theories
are relevant to the disciplinary process as the overall mission of the
institution is educational and preventative discipline can be developed
using these theories as foundations.

‘The relevant studies reviewed.were concerned.with identifying
demographic and/or personality characteristics of student offenders.
Although there are a limited.number of these studies they are extremely
helpful in establishing and improving methodology for research on

student offenders and stimulating renewed interest in this area.

CHAPTER.III

BEHIEIEZEZZI

The present research is a descriptive study analyzing the
types of offenses committed by student offenders. The frequency of
occurrence of the various types of offenses were also analyzed. In
addition, selected. demographic variables that characterize student
offenders were compared. to the same variables for a baseline
population. The baseline population consisted. of the Michigan State
university general undergraduate student population for the academic
year 1987-88. This study covers student offenders over a three year

period from 1986-87 to 1988-89.

IZQIXIEEEUILNBBEAELES
The demographic variables which were used. to analyze the

characteristics of student offenders included: gender, place of
residence, academic college, race or ethnic origin, class standing, and
grade point average. Prior researdh on student offenders did not
include the variable of ethnic origin. The researcher has added this
variable in recognition of the ethnic diversity of the student
population at Michigan State university and to determine whether there
are disciplinary differences between minority and majority student
offenders.

Place of residence has been classified as small residence
halls (less than 400 students), medium residence halls (400-999
students), large residence halls (1,000 students or more), off campus,
and campus apartments. Michigan State University has thirteen academic

colleges that were represented in the study. These include:
36

37

Agriculture and. Natural Resources, Arts and Letters, Business,
Communication .Arts, Education, Engineering, Human Ecology, James
Madison, Natural Science, Nursing, Social Science, veterinary'Neoucine,
and.the Undergraduate university Division. The complete description of
the analysis to be performed on the data is discussed in the treatment

of the data section of this chapter.

.EQEDEEUDKII

The student offender population identified for this study
consisted of all students who were fOund guilty or admitted guilt to
'violations of the student code at Michigan State University for the
1986-87, 1987-88, and 1988-89 academic years. There were a total of
approximately 3667 individual student offender files on record for this
time period. 'The baseline comparison population consisted of the
undergraduate general student population for the academic year 1987—88
(Table 1). This baseline population was used in the comparison
analysis with the sample of student offenders. The information
regarding the general student population was obtained through the

1987-88 MBU "Student Profile Report."

The sample selected. for the present study consisted of 184
valid student offender cases or approximately 5% of the individual
cases of the student offender population identified above. The 5%
measure was selected to assure that a representative sample was drawn.
In discussing the appropriateness of sample Size Glass and Hopkins

(1984) state:

For most research purposes, populationsare

38

 

 

TABLE 1
SURNARX OF CHARACTERISTICS OF UNDERGRADUATE STUDENT POPULATION
1987-88
CHARACTERISTICS NO.*** PERCENT
CLASS
Freshman 7,797 24%
Sophomore 7,714 24
Junior 8,155 25
Senior 8,557 27
RESIDENCE
Large Hall 10,311 32
Medium Hall 4,178 13
Small Hall 1,622 5
University Apts. 113 0.35
Off Campus 15,999 49.65
ACADEMIC COLLEGE
ANR 2,339 7
A & L 2,265 7
BUS 6,881 20
COM ARTS 3, 880 11
EDU 1,347 4
ENGR 3,586 11
HUMAN ECOLOGY 1,478 4
JAMES MADIS 1,008 3
NAT SCI 3,364 10
NURS 390 1
SOC SCI 3,702 11
COLL OF VET MED 351 1
UNDERGR.UNIV'DIV’ 3,221 10
GENDER
Male 15,517 48
Female 16,707 52
ETHNIC STATUS
Caucasian 28,437 88
Black 2,084 7
Hispanic 347 1
Native American 105 0.33
Asian Pacific 533 2
AVERAGE GPA. 2.79

 

***Average Totals for Fall, Winter, Spring 1987-88.

39

assumed to be infinite, not finite, in size.

Fortunately, it is generally not necessary to

worry about the distinction between finite and

infinite populations..unless the fraction of the

elements sampled (i.e., the sampling fraction

n/N ) is .05 (i.e., 5%) or greater, the

techniques for making inferences to finite

populations and those for infinite populations

give essentially the same results. Even if the

sampling fraction is as much as 10%, the results

from. using the simpler methods (which assume

that N is infinitely large) are only slightly

less precise and.efficient than the results from

using procedures that take the sampling fraction

into account.

(Glass and.Hopkins, 1984, p. 175).

Based upon this information the 5% sampling fraction was an appropriate
measure for it is not necessrily the size of the sample that is
important rather its representativeness. If a representative sample is
selected then it is possible to make certain valid inferences about the
population under study. The sample is considered to be representative
provided the method used to select the it assures randomization. The
procedures for drawing the sample are discussed in the "Sampling

Technique" section of this chapter.

W

The composition of the sample was derived by selecting the
sample units from those of a mudh larger population. Generally, the
components of the sample are chosen from the population universe by a
process known as "randomization". Such a sample is a "random sample".
Randomization means selecting a part of the whole population in such a
way that thecharacteristics of each of the units of the sample
approximates the broad characteristics inherent in the total population
(lerxiy 1974).

The method used to select the sample is of utmost importance

in judging the validity of the inferences made from the sample to the

40

population. It is extremely important that the sample be
representative of the population. Random sampling of a population
produces samples which, in the long run, are representative of the
population. If a sample is randomly drawn, it is representative in all
respects--that is, the statistic differs from the parameter only by
chance on any variable, real or illusory, measured or not measured
(Glass and Hopkins, 1984) .

A. systematic random sample of the Judicial records of those
who had been feund.guilty or admitted.guilt was drawn from the files in
the Office of Judicial .Affairs at Michigan State University. The
sample was drawn. by selecting every 20th disciplinary file for the
three year‘academic period from 1986-87, 1987—88 and 1988-89. This
resulted. in a total of 193 files being drawn out of a total of
approximately 3,667 individual student files on record. Since pulling
every 20th file resulted. in 193 files the 5% criteria established
earlier was met, but 17 of the files were cases that were withdrawn or
students who were found not guilty. The Director of Judicial Affairs
explained that up until the 1988-89 academic year all cases were filed
together. That has since changed.

In order to meet the 5% sample ratio an additional random
selection pulling 2 files from each drawer was completed. This
resulted. in an additional 17 valid files being pulled. Upon a final
review of the completed judicial record survey sheets the researcher
found that 9 of the surveys were from those who were found not guilty
or the case was withdrawn. The total number of valid cases for the

offender group was 184.

41

W

The data on student offenders was gathered using the "Student

JUdicial Record Survey Sheet" (Appendix A) developed.by the researcher.

The data from the general student population was taken from the 1987-88

Student Profile which is prepared. by the university each year. The

survey instrument identified information related to the demographic

variables and.the types of offenses committed. The office of Judicial

Affairs groups 'violations into four broad categories with.specific

violations listed.under each.(Appendix B). These four categories are

as follows:

1.

falsifying information

improperly transferring altering or
using a parking permit

misusing a residence hall meal ticket

illegal entry into a building or room
misusing a university key

throwing food

damaging university property

setting a fire

pulling a fire alarm

causing physical harm to another
threatening others

causing unreasonable noise
possessing or using fireworks
possessing a weapon); and

Almlnl

organizing or participating in a party where alcohol is
being consumed, or

alcohol in the hallway

common source of alcohol (keg)

The data were Obtained. by completing the "Student Offender

Survey Sheet" on each student offender case file drawn in the sample.

Since student records are highly confidential all students in the

study remained anonymous. No student names were used or reported.

42

Since the University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects
(UCRIHS) at Michigan State University requires prior approval of
research projects involving human subjects, it was necessary to receive
such approval prior to gathering the data. Appendix C contains the
application submitted to the Committee and.their letter of approval.
Appendix D is the draft of the letter to Ms. Marie Hansen, Assistant
Director of Student Life-JUdicial Affairs Office requesting her
assistance in gathering the data on student offenders. This letter
also requests that Ms. Hansen revieW' the "Student Offender Survey

Sheet" as a pilot test of the survey instrument.

.EIDQI_SIUDX

In order to test the appropriateness of the survey instrument
a pilot study was conducted. Initially, the researcher met with the
Director of JUdicial.Affirs at MSU to discuss the appropriateness of
the survey instrument. The Director reviewed the instrument and
suggested that class standing be changed.to date of admission and that
number of credits completed at the time of the disciplinary action be
added. It was believed that this would be a more realistic gauge of
the length of time that a student had been on campus as class standing
could. be deceiving because some students could be fourth or fifth term
freshmen. She also suggested that sex be changed to gender and that
student number and name be added to the instrument for data collection
purposes only. This final suggestion was made to assure accuracy
because there are times when student numbers may be reported
incorrectly and this could be avoided.by doing a cross reference to the
name. The survey instrument was redesigned in such a fashion that the

name and student number appeared at the top with a perforated line so

43

that it could.be removed after collection of the
data.

The revised instrument was used.in a pilot test with the
full-time residence hall staff of East Complex. There were a total of 7
staff members present. The purpose of the present research was
explained. and.the staff was instructed to review the survey instrument
and. answer the questions on the pilot study evaluation form (Appendix
E) regarding its appropriateness.

.All 7 staff members agreed.that the form. was appropriate.
One staff member suggested that a check needed to be done to see which
offenses resulted in removal from residence hall or suspension from the
university. However, the present research is not concerned with the
sanctioning process so this would.not be an appropriate variable to add
to the instrument. Another staff'member indicated. that the type of
offense category was incorrect because the breakdown did not
necessarily correspond ‘with regulations in the way that the staff
reports them. This individual indicated. that Judicial .Affairs
tabulations of reports were misleading in that they did not specify
guest policies and other alcohol regulations. In collecting the data
regarding these offenses these specific kinds of violations were added

to the survey instrument to more accurately reflect their occurrence.

INNELIZXIIIHJIII
Upon approval by the UCRIHS the researcher was able to draw

the sample and complete the survey instrument. The infOrmation that
the researcher completed on the survey instrument included the place of
residence, how guilty status was determined, term of violation, gender,

type of violation, and repeat offender status. The completed survey

44

instrument was then given to the Director of Judicial affairs in order
to have her staff complete information regarding ethnic status, term of
admission, academic college, and GPA. .After this additional
infOrmation had.been Obtained each survey form.was reviewed.again for

COITECCDGSS .

IEEZUIEIULSILJHTIJIIUB
The test statistic which was used in analyzing the type of

offense by place of residence was the chi-square test. According to
Huck, Cormier, and. Bounds (1974) the chi-square test is used.when a
researcher is interested in the number of responses, objects, or people
that fall in two or more categories. This procedure is sometimes
called a goodness-of—fit statistic. Goodness-of-fit refers to whether
a significant difference exists between an Observed. number and an
expected. number of responses, people, or objects falling in each
category designated.by the researcher.

The major hypotheses were tested at the .05 level of
significance. As a test of statistical significance chi-square helps
to determine whether a systematic relationship exists between two
variables (Nie, Hull, Jenkins, Steinbrenner, and Bent, 1975). The
strength of the relationships for the present study were determined for
the offender sample using the appropriate chi-squares procedure.

While previous studies used chi square analysis to test
hypotheses in comparing the demographic characteristics of student
offenders with the baseline population the present study utilized a
proportional analysis by calculating a 2 value for each individual
component variable for the two groups. According to Hayslett (1968)

the true proportion of successes in Population 1 is denoted.by‘ud and

45

the true proportion in Population 2 is denoted by 72. The symbol 7! is
used to denote a paramater of a binomial population (Hayslett, 1969, p.
97).

The procedure used to test the hypothesis that there is no
difference between the proportions of successes in two binomial
populations, HO : 171 - 1T2 = 0 assumes that H is true, and the random

0

variable
(pl- p2) - 0

 

«(1 -'n) {3(1 -‘1)

n1 n2

is approximately standard normal;
The formula used.to calculate 2 values for each of the
demographic variables tested in the comparison analysis of offenders

and.the baseline population is:
A
(81 - p2) - (O)
z:
Vfi(1-fi)+§(1-§)

"1 n2

 

 

The level of significance established. by the researcher was .05. The
critical region of the test consisted of all z-values less than or
equal to -z (-1.96) or greater than or equal to z (1.96) (Hayslett,
1969). The analysis of the comparison of GPAs of student offenders
and the general undergraduate student population was accomplished by
calculating the t-statistic and testing at the .05 level of

significance.

A. systematic random sample consisting of 184 records of

students who had either admitted guilt or been found guilty of

46

'violating university regulations was drawn fOrm.the case files in the
Office of Judicial.Affairs at Michigan State University. These files
were taken from those cases ajudicated during the three year period
from 1986-87 to 1988-89.

The demographic variables identified for comparison to the
baseline population included class standing, place of residence,
academic college, gender, ethnic status, and grade point average (GPA).
The Zbaseline population consisted of the general undergraduate student
population fOr 1987-88. Average enrollments and related. data were
calculated for the Fall, Winter and.Bpring terms for 1987-88 (see Table
1).

Place of residence was defined as large halls (1,000 Students
or more); medium. halls (400-999); small halls (less than 400);
university apartments, and off campus. The categories of offenses
analyzed in the study as classified.by the Office of Judicial.Affairs,
were 1) university Records, 2) University Facilities, 3) The
Individual, and 4) Alcohol.

InfOrmation on the student offender sample was gathered using
the "Student JUdicial Record Survey Sheet" (Appendix A) which was
developed. by the researcher. .A.pilot study was conducted to determine
the appropriateness of the survey instrument. The fOrm.was revised
based upon feedback obtained from the pilot test.

The data were analyzed.by using chi-squares and.proportional
analysis by the calculation of 2 values for each variable. The

relevant hypotheses were tested at the .05 level of significance.

CHAPTERIV

This chapter contains a discussion of the analysis of the data
using Chi-squares and. proportional analysis of the variables by
calculation of the 2 values. As noted in Chapter I, prior studies had
suggested that the offender group be compared to a baseline population,
that males and females be studied.separately, and.that repeat offenders
be studied separately. The first six hypotheses in this study were
developed. to primarily test the proportional differences between the
total offender group and the undergraduate population (baseline
population) for the 1987-88 academic year. Hypothesis seven was
developed to distinguish between the types of offenses committed. by
place of residence.

In order to illustrate the differences found in the offender
groups and the baseline population the following analyses are discussed
in this chapter:

1. The comparison of the total offender group with the
baseline population using proportional analysis.

2. The comparison of repeat offenders with the baseline
population using proportional analysis.

3. Analysis of gender differences by type of offense using
chi-square analysis.

Each of the seven hypotheses as stated in Chapter I were appropriately
tested. and are discussed in this chapter. For purposes of the analysis
each hypothesis was stated in the null form. The completion of these
analyses and comparisons provide for a more comprehensive discussion of

the differences between student offenders and.the general undergraduate
47

48

student population.

 

The analysis of the comparison of the student offender sample
warm: the undergraduate general student population (1987-88) was
(accomplished. by proportional analysis calculating the 2 values and
‘testing the null hypotheses at the .05 level of significance. A.summary
of the results of the comparison analysis for the student offenders with
the undergraduate student population for 1987-88 is presented in Table
2. Average enrollments fer Fall,‘Winter and Spring terms were used in
the comparison analysis.

NULL HYPOTHESIS l:
frhere is no significant difference between the proportion of student

<offienders who are freshmen and sophomores and. those who are
upperclassmen when compared. to the general undergraduate student

population.

The analysis comparing class standing was significant.
Freshmen and sophomores were greatly overrepresented in the offender
group with 2 values of 6.089 and 3.400 respectively. JUniors and
seniors were both underrepresented. in the offender group (z=-4.563 and
z=-6.460) respectively. This finding appears to be consistent with prior
research. vanKuren and Creamer (1989) found. that class standing is
directly related to offender status. One possible explanation they
offer is that developmentally freshmen and sophomores are less mature
and. this immaturity may lead.to misconduct problems. The null
hypothesis for class standing was rejected.
NULL HYPOTHESIS 2:
There is no significant difference between the proportion of student

offenders from large residence halls and other on and off campus
residences when compared to the general undergraduate student

population.

49

TABLE 2

SUMNER! OF CHARACTERISTICS OF STUDENT OFFENDERS
AND UNIVERSITY POPULATION

 

STUDENT OFFENDERS UNIVERSITY POPULATION

 

CHARACTERISTICS 2 SCORE NO. PERCENT NO.*** PERCENT
CLASS
Freshman 6.089* 81 44.3 7,797 24%
Sophomore 3.400* 72 39.3 7,714 24
Junior -4.563** 19 ‘ 10.4 8,155 25
Senior -6.460** 11 6.0 8,557 27
RESIDENCE
Large Hall 3.129* 122 66.1 10,311 32
Medium Hall 4.348* 45 24.6 4, 178 13
Small Hall -0.267 6 3.3 1,622 5
University.Apts. 0 0 0.0 113 0.35
Off Campus —11.822** 11 6.0 15,999 49.65
ACADEMIC COLLEGE
ANR -1.771 7 3.6 2,339 7
A.& L -1.491 8 4.2 2,265 7
BUS 1.657 48 25 6,881 20
COM ARTS 0.209 22 11.5 3, 880 11
EDU -0.301 5 2.6 1,347 4
ENGR. 0.137 23 12 3,586 11
HUMAN ECOLOGY -1.591 3 1.6 1,478 4
JAMES MADIS -0.718 4 2.1 1,008 3
NAT SCI -.7535 16 8.3 3,364 10
NURS 0 1 0.5 390 1
SOC SCI -0.152 19 9.9 3,702 11
COLL OF VET MED 0 0 0 351 1
UNDERGR.UNIV’DIV' 2.585* 30 15.6 3,221 10
GENDER
Male 6.713** 134 72.8 15,517. 48
Female -6.713** 50 27.2 16,707 52
ETHNIC STATUS
Caucasian -0.446 152 87.9 28,437 88
Black -O.528 12 6.9 2,084 7
Hispanic 1.380 4 1 347 1
Native American 0 0 0 105 0.33
Asian Pacific 0.905 5 2.9 533 2
AVERAGE GPA. 2.45 2.79

 

CXF .05/2 = .025 ***Average Totals

Z = 11.96 for Fall, Winter
*Z>1.96 and Spring 1987—88
**Z<-1.96

50

The comparison of place of residence indicated.that student
offenders from large and.medium.halls were overrepresented (z=3.129 and
z=4.348 respectively). Again, the null hypothesis was rejected. Student
offenders from.small halls were proportionately represented (z=-.0267)
while off campus students were underrepresented (z=-11.822). The null
hypothesis for small halls was not rejected.While the null hypothesis
for off campus students was rejected. Off campus students account fOr
the largest percent of undergraduates yet they account for the lowest
percent of student offenders. Students living in university apartments
were dropped from.the analysis as they accounted for less than one
percent in both the offender group and the comparison group.

NULL HYPO’I'HESIS 3:

There is no significant difference in the proportion of student
offenders enrolled in the various academic colleges when compared to the
general undergraduate student population.

The comparison of offender status and academic college yielded
the following findings. There were no proportional differences found
for the Colleges of.Agriculture and.Natural Resources (z=-1.771), Arts &
Letters (z=-1,491), Business (z=1.657), Communication. Arts & Science
(z=0.209), Education (z=—O.301), Human Ecology (z=-l.591), Engineering
z=0.137), James Madison (z=-0.718), Natural Science (z=—O.7535), and
Social Science (z=-0.152). The null hypothesis was not rejected for the
aforementioned academic colleges. The only college which was
overrepresented (z=2.585) in the offender group was that of the
undergraduate University Division. This particular classification is
primarily for freshmen and sophomores who have not declared an academic
major or those who wish to explore a variety of academic areas. The

null hypothesis was rejected for the Undergraduate university Division.

51

NULL HYPOTHESIS 4:

There is no significant difference between the incidence of male
offenders and. female offenders when compared. to the general
undergraduate student population.

The comparison of gender difference showed.males to be greatly
overrepresented (z=6.713) and females to be greatly underrepresented
(z=-6.713) in the offender group. The null hypothesis was rejected.

NULL HYPOTHESIS 5:

Proportionately there is no significant difference between the number of
majority and non-majority student offenders

when compared to the general undergraduate student population.

Ethnic origin was analyzed. because it was believed.that this
variable might add insight as to the diversity of the student
population. The results showed. that proportionately there were no
significant differences in representation in the offender group and the
comparison group. That is to say that while the majority of student
offenders are Caucasian (87.9%) they are equally represented (z=-0.446)
in the general student population (88%) as were Blacks (z=-0.528),
Hispanics (z=1.380), and..Asians (z=0.905 ). The only group not
represented. in either group was Native Americans as they comprise less
than one percent of the student population. The null hypothesis for
ethnic status was not rejected. .All ethnic groups are proportionately
represented in the offender group when compared to the baseline
population. One should. note that ethnic minorities although
proportionately represented in the offender group still account for a
very small percentage of total offenders.

NULL HYPOTHESIS 6:

There is no significant difference in the GPAs of student offenders and
the general undergraduate student population.

The average undergraduate GPA. was 2.79 while the average

52

offender GPA was 2.45. Calculation of the t-statistic at the .05 level
of significance using the GPA/s yielded a t-score of 4.139 which is
greater than t.05 (025) = 2.447. There is a significant difference in
average GPA/s of offenders and the general undergraduate student
population. The null hypothesis was rejected.

NULL HYPOTHESIS 7:

Among student offenders there is no significant difference
in the types of offenses committed by place of residence.

The summary of the kind.of offense by place of residence is
presented in Table 3. The results of this analysis were significant CL
= 92.826; p< .05). Those living in large and.medium. residence halls
showed. the greatest significance by type of offense. ,Violations in the
offense categories of the individual and alcohol occurred more
frequently in large and medium.halls. ‘Violations of university records
and university facilities were relatively few in number and occurred
'with. about the same frequency in large and.medium.halls and off-campus.
Off-campus and small halls were not represented in the university
facilities offense category.

What this indicates is that those living in large and.medium
halls tend to commit violations in the categories of alcohol and the
individual more frequently than those in the university records and
university facilities categories. In other words there are far fewer
incidences of falsifying records, and destroying property etc. than
there are violations of noise, threatening behavior, floor parties, and
other alcohol violations.

Those living in small halls and off campus were
underrepresented in each of the offense categories. Their numbers were

so small (5 or less) in each category that one has to be carerl in

2

53

TABLE 3

SUI/MARY OF KIND OF OFFENSE BY PLACE OF RESIDENCE

 

RESIDENCE HALLS

 

OFFENSE TOTAL LARGE MED SMALL UNIV. APTS OFF CAMPUS
UNIV. RECORD 15 5 4 1 0 5
FACILITIES 12 8 4 0 O 0
THE INDIVIDUAL 73 46 22 2 O 3
AICOHOL 83 62 15 3 0 3

 

x2= 92.826, p <.05

54

drawing conclusions about the significance of the Chi-square‘ test.
These individuals had no incidences of violations in the university
facilities category and accounted for less than 10 percent of the
violations in the other three offense categories. One possible
explanation for these differences is that the large and.medium.sized
residence halls are traditionally louder and tend to have more parties.
Also staff in these buildings may be more responsive to violations of
the student code and.may be more prone to report such violations. The

null hypothesis was rejected.

In this comparison analysis between the overall offender group
and. the baseline population the variables showing the strongest
indication of offender status were class standing, place of residence,
gender and.GPA. The variables of academic college and.ethnic status did
not show any significance when analyzed with.the baseline population.
The null hypothesis regarding academic college was notrejected for all
academic colleges except the undergraduate University Division which was
overrepresented.in the comparison analysis. The null hypothesis for race
was not rejected as all ethnic groups were proportionately represented
in the comparison analysis.

The analysis of the kind of offense by place of residence
showed. that those living in large and medium.halls tend to commit
‘violations in the categories of alcohol and. the individual more
frequently than other types of violations. Small residence halls and
off-campus residences were underrepresented in each of the ofense
categories. The null hypothesis regarding type of offense by place of

residence was rejected.

55

 

In addition to the proportional analysis comparing the

total offender population and the university population, another
proportional analysis was completed controlling for repeat offender
status. Table 4 is a graphic presentation of the summary of the results
of the analysis for repeat offenders and.the baseline population.

NULL HYPOTHESIS 1:

There is no significant difference between the proportion of repeat

student offenders who are freshmen and sophomores and those who are
upperclassmen when compared to the general undergraduate student

population.

In the repeat offender comparison class standing yielded some
significantly different findings than those reported in the total
offender sample. There were no proportional differences found for the
freshman class (z=1.312) between repeat offenders and the baseline
population while sophomores were greatly overrepresented (z = 14.83) and
juniors were somewhat underrepresented z = -2.153). There were no
incidences of seniors in the repeat offender group. These results
indicate sophomores are more likely to be repeat offenders than
freshmen, juniors or seniors. This is consistent with the findings of
Janosik, Davis, and.Spencer (1985). The null hypothesis was rejected
for sophomores and juniors.

NULL HYPOTHESIS 2:

There is no significant difference between the proportion of repeat
student offenders from large residence halls and other on and off campus
residences when compared to the general undergraduate student
population.

The analysis of place of residence for repeat offenders

indicated that students from large halls were significantly

56
TABLE4

SUIVMARY OF CHARACTERISTICS OF REPEAT OFFENDERS

AND UNIVERSITY POPULATION

 

REPEAT OFFENDERS

UNIVERSITY POPULATION

 

 

CHARACTERISTICS Z SCORE NO. PERCENT NO.*** PERCENT
CLASS
Freshman 1.312 13 33 7,797 24%
Sophomore 14.830* 22 56 7,714 24
JUnior -2.130** 4 10 8,155 25
Senior 0 8,557 27
RESIDENCE
Large Hall 4.960* 27 69 10,311 32
Medium Hall 1.858 9 23 4,178 13
Small.Hall 0 0 0 1,622 5
University Apts. 0 0 0.0 113 0.35
Off Campus -5.240** 3 7.7 15,999 49.65
ACADEMIC COLLEGE
ANR -l.069 1 2.6 2,339 7
A.& L -0.418 2 5.3 2,265 7
BUS 0.152 8 21 6,881 20
COM ARTS 0.097 6 15.8 3, 880 11
EDU 0 o 0 1,347 4
ENGR 0.967 6 15.8 3,586 11
HUMAN ECOLOGY 0 0 0 1,478 4
JAMES MADIS -0.142 1 2.6 1,008 3
NAT SCI -0.103 4 10.5 3,364 10
NURS 0 1 0.5 390 1
SOC SCI 0.098 4 10.5 3,702 11
COLL OF VET MED 0 O 0 351 l
UNDERGR.UNIV DIV' 0.395 6 15.8 3,221 10
GENDER
Male 4.808* 33 87.8 15,517 . 48
Female -4.808** 5 13 16,707 52
ETHNIC STATUS
Caucasian -0.210 34 87 28,437 88
Black -0.530 2 5 2,084 7
Hispanic 4.009* 3 2.1 347 1
Native.American 0 0 0 105 0.33
.Asian Pacific 0 0 0 533 2
AVERAGE GPA 2.43 2.79
CXF .05/2 = .025 ***Average Totals
Z = $1.96 for Fall, Winter
*Z>1.96 and Spring 1987-88

**z<-1.96

57

overrepresented (z = 4.95) while students from. medium.halls (z=1.858)
were proportionately represented. This finding was different from.that
in the analysis of the total student offender group. Again, off campus
residents were underrepresented (z = -5.243) while there were no
incidences of offenders from small halls, or university apartments. The
null hypothesis was rejected for large halls and off campus. The null
hypothesis was not rejected for*medium.halls and.emall halls.

NULL HYPOTHESIS 3:

There is no significant difference in the proportion of repeat student
offenders enrolled in the various academic colleges when compared.to the
general undergraduate student population.

The comparison of academic college showed. no significant
proportional differences between the two groups. The only inconsistency
between this finding and that involving the total offender group was
that the undergraduate University Division was overrepresented in the
total offender group. One reason for this occurrence might be that most
offenders affiliated ‘with the undergraduate University Division are
freshman and this group showed. no significant proportional
representation in the repeat offender group. The null hypothesis was not
rejected.

NULL HYPOTHESIS 4:

There is no significant difference between the incidence of male repeat

offenders and. female repeat offenders when compared to the general

undergraduate student population.
Females were significantly underrepresented in the repeat

offender group (2 =-4.08) while males were significantly overrepresented

(z=4.808). The null hypothesis was rejected.

NULL HYPOTHESIS 5:

The null hypothesis is that proportionately there is no significant

difference between the number of majority and non-majority repeat

student offenders when compared.to the general undergraduate student
population.

58

The analysis for ethnic status again showed no significant
differences with the exception of Hispanics. This group was
significantly overrepresented (z=4.009) in the repeat offender group.
However, one should note that the total number of Hispanics in both the
general population (n=347) and.the repeat offender group (n=4) are
comparatively small (1% and 2.1%) respectively. Chances are these
students would.constitute a relatively insignificant discipline problem
on campus. The only ethnic group for which the null hypothesis was
rejected.were Hispanics.

NULL HYPOTHESIS 6:

There is no significant difference in the GPAs of repeat
student offenders and the general undergraduate student population.

The average GPA.for repeat offenders was 2.43 while that of the
general undergraduate student population was 2.787. The t-score at the
.05 level of significance is 2.447. Since the calculated t-score of
4.49 is greater than + 2.447 the null hypothesis is rejected. This
finding was consistent with that in the analysis of the total offender

population and the baseline population.

ZEEE3GflELIZLIEEEZELIEQEEEEQSIES

In order to check gender differences in the offender group a
chi square analysis was perfbrmed on type of offense by gender (Table
5). This particular analysis yielded no significant differences. Even
though males comprise the greater number of offenders, males and females
commit violations in each of the four offense categories in
approximately the same proportions. This finding is also consistent

with Tracey et.al. (1979).

 

 

 

SUIVMARY OF KIND OF OFFENSE BY GENDER

59

TABLE 5

 

 

OFFENSE TOTAL MALE FEMALE
UNIV. RECORD 15 8 7
FACILITIES 12 10. 2
THE INDIVIDUAL 73 56 17
ALCOHOL 83 59 24

 

x2= 4.217, p > .05

CHAPERV

SUMMARY, CUNCUUSIONS,JNMJIflillQliIFflHIIES

 

The occurrence of students ‘violating campus regulations at
Dfichigan State university as well as at other institutions of higher
education continues to be a concern for student affairs administrators.
The initial review of the literature indicated that there was a lack of
research on student discipline and that the research whiCh had.been
conducted.was relatively old.

Several methodological problems were also identified. These
problems included: (1) a lack of a baseline or comparison population,
(2) inability to generalize across studies, (3) a lack of descriptive
studies of student offenders, (4) the need to control for type of
offense, (5) the need to study males and females separately and (6) the
need to group repeat offenders for comparison to other offenders.

The purpose of the present research was to address these
issues and.to update studies which had.been conducted at Nfichigan State

University over twenty years ago.

.MEEHDDQHQE!

The methodology used in this study included the identification
and comparison of several demographic characteristics of student
offenders and the undergraduate student population for 1987-88. The
variables under study included class standing, place of residence,

60

61

academic college, gender, ethnic status and grade point average. Place
of residence was categorized as large halls, medium.halls, small halls,
off campus, and university apartments. A random sample consisting of
184 student offenders was drawn from the judicial files of students who
had admitted guilt or been found guilty of violations at MSU for
academic years 1986-87, 1987—88, and 1988-89. The data on the student
offender group were compared to the general undergraduate university
population and analyzed. using proportional analysis which entailed
calculation of z-scores to test whether there existed any statistically
significant differences between the two groups. Proportional analysis
was also performed. for differences between repeat offenders and the
general student population. Chi-square analysis was performed
controlling for type of offense by gender to determine whether there
were any differences in the types of violations committed.by males and
females. Chi-square analysis was also used in the analysis of type of
offense by place of residence. The t-statistic was used to determine

the significance of grade point averages for the two groups.

 

NULL HYPOTHESIS 1:

There is no significant difference between the proportion of student
offenders who are freshmen and sophomores and those who are
upperclassmen when compared to the general undergraduate student
population.

The analysis comparing class standing was significant. Freshmen
and sophomores were greatly overrepresented. in the offender group.

Juniors and seniors were both.underrepresented in the offender group.

 

62

This finding appeared to be consistent with prior research. ‘VanKuren
and Creamer (1989) found.that class standing is directly related to
offender status. One possible explanation that they offer is that
developmentally freshmen and sophomores are less mature and.this
immaturity‘ may lead. to misconduct problems. The null hypothesis for
class standing was rejected for all four class levels.

NULL HYPOTHESIS 2:

There is no significant difference between the proportion of student
offenders from large residence halls and other on and off campus
residences when compared to the general undergraduate student
population.

The comparison of place of residence indicated. that student
offenders from large and. medium.halls were overrepresented. The null
hypothesis was rejected for large and.medium.halls. Student offenders
from small halls were proportionately represented. while off campus
students were underrepresented. The null hypothesis for small halls was
not rejected while the null hypothesis for off campus was rejected.

NULL HYPOTHESIS 3:

There is no significant difference in the proportion of student
offenders enrolled in the various academic colleges when compared to the
general undergraduate student population.

There were no proportional differences found for the
colleges of Agriculture and Natural Resources, .Arts & Letters,
Business, Communication Arts & Science, Education, Human Ecology,
Engineering, James Madison, Natural Science, and Social Science. The
null hypothesis was not rejected for the aforementioned academic
colleges. The only academic unit which was overrepresented in the

offender group was that of the Undergraduate University Division. The

null hypothesis was rejected for the Undergraduate University Division.

63
NULL HYPOTHESIS 4:

There is no significant difference between the incidence of male
offenders and female offenders when compared to the undergraduate
general student population.

The comparison of gender showed males to be greatly
overrepresented and females to be greatly underrepresented in the
offender group. The null hypothesis was rejected.

NULL HYPOTHESIS 5:

Proportionately there is no significant difference between the number of
majority and nonrmajority student offenders

when compared to the general undergraduate student population.

The results showed that proportionately there were no
significant differences in representation in the offender group and the
comparison group. That is to say that while the majority of student
offenders are Caucasian (87.9%) they are equally represented in the
general
student population (88%) as were Blacks, Hispanics, and
Asians. The only group not represented in either group was Native
Americans as they comprise less than one percent of the student
population. The null hypothesis fOr ethnic status was not rejected.
One should note that ethnic minorities although proportionately
represented in the offender group still account for a very small
percentage of total offenders.

NULL HYPOTHESIS 6:

There is no significant difference in the GPAs of student
offenders and the general undergraduate student population.

The average undergraduate GPA.was 2.79 while the average
offender GPA.was 2.458. The t-score indicated the offender group’s GPA
was significantly lower than the average undergraduate GPA. The null

hypothesis was rejected.

64
NULL HYPOTHESIS 7:

The null hypothesis is that among student offenders there is no
difference in the type of offense committed.by place of residence.

The results of this analysis were significant. Those living in
large and medium. halls showed.the greatest significance by type of
offense. 'Violations in the offense categories of the individual and
alcohol occurred.more frequently in large and.medium.halls. ‘Violations
of university records and university facilities were relatively few in
number and occurred with about the same frequency in large and.medium
halls and off campus. Off campus and small halls were not represented
in the university facilities category. The null hypothesis was
rejected.

The indication was that those living in large and.medium.halls
tend. to commit violations of university records and facilities in
approximately the same proportion. They also commit alcohol and
individual violations in about the same proportion which is much higher
than university records and university facilities violations. In other
words there are far fewer incidences of falsifying records, and
destroying property etc. than there are violations of noise, threatening

behavior, floor parties, and other alcohol violations.

 

NULL HYPOTHESIS 1:

There is no significant difference between the proportion of
repeatstudent offenders who are freshmen and sophomores and those who
are upperclassmen when compared to the general undergraduate student
popualtion.

In the repeat offender comparison class standing yielded some

significantly different findings than those reported in the total

 

65

offender sample. There were no proportional differences found for the
freshman class between repeat offenders and the baseline population
while sophomores were greatly overrepresented and juniors were somewhat
underrepresented. There were no incidences of seniors in the repeat
offender group. These results indicated sophomores are more likely to
be repeat offenders than freshmen, juniors or seniors. This is
consistent with the findings of Janosik, Davis, and Spencer (1985).
The null hypothesis was rejected for sophomores and juniors.
NULL HYPOTHESIS 2:

There is no significant difference between the proportion of
repeat student offenders from large residence halls and other on and off
campus residences when compared to the general undergraduate student
population.

The analysis of place of residence for repeat offenders
indicated that students from large halls were significantly
overrepresented while students from.medium halls were proportionately
represented. This finding was different from that in the analysis of
the total student offender group. Again, off campus residents were
underrepresented. while there were no incidences of offenders from small
halls, or university apartments. The null hypothesis was rejected for
large halls and off compus. The null hypothesis was not rejected for
medium.halls and small halls.

NULL HYPOTHESIS 3:

There is no significant difference in the proportion of repeat student
offenders enrolled in the various academic colleges when compared to the
general undergraduate student population.

The comparison of academic college showed no significant

proportional differences between the two groups. The null hypothesis

was not rejected.

66
NULL HYPOTHESIS 4:
There is no significant difference between the incidence of male repeat
' offenders and female repeat offenders when compared to the general
undergraduate student popualtion.

Females were significantly underrepresented in the repeat
offender group while males were significantly overrepresented. The null
hypothesis was rejected.

NULL HYPOTHESIS 5:

The null hypothesis is that proportionately there is no significant
difference between the number of majority and.non-majority repeat
student offenders when compared to the general undergraduate student
population.

The analysis for ethnic status again showed.no significant
differences with the exception of Hispanics. This group was
significantly overrepresented. in the repeat offender group. However,
this finding was considered with caution because Hispanics represented
an exceptionally small in both the undergraduate population (n=347) and
the repeat offender group (n=3). The null hypothesis was rejected for
Hispanics. The null hypothesis was not rejected for the other ethnic
groups since they were each proportionately represented in the repeat
offender group.

NULL HYPOTHESIS 6:

There is no significant difference in the GPAs of student
offenders and.the general undergraduate student population.

The average GPAs for repeat offenders was 2.43 which was
significantly lower than the average GPA. of the baseline population
(2.787). This finding was consistent with that in the analysis of the
total offender population and.the baseline population. The null

hypothesis was rejected.

67

ANALYSIS OF GENDER.DIFFERENCES

In order to check gender differences in the offender group a
chi square analysis was performed on type of offense by gender. This
particular analysis yielded no significant differences. Even though
males comprise the greater number of offenders, males and.females commit
'Violations in each of the four offense categories in approximately the
same proportions. This finding is also consistent with.Tracey et.al.

(1979).

W

Proportional analysis comparing the students offenders with the
general undergraduate student population confirmed. that student
offenders were more likely to reside in large or medium.halls, and.that
both freshmen and sophomores were overrepresented in the offender group
while juniors and seniors were underrepresented.

In the comparison analysis of students offenders with the
undergraduate student population the variable of academic college
indicated no significant differences between the two groups with the
exception of the undergraduate university Division which was
overrepresented in the offender group. The comparison of gender showed
that males were significantly overrepresented in the offender group.
However, there was no statistical difference found in the types of
‘Violations that males and females commit.

The analysis involving ethnic status showed no significant
differences in representation in the total offender group. Minorities
represent a small percentage of the general student population and are

no more or less likely to be involved in disciplinary problems than

68

their Caucasian counterparts.

A. comparison of GPAs indicated that student offenders had a
significantly lower GPA.(2.458) than the general student population
(2.785). A. review of the hypotheses revealed that the null hypotheses
regarding’ place of residence, GPA, class standing, and gender were
rejected. The hypothesis testing the significance of academic college
revealed. that the only college showing any significance was that of the
Undergraduate University
Division. In other words, proportional differences
between the offender group and.the university population do exist for
the variables of place of residence, GPA, class standing, gender and the
Undergraduate University Division. The hypotheses regarding ethnic
status and academic college with the exception of the university
Undergraduate Division were not rejected.. In other words there were no
significant proportional differences found for the variables of ethnic
status and.the colleges of Agriculure and.Natural Resources, Arts and
Letters, Business, Communication Arts, Education, Engineering, Human
Ecology, James Madison, Natural Science, Nursing, Social Science, and
the College of Veterinary Medicine in the offender group when compared
to the general student population.

One of the more consistent findings of this study when
compared to other studies was the significance of class standing in the
offender group. One explanation of this occurrence is that
theoretically speaking freshmen and sophomores maturity level and
developmental status (VanKuren and Creamer, 1989; Cickering, 1969) may
be quite different from juniors and seniors.

In addition to the comparison analysis, chisquares were

perfbrmed. on type of offense by place of residence and gender. The

69

results indicated that students in large and. medium halls commit a
disproportionate amount of 'Violations in the individual and alcohol
categories. Mbst of these violations involve noise, floor parties where
alcohol is being consumed and possession of a common source of alcohol
(keg). There were no significant differences in the type of offense
crnuutted. by gender; Males and.females committed violations in each of
the offense categories in approximately the same proportion.

Additional analyses were perfbrmed on the comparison of the
repeat offenders with the university population. One of the more
interesting findings in this analysis was that there were no significant
differences between freshmen in the repeat offender group and the
general student population. One explanation of this is that freshmen
for the most part would only have spent one year on campus and.repeat
offenses are more likely to occur during the sophomore year.

The analysis on place of residence for repeat offenders
indicated. that students from large halls were overrepresented. while
students from.medium.halls were proportionately represented. This was
inconsistent with the finding for the comparison of the total offender
group 'with the baseline population. .Also, there were no significant
differences in academic college representation in the repeat offender
group. Again, males were overrepresented. The only significant
difference for ethnic status occurred for Hispanic students who were
overrepresented.in the repeat offender group, but it was noted that they
accounted for such a small number that this result should be accepted

with caution.

(IECIUBIONS

Based upon the results of the proportional analysis one can

7O

conclude that there appears to be some relationship between the
variables of class standing, gender, place of residence, and academic
college for those enrolled in the Undergraduate University Division for
the student offender group. Freshmen and sophomores comprise slightly
more than half of the undergraduate student population. Freshmen and
sophomores also constitute the greatest majority of offenders in the
total offender group while sophomores constitute the greatest majority
of offenders in the repeat offender group. The overrepresentation of
freshmen and sophomores as student offenders could. be attributable to
several factors. Primarily freshmen and sophomores because of on campus
residency requirements comprise the majority of on campus residents and
most of the offenses cited. occurred in or around the residence halls.
Secondly, as cited.earlier in this study freshmen and sophomores
may not have reached.the same level of maturity as juniors and seniors
and tend to disregard accepted codes of behavior. Finally, freshmen
and. sophmores may not be completely aware of the various student rules
and. regulations that govern student conduct. TherefOre, while
educational disciplinary programs are needed for all students freshmen
and sophomores participation should.be particularly emphasized.

The type of offenses that occur most frequently are those in
the individual and alcohol categories. Mbst of these are noise,
threatening behavior, alcohol and. party violations. Based. upon this
finding one can conclude that there is a basic lack of respect of the
rights of others among student offenders. It can also be concluded that
the use of alcohol on campus can lead to serious disciplinary problems.
Educational programs designed to address these issues should continue to
be stressed.on campus.

Ethnic status was found. to be insignificant in determining

 

71

offender status. Ethnic minorities are no more or less apt to violate
university rules and.regulations than their Caucasian counterparts.
This particular finding may help to alleviate some of the stereotypes
regarding behavioral problems associated with ethnic minorities. One
can conclude that the ethnic and. cultural diversity of the student
population has in no way eroded campus discipline. In fact the
numbers and.percentages of ethnic minorities in both the general student
population and the offender group are so samll that they are almost
negligible.

The findings in this study suggest that one can conclude that
while educational programs are needed for all students particular
emphasis should.be placed on freshmen and sophomore students residing on
campus in large and medium.halls. Student development theories such as
those mentioned.in Chapter II may be very useful in addressing issues of
developmental assessment of needs and.maturity levels. For example,
application of the psychosocial theories (Rodgers, 1983) would provide a
means to identify specific developmental tasks that occur during the
college experience (ages 18-25). These tasks might include learning to
manage emotions, identifying and coping with stressors,
confronting issues of gender identity, alcohol awareness, and learning
to be independent. Once these tasks are identified student affairs
professionals can plan educational activities to address such issues.
For instance, workshops could. be conducted to teach students stress
management techniques, values clarification, sexual identity, and
responsible drinking. Educational programs such as the ones mentioned
here involve a lot of planning and a concerted effort on the part of the

campus community to encourage students to attend and participate.

72

was

This researcher recommends that fUture research in the area of student

discipline:

1. Identify institutions of higher education of a similar nature to
that of Midhigan State University and conduct studies similar to the
present research. This would allow comparison of results among
institutions and.these colleges and universities could then interact
‘with each other as they plan and.implement disciplinary programs.

2. In conducting research on repeat offenders researchers should.begin
to focus more attention on the sanctioning process and.whether or
not sanctions act as deterrents to repeat offender status.

3. Additional studies incorporating ethnic status as a variable would
be helpful in further determining whether this variable is
significant in offender status as the present study suggests it is
not significant.

In addition to these recommendations future research should
also consider the consistency of the manner in which campus rules and
regulations are enforced.and reported.by staff in the various on campus
living units. Some staff in smaller halls may tend to use a
disciplinary counseling approach while others in larger halls may tend
to use a more confrontational approach which could. result in more

violations being reported for these living units.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bazik, A.M., and Meyering, R.A., "Characteristics of College Students
Involved in Discipline Problems", JDDIDBI.QI.LD§.NELIQB§1

Asaociation of. Name Deans and W,
Sumner 1965, pp. 173-176.

Bealer, James E. , "An Analysis of Personality and Demographic
Factors Concerning Students Involved in Disciplinary Problems" ,
Unpublished Dissertation, Michigan State University, 1967.

Bevilacqua, Peter Joseph, "Characteristics of Male Disciplinary Students
at Villanova University", Unpublished Dissertation, Villanova
University, 1972.

Brousseau, Mary A., "Comparison of Disciplined and
Non-Disciplined Women Residents at Marquette University
1967-68", Unpublished Dissertation, Marquette,
University, 1969.

Buchanan, E.T. "Joe", "Student Disciplinary Proceedings in Collegiate
Institutions--Substantive, and Procedural Due Process Requirements",
in Hammond, Edward H., and Shaffer, Robert H., Editors, W
mxmwmmamn' h W,
American College Personnel Association, Washington, D.C., 1978, pp.
94-115.

Callis, Robert, "Educational Aspects of "In Loco Parentis"", In
Fitzgerald, Laurine E. , Johnson, Walter F. , and Norris, Willa,
College Student Personal, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, 1970,
pp. 91-93.

Caruso, Robert G., "The Professional Approach to Student Discipline in
the Years Ahead", in Hammond, Edward H., and Shaffer, Robert H.,
Editors, The meal Madam of Sim; PM rm Semi in
Higher w, American College Personnel Association, Washington,
D.C., 1978, pp. 116-127.

Chickering, Arthur W., W Ed Identity, Jossey Bass,
San Francisco, 1969.

Clark, John H. , " Improving Student Fit with the Academic Environment",
Journal of mm Student mam, March 1987. pp- 115-122.

Costar, James William, "Academic Adjustment of Selected Male Students
Reported for Disciplinary Action at Michigan State University",
Unpublished Dissertation, Michigan State University, 1958.

Cummins, Emery J ., "Selected Affective and Cognitive Characteristics of

Student Disciplinary Offenders", Unpublished Dissertation, Nuchigan
State University, 1964.

73

 

74

Dalton, J .C., and Healy, M.A., "Using Values Education
Activities to Confront Student Conduct Issues", M We

nf Student Perennml We Jnemal. Fall 1984. pp. 19-25.

Dannels, Michael, in William T. Packwood, Editor, m m;
We]. Seagees, Charles C. Thomas, Publisher, Springfield, IL,
1977, pp.232-278.

Erikson, Erik, W, m, and Crisis, Norton, New York, 1969.

Elton, Charles F. , and Rose, Harriett A. , "Personality
Characteristics: Their Relevance in Disciplinary Cases", M]. sf

mailing Esynhnlsey. April 1966. pp- 432-435.

Gehring, Donald G. ., "Legal issues in the Administration of Student
Affairs", in Miller, Theodore K., Winston, Roger B., Jr. ., and
Mendenhall. William R, Editors, Whine and leadership in
seem. m Accelerated Development, Inc. ., Muncie, Indiana,
1983, pp. 213-237.

Gehring, D., Nuss, E. M., and Pavela, G. ., "Issues and Perspectives on
Academic Integrity", Nahimal W nf semen; Eersneeel
W, Columbus, Ohio, 1986.

Georgia, Robert T., "Permissiveness and Discipline in the Higher
Education Setting: A Prolegonenon" National Association of Student
Pehsneal Ageininhrahnrs Jamal Fall 1989. pp 91- 94

Grosbayne, Franklin C., "Analysis of the Effects of a Preventive
Discipline Program on Arizona Western College Male Freshmen
Atletes’s, Unpublished Dissertation, Arizona Western College, 1975.

Hayslett, H.T., Wigs me giggle, Doubleday and Company, Inc.,
Garden City, NY, 1968.

Huck, Schuyler, Cormier, William, and Bounds, William, Jr. ., Rem
W end Researeb, Schuyler Huck, William Cormier, and
William G. Bounds, Harper and Row Publishers, Inc. ., New York, NY,
1974.

Janosik, Steven M., Davis, Mary B., Spencer, Edward F.D.,
"Characteristics of Repeat Student Offenders: A 6-Year Study",

Journal of feline: Sherbet Emanuel, September 1985, pp. 410 -4l3.

Johnson, Diane Monroe, "Educational Characteristics of Two Groups of
College Disciplinary Offenders", Unpublished Dissertation,
University of Minnesota, 1969.

Kohlberg, Iawrence, "From is to Ought: How to Commit the Naturalistic
Fallacy and Get Away with it in the Study of Moral Development", in
Misschel, T., Editor, Cnneihiee We and mm.
Academic Press, New York, 1971.

75

Kohlberg. Lawrence. Shane and Sequence: Ihefleimeeeeelnmenhal
Anernenh he flializahinn Theory and Research. Rand McNally. New
York, 1969.

leedy. Paul D.. Practical Besearchi Planning en Design. Paul D. leedy.
MacMillan Publishing Co., Inc., New York, 1974.

LeMay, Morris, "College Disciplinary Problems: A Review", W
Cnllenfimneeh Eeesnenel. May 1968. pp- 180-189.

LeMay, Morris, and Thomas A. Murphy, "MVJPI Patterns of College Male

Disciplinary Referrals". m1 nf Cnllene Shim Perenneel. March
1967, pp. 85-89.

Maxim. Lewis 8.. Legacy cf the Serenhies. Jossey-Bass. Inc..
San Francisco, CA, 1977.

Michigan State University "Student Profile Report", 1987-88.

Nie, Norman H. ., Hull, C. Hadlai, Jenkins, Jean G., Steinbrenner, Karin

andBent. DaleH..$ha_hinrina1£a_ckaeefnrheeSnnielfleenes.
Second Edition, MaGraw-Hill, Inc. , United States, 1975.

Rodgers, Robert F, "Using Theory in Practice" in Miller, Theodore K.,
Winston, Roger B. ., Jr. ., Mendenhall, William R, Editors,

W W in W m. Accelerated
Development Incorporated, Muncie, Indiana, 1983, pp. 111- 144.

Rogers, Robert F. , "Theories Underlying Student Development", in
Creamer. Don 6.. Editor. Student W: in mere; ermine.

American College Personnel Association, Cincinatti, 1980.

Sivulich, Steven, "The Influence of legal Decisions on Student
Discipline in Higher Education", Unpublished Dissertation,
Iehigh University, 1975.

Stodt, Martha M., "Psychological Characteristics of 1980’s
College Students: Continuity, Changes, and Challenges",

W Jne__al.
Spring 1982, pp. 3-8.

Tisdale, J. R. , and Brown, F. G. , "Chamcteristics of College Misconduct

Cases". Jaime]. nf Cnllene melee Eehsnenel. November. 1965. pp
359-366.

Tracey, Terence J. , Foster, Margaret E. , Perkins, Douglas C. , and
Hillman, Lola P., "CJ’Iaracteristics of Student Offenders: Some New
Findings and Suggested Improvements in Research Methodology" ,

Joseeal cf muene Stunner. Peescneel. November 1979. pp. 492-497.

Van Kuren, Nancy E. , "A Social Causal Model Approach to College Student
Disciplinary offender Status", Unpublished Dissertation, Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University, 1987.

76

van Kuren, Nancy E., and.Creamer, Don G., "The Conceptualization and
Testing of a Causal Model of College Student Disciplinary Status",
Joireal cf Cnllene W W. May 1989. pp- 257-265-

Williams, W. C. ., and.Innmon Nelson, Susan, "Residence Hall Discipline as

a Function of Personality Type" Netienel AsseeieeieQIQf Stegen;
Eersnnnel Amelishrahnrs qureai. Fall 1986. pp- 39-48.

Williamson, E. G. , Jorve, warren, and.Langestadt-Knudson, Barbara,
"What Kinds of Students become Disciplinary Cases?", Beyeehiegal

5. Beechelnninal Elements. Winter 1952. pp 608- 619.

Williamson, E.G. and.J;D. Foley, Ceunseling and Dissipline, MbGraw Hill
Book Co., Inc., New York, 1956.

 

APPENDIX A
JUDICIAL RECORD SURVEY SHEET

 

77

S'IIDENI‘JIDICIALRmSIRVEYSHEEI'
DARWICNEW

 

 

 

 

Student #: Name:
Year of Admission: GPA
Term of Disciplinary Action: Credits Completed:

Academic College Code:

 

Repeat Offender: _Yes No # of Violations:

 

 

Action: _Voluntary Guilt _Administrator _Judicial Board
Gender: M F

Ethnic Origin (Race) : C B N A H O

Place of Residence:

_Residence Hall: L M S

_University Apartments

Off Campus: _Greek House Apartment Other

 

Type of Offense:

University Records
_Falsifying Information
_Improperly transferring altering or using a parking permit
_Misusing a residence hall meal ticket
University Facilities
_Misusing a university key
Throwing Food
Damaging university property
Setting a fire
Pulling a fire alarm
The Individial
_Causing physical harm to another
_T'hreatening others
_Causing unreasonable noise
_Possessing or using fireworks
_Possessing a weapon
Alcohol
_Organizing or participating in a party where alcohol is
being consumed
_Alcohol in the hallway

 

APPENDIX B
JUDICIAL AFFAIRS SUIVMARY OF NUMBER OF
JUDICIAL REPORTS BY CATEGORIES OF BEHAVIOR

 

 

 

 

CATEGORIES OF BEHAVIOR 1988-89 1987-88 1986-87
ENIYEBSIIXLBEQQBDS
-Falsifying information in order to --(--) --(--) 2(--)

obtain a residence hall contract or
release (includes subletting)

-Providing false informatin to a judiciary 1 (—-) --(--) --(--)
-Provideng false infbrmation to a University
staff member 14 (1%) 15 (1%) 10 (1%)

—Improper1y transferring, altering, or

or using a parking permit 3 (-) 13 (1%) 12 (1%0
4Misusing'a residence hall meal ticket 12 (1%) 3 (--) 8 (--)
-Receiving more than five parking tickets in a year - (-) 26 (2%) 123 (7%)

 

 

-Entering a building or room when officially closed 5 (-) 7 (-) 9 (1%)
-Misusing a university Key 8 (-) 5 (-—) 3 (-)
-Throwing Food 3 (“) 2 (") 3 (--)
-Taking food from cafeteria 4 (-) 12 (1%) 3 (—-)
-Damaging University property 95 (5%) 114 (7%) 76 (5%)
-Removal of University property 31 (2%) 36 (2%) 29 (2%)
~Setting a fire 12 (1%) 23 (1%) 16 (1%)
-Pu11ing a fire alarm. 8 (-) 14 (1%) 12 (1%)
4Misuse of fire equipment 8 (-) 5 (-) 11 (1%)
-Playing athletic games in hall 16 (1%) 13 (1%) 26 (2%)
-Solicitation in the hall 1 (-) - (-) - (-)
-Refusal to show 1.0. 6 (-) 12 (1%) 5 (--)
IHE_IEDIYIDDEL

-Causing physical harm.to another (includes

sexual assault) 54 (3%) 33 (2%) 51 (3%)
-Harassing, intimidating, or threatening others 119 (6%) 95 (6%) 88 (5%)
-Passing up a person in stadium 6 (-) - (-) - (--)
-Causing unreasonable noise 399(20%) 370(21%) 406(25%)
-Taking, using, or destroying another’s personal

property 23 (1%) 31 (2%) 19 (1%)
-Interfering with.another’s privacy 6 (-) 7 (--) 8 (--)
-Keeping residence hall or room messy 21 (1%) 3 (--) 27 (2%)
-Creating a safety or health hazaard 148 (7%) 77 (4%) 46 (3%)
AViolating loft guidelines 51 (3%) 82 (5%) 65 (4%)
-Having a pet 10 (1%) 6 (--) 4 (--)
-Possessing or using fireworks 44 (2%) 33 (2%) 62 (4%)
-Possessing a weapon 2 (-) 5 (--) 1 (--)
-Neglecting responsibilities as host or community

member (does not include alcohol violations) 67 (3%) 36 (2%) 41 (2%)
-Violation of terms of probation -— (-—) 4 (--) 23 (1%)
germ

-Jrganizing or participating in a party where

alcohol is being consumed 785 (39%) 641(37%) 468(28%)
-Alcohol in the hallway 40 (2%)

TOTALS 20005 1723‘* 1657I

 

ches not include 358 alleged violations of the Administrative Ruling on Alcohol.
2Does not include 288 alleged violations of the Administrative Ruling on Alcohol.
3Does include 233 alleged.violations of RHBR 5.4 (the keg regulation).

 

APPENDIX C
APPLICATION TO THE UNIVERSITY COM‘dITTEE ON
RESEARCH INVOLVING HUMAN SUBJECTS

 

79

APPLICATION FOR.REVIEW OF.A.PROJECT INVOLVING HUMAN SUBJECTS
Submit your proposal for UCRIHS review to:

Dr. David E. wright, Chair
UCRIHS

ZMichigan State university
232 Administration Building
East Lansing, MI 48824-1046

If you have any questions, or wish to check the status of your proposal,
call: (517) 355-2180

 

DIRECTIONS: COMPLETE QUESTIONS 1-11: Attach additional material as
requested.

 

 

 

 

1. RESPONSIBLE PROJECT INVESTIGATOR NAME OF INVESTIGATOR
(faculty or staff supervisor (if different)
Dz, BLOOD Hengemeke; Flora LilJenkins
2. CAMPUS ADDRESS: CAMPUS ADDRESS: (or address
429 Erickson where approval letter is to be
sent)
Phone #: 353-8768 W’ A2 in
W

Phone #: 485-6740
3. TITLE OF PROPOSAL: "Characteristics of Student Offenders at
Michigan State University: A Comparison of Selected Demographic
Variables Using a Baseline Population"
4. .A. PROPOSED FUNDING AGENCY (if any) .N/A
B. IS THIS AN FDA.PROPOSAL [ ] YES [X] NO
C. MSU ORD# IF APPLICABLE N/A
D. DATE ON WHICH YOU PLAN TO BEGIN DATA.COLLECTION E22 i5, l221
5. EXEMPT/EXPEDITED. If applying for Exempt or Expedited status.
Indicate the category. SEE INSTRUCTIONS - ITEM 1(i.e. 1eA, 2-D,

etc.)

Category: I-C

 

For Subcommittee: . Comments to PI:

 

Office Agenda: Comments to REV:

 

Use Comments:

 

 

80

6. ABSTRACT. Summarize the research (its purpose and general design to
be conducted. This can be identical or similar to the summary
required.when submitting to the NIH (200 words or less). Briefly
outline, in particular, wh w' n r ub'

The purpose of this study is to update information regarding
characteristics of student offenders at Nfichigan State University. The
last study of this nature conducted at MSU was completed.in 1967 by
Emery J. Cummins. The composition of the student body has changed since
that time as have many of the disciplinary concerns on campus. The
study will be conducted.using judicial records of students who have
admitted guilt or been fbund guilty of violating university rules and
regulations between the academic years of 1986.87 to 1988/89. A.random
sample of the judicial records iwll be drawn. The proposed research
will be a descriptive study designed to analyze the types of offenses
and frequency of occurrence in addition to nalyzing several demographic
variables including sex, place of residence, academic college, race or
ethnic origin, class standing, and grade point average (GPA).

7. SUBJECT POPULATION. Will any of the following be subjects:

Ye No Yes 0
Nflnors
Low Income Persons [ ]

women of Childfibearing age

N

Students [X]. [

[

[

Institutionalized.Persons [

s
[ l [ ]
Pregnant WCmen [ ] [ ]
[ ] [ ] Nfinorities []
[ ] [ ] Incompetent Persons [ ]
(or diminished capacity)

7a. Number of Subjects (including controls)? 280

7b. Are you associated with the subjects (e.g., your students,
employees, or patients,)
[ ] yes [X] no. If yes, explain nature of the association.

7c. How Will subjects be contacted.and selected?
I will not be surveying subjects directly. Disciplinary records
will be randomly selected using the table of random numbers.

7d. Will research subjects be compensated? [ ] Yes [X] No.
If yes, all infermation concerning payment, including the amount
and schedule of payment must be set forth in the informed consent.

7e. Will you be advertising for research participants? [ ]Yes [X]No
If yes, attach a copy of the advertisement you will use. SEE
INSTRUCTIONS - ITEM 2.

 

81

8. ANONYMITY/CONFIDENTIALITY. Describe procedures and safeguards for
insuring confidentiality or ananymity. SEE INSTRUCTIONS — ITEM 3

This study will be ocnducted.in cooperation with the Office of
Judicial.Affairs and all surveys will be coded in a manner that will
ensure coonfidentiality and ananymity. At no time during this research
will any students names be used, only student numbers. Once I am
granted permission by the Committee to conduct this study I will make
arrangements with the Officie of Judicial Affairs to complete the survey
instrument.

9. RISK/BENEFIT RATIO. Analyze the risk/benefit ratio. SEE
INSTRUCTIONS -ITEM 4. Completely answer items.A, B, and C listed in
the instructions. ALSO SEE item 6 in the instructions if your
research involves minors or those with diminished.capacity.

The risks are practically zero while the benefit can be significant
insofar as the planning, development, and implementation of proactive
student services and activities can be improved.to address issues
concerning midconduct on campus.

 

82

10. CONSENT PROCEDURES. Describe consent procedures to be followed,
including how and where informed consent will be Obtained. SEE
INSTRUCTIONS - ITEM.5 on what needs to be included in your consent
formu Include a copy of your consent form with your propposal.
.Also SEE ITEM 6 in the instructions if your research involves
minors or those with diminished capacity.

Copies of letter that I will be sending to Dr. Nbses Turner,
‘Vice-President for Student Affairs and Services, and.HB. Marie Hansen,
Director of Judicial Affairs, to request their support and consent to
conduct this research are included in the proposal. I have previously
met with Ms. Hansen on an informal basis and.she is aware of my
intentions regarding the proposed study.

11. CHECKLIST. Check off that you have included.each of these items
with your proposal. If not applicable, state n/a.

[X] Provide six (6) copies of all information unless applying for exempt
or expedited review. Provide two (2) copies if applying for exempt
or expedited. Include all questionnaires, surveys, forms, tests,
etc. to be used.

[X] Proposed graduate and.nndergraduate student research.projects
submitted to UCRIHS for review should.be accompanied.by a signed
statement from.the student’s major professor stating that he/she has
reviewed and approves the proposed.project.

[X] Provide one complete copy of the full research.proposal. Graduate
students should furnish one copy of the "thhods" chapter of their
thesis/dissertation (if available) in lieu of a research.proposal.

[X] Questions 1-10 have been filled.out completely.

[X] Provide the consent form.(or instruction sheet, explanatory letter,
or the script fOr oral presentation if signed.consent is not to be
obtainedr-See Item 5 in the instructions).

[X] Advertisement included if applicable.

YOUR.PROPOSAL WILL BE ASSIGNED A.UCRIHS PROPOSAL NUMBER. REFER.TO THIS
NUMBER AND THE TITLE OF YOUR.PROPOSAL ON ANY CORRESPONDENCE OR.INQUIRES.

83

MIG-EGAN STEVIE INIVERSITY

 

(FETUS (F VICE. PRESIDENT HR W EAST IANSDG, MI 48824-1046
.AND DEAN OF'THE GRADUATE SCHOOL

February 20, 1991

Ms. Flora L. Jenkins
2920 woodruff, Apt. Ar6
Lansing, NE 48912

RE: CHARACTERISTICS OF STUDENT OFFENDERS AJ'NECHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY:
A.COMPARISON OF SELECTED DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES USING.A.BASELINE
POPULATION, IRB#90-620

Dear Ms. Jenkins:

The above project is exempt from full UCRIHS review. The proposed
research protocol has been reviewed.by another committee member. The
rights and.welfare of human subjects appear to be protected.and you have
approval to conduct the research.

You are reminded that UCRIHS approval is valid for one calendar year.
If you plan to continue this project beyond one year, please make
provisions for obtaining appropriate UCRIHS approval one month prior to
February 5, 1992.

Any changes in procedures involving human subjects must be reviewed.by
UCRIHS prior to initiation of the change. UCRIHS must also be notified
promptly if any problems (unexpected side effects, complaiints, etc.)
involving human subjects during the course of the work.

Thank you for bringing this project to my attention. If I can be of any
future help, please do not hesitate to let me know.

Sincerely,

David.E. wright, Ph.D.
Chair, UCRIHS

DEW/deo

cc: Dr. Eldon Nonnamaker

APPENDIX D
LETTER TO MS. MARIE HANSEN

84

EIORA.LL JENKINS
2920 HIDRUFF A-6 LANSII‘B, MI 48912
(517) 485-6740 (HOE) (517) 335-0406 (KIRK)

February 13, 1991

NB. Marie Hansen

Director of Student Life (Acting)
153 Student Services Building
Michigan State University

East Lansing, NE 48224

Dear Ms. Hansen:

Thank you for meeting with.me to discuss my dissertation research
project. I am.very pleased.to be able to collect my data regarding
student offenders at Nfichigan State University.

I have received.verbal approval of my application to the Human Subjects
Committee effective immediately. I will be reporting to your office on
anday, February 18, 1991 at 8:30am.as arranged.to begin the collection
process. Should it be necessary, I will return on February 19th to
complete the data collection.

I sincerely appreciate all the assistance and direction that you have
provided. I am.certain that the information gained from.my research
will benefit the MSU community. Again, thank you for your time and
assistance.

Sincerely,

Flora L. Jenkins

APPENDIX E
PILOT STUDY EVALUATION FORM

85

STUDENT JUDICIAL RECORD SURVEY SHEET
PILOT TEST
INSTRUCTIONS: .After having reviewed.the Student Judicial Record Survey Sheet
which will be completed on a sample of student offenders, do you feel that the
fellowing demographic variables will be adequately assessed.by this survey?
YES NO
1 . Class Standing _ __
2. Academic College _ _
3. Grade Point Average _____ ____
4. Sex .__. ____
5. Ethnic Origin _ _—
6. Place of Residence _ _
7. Type of Offense ____ ____

8. Repeat Offender Status

 

Were there any responses on the survey which were unclear or misleading?

YES NO

 

If so which ones?

Additional comments about the survey?

THANK YOU FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION!
PLEASE RETURN TO:
FLORA L. JENKINS

2920 WOODRUFF APARTMENT A-6
LANSING, MI 48912

‘mmmm