. A. STUDY OFISTUDENT' DISCIPLINARY

[PROGRAMS IN TEN ZSELECTED UNiYERSITéE‘S; ‘

Thai; for the Degree ofEd. D.. ‘
, MICHIGAN STATE :comeé‘ ‘
thh Wi‘fltajrd .Tru'i’rt
' ' 1955}

 

mm mm \m um \\ W“ \m

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled
A STUDY OF STUDENT DISCIPLINARY PRC'GFJtl-‘S
IN TEN SELECTED UNIVERSITIES
presented by

JOHN WILLARD TRUITT

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Mdegree in. GUid 81108

Major prolegsOr

Date May 16, 1955

 

0-169

 

 

 

a}

¢-&o« 9 an,- ‘-.4“"' “k .

u

,1 ”211 ~ -
W “3;“
ll -l q

vb

 

 

A STUDY OF STUDENT DISCIPLINITI PROGRAMS

IN TEN SELECTED UNIVERSITIES

BY

John'Willard Truitt

AN ABSTRACT

Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Michigan
State College of Agriculture and Applied Science
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
Department of Administrative and Educational Services

Year 1955/

,/

Approved 9/ fl // (/Z / Z2}-’e¢¢ifl

/

l. ,1

 

TH £5.15

John'Uillard Truitt l

A STUDY OF STUDENT DISCIPLIYiRY PEOGRAZS

IN T1? SELECTED UNIVERSITIES

An Abstract

The problem. The purpose of this investigation was: (1) to study

 

the organization, administration, and operation of student disciplinary
programs in ten selected universities; (2) to compare these programs;
(3) to determine those disciplinary procedures that appeared to be
educationally sound and functionally effective; and (h) to recommend
those procedures tiat appeared to be worthwhile and desirable.

Kethod, technique, and data. The normative survey method was

 

employed since it utilizes research techniques most apprOprinte for
this study. The specific methodology employed was a combination of:
interview, interview outline, direct observation, and printed materials
obtained from the universities.
An interview outline was prepared to provide consistency to and
standardization of material collected at the institutions studied.
Because of the complexity of this area of the student personnel program,
personal visitations and structured interviews with administrators,
faculty members, and student leaders were necessary to complete the

investigation.

John Willard Truitt 2

Findings and conclusions. On the basis of interview, observation

 

and analysis, the following findings and conclusions are presented:

(1) Student disciplinary programs seem to function better at
those universities where the original delegation of authority is clearly
defined.

(2) Orientation and communications are two extremely important
areas of the student disciplinary program. Lue to the sharp increase
in student enrollment which adds to the complexity of the college
community, the disciplinary officials agreed that much more attention
should be directed toward the develOpment of these two closely related
areas of the student disciplinary program.

The disciplinary officials are further agreed that the system of
student records is another aspect of the disciplinary program that should
be given greater attention by personnel administrators.

(3) The student personnel structure varies from university to
iversity, thus causing considerable difference in the basic patterns
of administrative organization. It was the consensus of the university

officials contacted that these variations of structural patterns are
wholesome if the disciplinary programs fulfill the functions for which
they were created.

(h) There is a trend toward the selection of disciplinary‘officials
who possess similar experience and training required in other student

personnel positions.

John Willard Truitt 3

(5) By virtue of his enrollment, the student enters into a moral
agreement with the university that he will obey the rules and regulations
and will observe the standards expected of students by the university.
lie disciplinary officials are agreed that this is a two-way agreement
and that the obligations of the agreement are binding on both the student
and the university. They further agree that when the student violates
his part of the agreement the unive'sity officials have the responsibility
of taking the initiative in bringing this student-university agreement
back within acceptable limits.

The data of this study indicated a lack of understanding and
awareness on the part of the students and university officials regarding
the full significance of this mor. agreement. The obligations of this
agreement are the bases of many of the policies and procedures employed
by university officials in an effort to regulate the conduct of the
student.

(6) Great similarity was found among the disciplinary actions
employed by the universities in their efforts to regulate student conduct.

(7) Very little formal follow-up of students who have created
disciplinary situations is being conducted at the ten selected univer-
sities.

(8) A summary of the rating of student offenses indicated that the
disciplinary officials are in major agreement on the following categories:
poor citizenship, disorderly conduct, minor misconduct, financial irregu-

‘lary, and infractions of social rules. Considerable

,.
(.3

larities, theft and bur

John 7.75.11 ard Truitt 1,

more variance was indicated in the categories of: illegal use of alcohol,
illegal use of cars, explosives, fires, false identification, and destruc-
tion of property.

(9) It was the opinion of the officials interviewed that an annual
workshop employing the case study method would be desirable to develop a
disciplinary handbook for the ten universities and to exc ange basic
research concerning behavior problems.

(10) The study indicates that it is highly desirable for members of
the faculty, administrators, and students to participate jointly in the
Operation of the student disciplinary programs.

(11) No specific academic area or type of tra' iné as a requisite for

competent personnel workers in the disciplinary program was agreed on by
the personnel and disciplinary officials.

(12) The personnel administrators revealed that the over-all function

of the disciplinary program.should be preventive and remedial in nature.

A STUDY OF STUDENT DISCIPLIHARX PROGRAMS

IN TEN SELECTED UNIVERSITIES

By
Jehn Willard Truitt

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Michigan
State College of Agriculture and Applied Science
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

Department of Administrative and Educational Services

1955

John Willard Truitt
candidate for the degree of

Doctor of Education

Final examination, May 16, 1935, 10:00 A. h., Room 20, Morrill Hall

Dissertation: A Study of Student Disciplinary Programs in Ten
Selected Universities

Outline of Studies

Major Subject: Counseling and Guidance
Minor Subject: Sociology

Biographical Items
Born, January 3, 1920, Lexington, Mississippi

Underg aduate Studies, Mississippi State College, State College,
Mississippi l9h0 cont. l9h8-50
. r ) )

Graduate Studies, Mississippi State College, 1950-51
Michigan State College, 1951-55

Experience: Member of Armed Forces, lQhO-hS; Office Manager of
Garner Real Estate Company, l9h5; Football and Track
Coach, Laurel, Mississippi High School, l9h6-h8;
Assistant Football Coach, Mississippi State College,
l9h8-Sl; At Michigan State College: Temporary
Instructor in Department of Guidance, Counseling,
and Testing, 1952, Assistant to Dean of Students,
July, 1952 to present

359300

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author expresses his sincere appreciation to the personnel
and disciplinary officials whose cooperation and interest contributed
to the preparation of this study.

To the members of the dissertation guidance committee, Dr. halter
F. Johnson, Chairman, Dr. Hilosh Huntyan, Dr. wilbur Brookover, Dr.

C. V. Hillard and Dr. Raymond Hatch, the writer wishes to enuress his
gratitude for the many helpful suggestions and criticisms. He is
deeply grateful to Dean of Students Tom King for inspiration and
encouragement to undertake this investigation. He is particularly
indebted to Dr. Johnson, under whose careful supervision and unfailing
interest this thesis was written.

To his wife, Emma, whose constant encouragement and typi.g
proficiency contributed considerably to the completion of this study,

he expresses his deepest gratitude.

CHAPTER

I.

II.

INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Statement of the problem .. . . . . .
Importance of the problem . . . . . .
Basic assumptions . . . . . . . . . . .
Research procedures . . . . . . . . . .
Limitations and scope of the study. . .
Scope of the study. . . . . . . . . .
Limitations of the study. . . . . . .
Definitions of terms. . . . . . . . . .
Preparation of the Structured Interview
Selection of participating universities
Procedure for the collection of data. .

Organization of the study . . . . . . .

THE STRUCTURE AIFD ORGMJIZATIOH OF STUDEl-JT P3133 ‘im'flL

Outline 0

PROGRAMS AND STUDENT DISCIPLINARI PROGRAMS. . . .

Overview of the administrative organiza
the student personnel programs. . . .

Types of student personnel organization

Disciplinary aspects of the student personnel program

Analysis of the administrative organize
the student disciplinary program . .
Disciplinary and advisory committees .

Stumlar'y................

tion of

s. O O O 0

tion of
O O O O O
I

O O O O O

flaw-y

PAGE

CD (I) O\\J'L-f:‘\u w

10
11
12
12

13

15

17

21

23

29
31

CHAPTER PAGE
III. AI‘IALYSIS OF TIE STRUCTURE All) FUNCTIONS OF
STUDENT DISCIPLINLTT SYSTE" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3h
An analysis of the student disciplinary systems
within the personnel programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Special analytical or evaluative techniques
utilized in the disciplinary programs . . . . . . . . . 51
Similarities and differences of the disciplinary programs. 52
Summary......................... 511
IV. ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIALS IN DISCIPLINARY PROGRAAS:
THEIR DUTIES, mums, AND STATUS. . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Head disciplinary officials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Professional training of the head disciplinary
officials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Implanation of Table II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Teaching and other educational experience . . . . . . . 6h
Academic rank of head disciplinary officials. . . . . . 65
Percentage of time spent on disciplinary functions. . . 65
Assistant disciplinary officials. . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Explanation of Table III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Professional training of the assistant
disciplinary officials. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Teaching and other educational experience . . . . . . . 73
Academic rank of the assistant disciplinary officials . 7h
Percentage of time Spent on disciplinary functions. . . 7p

51131313137000oooooooooooooooooooooo 76

CHAPTER
V. ORIENTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS IN THE STUDENT
DISCIPLINARY PROGRAM. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Orientation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Orientation prior to the student's coming to campus . .
Orientation after the student arrives on canpus . . . .
Summary of orientation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Orientation in academic departments concerning
student behavior. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Estimates of the effectiveness of orientation with

respect to the disciplinary program

Communications. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Local police department . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Campus police department. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Counseling center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Health service. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
{ental health or psychological clinics. . . . . . . . .
Registrar's and admissions office . . . . . . . . . . .
Academic departments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Living units. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Office of adviser to foreign students . . . . . . . . .
Summary of communications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Estimates of effectiveness of communications with

related departments regarding disciplinary functions.

smar'y O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O 0

PAGE

78
80
81
83
90

92

9h
9h
95
95
96
97

99
100
101

102

CHAPTER PAGE
VI. CLASSIFICATIONS OF DE: CIAL DISCIPLINARI ACTIONS AND
STUDENT DISCIPLIDARY OFFENSES, AND DESCRIPTION OF
FOLnOHéUP PROGRARS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
Official disciplinary actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
Levels of severity of disciplinary actions. . . . . . . . 109
Comments on special disciplinary actions. . . . . . . . . 116
Estimates of effectiveness of official
disciplinary actions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
Classification of disciplinary offenses according
to severity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
The Follow-Up Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
Estimates of effectiveness of the follow-up program . . . 120
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
VII. UNIVERSITY RECORDS AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP
TO DISCIPLIRARY PROGRAMS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
Permanent Student Personnel Records . . . . . . . . . . . . 12S
Disciplinary actions recorded on the official transcript. 12S
Standards for determining information to be recorded
on permanent personnel records. . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
Standards for dissemination of information from
permanent personnel records . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
Accessibility of records. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
Estimates of effectiveness of permanent

student personnel records . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129

r“ A r rm A n"‘1
CH. flan. Puma

Non-permanent disciplinary records. . . . . . . . . . . . 130
Student committees. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
Housing 0 fice. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
Other records . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
Estimates of effectiveness of non-permanent
student persom nel recor’s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
SLL‘"ma.Iy........................13h
VIII. sugzajn’, CUCL'siwm, its :LN.A:;:.1WTI- .s . . . . . . . . . 136

136

Statement of the problem. . . . . . .
Importance of the problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
Hethodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
Summary and conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
m‘mmary of the student disciplinary pro rams. . . . . . 138
Estimates of offec tiJeness of the total
student ‘isciplinary program. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1&1

Further summary and con0111si ons . . . . . . . . . . . . 1L2

..

Recommendations 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 1L6
General recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1&6
Surces tio ns for fur her research. . . . . . . . . . . . 1b?

g)t.)

BIBLIOGPUX—PIF-f O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 15].

111313331X A O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O . 15h

fL-PPEIo JZC O O O O O O O O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 17/

TABLE

I.

II.
III.

TV.

‘-

VI.

VIII.

IX.

V

JL.

‘1'

J O

XII.

XIII.

v
A

XV.

XVI.

LIST OF TABLES

PAGE
Administrative Structure of the Personnel and Disciplinary
Programs Jithin the University. . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Head St‘ddent DiSCiplinary OffiCialS e e e e e e e e e e e 62
Assistant Student Disciplinary Ol Mfici als. . . . . . . . . 72
Estimated Percentage of Effectiveness of Orientation
With Respect to the Disciplinary Program. . . . . . . . 93
Estimated Percentage of 3ffectiveness of Communications
With i-e1ated Departraents Re gard gStudent Disciplinary
FuanlonSeeeeeeeeeeeeg’eeeeoeeeeee 103
First Level of Disci‘linary Action. . . . . . . . . . . . 110
SBCOHd LCVGl Of Dis CiplinaIJ ACUion . o o Q Q Q Q Q Q Q o 111
Third Level of Disciplinary Action. . . . . . . . . . . . 112
Fourth Level of Disciplinary Action . . . . . . . . . . . 113
Fifth Level of Disciplinary Action. . . . . . . . . . . . 11h
Disciplinary Actions Employed Especially for
TJomenSUD-dentseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee 11;
Estimated Percentage of ' jfectiveness of
Official Disciplinary Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
EstimatedP eroertage of Effectiveness of the lollow-Up
Aspect of the Disciplinary Program. . . . . . . . . . . 120
Estimated Percentage of Effectiveness of Permanent
Student Personnel Records. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
Estimated Percentage of Effectiveness of
Non-Permanent Student Personnel Records . . . . . . . . 133

Estimated Percentage of Effectiveness of
the Total Student Disciplinary Program. . . . . . . . . 1&2

CHAPTER I
NTPODUCTION

Every institution of higher learning has Specific rules, regulations,
and supervised activities designed to assist students in citizenship
education. Host institutions of higher learning assume a moral obligation
to assist in the regulation of the student's conduct for the period he is
enrolled.

Many student personnel administrators and educators consider the
college years not only a period where a practical understanding of
democratic concepts and principles should be acquired but also a period
where the practice of these concepts and principles is wholesome and
worthwhile. Although the granting of a degree is still dependent upon
satisfactory academic achievement only, these educational leaders
recognize that nmny'other aspects of university life are considered in
evaluating the student's total educational experience in preparation
for post-college life.

In recent years, more emphasis has been given in education to the
process of self-evaluation and self-discipline by the student as opposed
to restrictions being imposed by un'versity officials. Student personnel
administrators conclude that the concepts of self-discipline should be
practiced at the same tine that the potentiality of each individual is
being developed in other areas of un'versity training. They feel that
the process of self-discipline and self-evaluation by the student will
enhance his chances of meeting the needs and demands of adult situations

that arise in this complex society.

2
Support for the foregoing statements is brought out by Strang
(32:88-89) when she sets forth the following observations:

In any society or school there must be government,
control, direction, discipline. The question is whether
this control shall be exercised arbitrarily or cooperatively.
The aim is individual self-government, self-control, self-
direction, self-discipline, and a personal sense of
responsibility. . . .

The aim of education in a democracy is gradually to
replace superficial, automatic obedience to authority with
controls from within. . . .

A supporting observation comes from'Williamson and Foley (36:30)
with special reference to the university atmosphere:

Certain parts of the school and collegiate way of
life, unless carefully handled educationally and administra-
tively, may produce conditions which in turn often lead to
misbehavior or to deviation from the accepted mode of
behaViOre e e e

Clark, Hagie, and Landrus (5:189) reached the same conclusions:

A social environment conducive to good discipline must be
purposefully established and maintained. . . .

There is no clearly defined type of university atmOSphere with
respect to student personnel services that has proved most beneficial
to the university, society, and the individual. Research and added
emphasis in orientation, counseling, residence halls programs, mental
health centers, as well as the better developed co-curricular group
activities programs have been deve10ped in an effort to create an
atmosphere conducive to self-development and self-discipline.

Some officials of institutions of higher learning have not
accepted the responsibility of student welfare to the same degree as
officials of other universities. This has been one of the major

factors for the perpetuation of different "climates" regarding

3
student behavior that still exist in universities. Lloyd-Jones (18:21h)

concludes, "A number of writers have pointed out that personnel work finds
its foci, its scepe, and its limitations in terms of the institutional
program of which it is a part." ‘wrenn (39thh-h55) draws these conclusions
with respect to the variation from university to university of student
disciplinary programs:
It is also necessary to understand that what is considered

a violation of acceptable behavior, a discipline situation, is

an outgrowth of the mores of a particular campus at a particular

time.' It is perhaps trite to comment that "unacceptable" behavior

on one campus is "acceptable" on another, that "unacceptable"

behavior on one campus during one generation is "acceptable" on

that same campus during another generation. Student drinking,

women smoking, couples without chaperones, absenting oneself from

lectures, are examples of behavior that vary in their acceptability

from century to century and campus to campus. 'What is considered

"discipline" grows out of the mores of that campus at that time.

"Standards" are not God-given but man-made.

Today, university officials are realizing more fully the importance

of self-development and responsible citizenship in a free society and
are devoting increasingly more time, money, and personnel for the achieve-

ment of these objectives. This emphasis is at least partially responsible

for the recent rapid development of personnel services in higher education

(25:h0).

The Problem

Statement of the problem. The purpose of this investigation was:

 

(l) to study the organization, administration, and operation of the

1
student disciplinary programs in selected Midwestern universities 3

 

l
The universities selected were ten major universities in the

north central region: Michigan State, Ohio State, Michigan, Illinois,
Purdue, Indiana, Northwestern, Iowa, Wisconsin, and Minnesota.

1.,
(2) to compare these programs; (3) to identify those procedures that
the disciplinary officials indicate to be educationally sound and
functionally effective; and (h) to recommend those procedures that
seem to be worthwhile and desirable.

mportance of the problem. Many educators predict that in the

 

ensuing ten years the number of persons to enroll in higher education
will reach new heights. This indicates an increasing demand by society
for the type of training provided by institutions of higher learning.
The increasing enrollments, jointly with the growth of the concept in
education which recognizes the importance of individual differences,
has placed new stress on the educational process. These two important
factors have made it mandatory that university officials examine and
re-examine their educational programs, especially in the disciplinary
area of the student personnel program. The need for re-evaluation of
the disciplinary area has been pointed out by the American Council on
Education Studies (1:63):

The much beset and belittled rules and regulations are probably

in for a bad time. A thoughtful forecast of tomorrow's campus

suggests that newly diversified student pepulation will in

likelihood, by exuberance, by resentment, and by sheer maturity,

seek to burst the normal restraints of other days.

University officials are faced with the increasingly difficult
problem of developing programs that will assist the large number of
students to receive realistic training in citizenship education. The
student disciplinary officials should assume a great share of the
responsibility in planning a realistic program for students in the

non-academic area of university training. It has been pointed out

. 2 . . .
preViously that in any school or seeiety there must oe control,

 

2 Supra., p. 2

5
direction, discipline. Clark, Hagie, and Landrus (5:189) stated with
respect to this conclusion:

Discipline at its best is not a negative list of "thou
shall net's" enforced by standardized or unusual punish-
ments, but rather, it is a positive process of learning
and development achieved through responsible participation
in real life situations.

The National Association of Student Personnel Administrators
includes the student disciplinary phase of personnel work as a major
.consideration at its annual meetings. Other organizations such as
social workers, psychologists, sociologists, as well as special faculty
groups, are vitally concerned with the area of student behavior.

Printed materials as well as research dealing with student
disciplinary programs in any given classification of college groups
are negligible. ‘Most surveys which have been conducted concern
specific areas of the student personnel program - such as the fraternity,
sorority, or student government areas - but never the student disciplinary
program in its entirety. Published literature in this field is usually
closely allied with a specific academic area such as counseling,
psychology, sociology, social work, etc. This lack of specific research
forces the personnel administrators to extract the valid contributions

from the different academic disciplines which are applicable to the

official's own university disciplinary program.

Basic Assumptions
Prior to this investigation, four fundamental assumptions were
made:
First, that student disciplinary programs in institutions of
higher learning should be designed and operated without violating the
privileges and civil rights guaranteed to individuals under our system

of government.

6

Second, that student disciplinary programs are an integral part
of the total philosophy of universities. The university's moral
agreement with the student is not fulfilled unless the student has
had training in citizenship education before he is graduated.

Third, that student discipline is a positive aspect of personnel
programs; that the same ends - such as self-discipline, self-direction,
respect for the right of others, etc. - are desirable in disciplinary
programs as in counseling, supervised student activities, mental health
services, residence halls group living, and other non-academic services
in institutions of higher learning.

Fourth, that evaluating practices and procedures employed in
various universities will aid in determining the best operational

principles of student disciplinary programs.

Research Procedures

The purpose of this investigation was to conduct a quantitative
and qualitative study of the student disciplinary programs of ten
selected universities. The normative survey seemed the most effective
method of obtaining the desired results (11:295). The primary methods
employed were: (1) structured interview employing an interview
outline, (2) direct observation, and (3) check list of classified
disciplinary offenses. In addition, orientation materials for parents
and students, catalogues, organizational charts, records, forms, and
all rules and regulations concerning the student's relationship with
the university were examined. Discussions with supervisory personnel
of residence halls, campus police departments, counseling centers,
teaching personnel, and students further aided in obtaining material_

for the study.

7

The structured interview is a technique whereby the investigator
uses a questionnaire as an instrument to record fact and opinion about
a particular subject. The structured type of interview gives consistency
to and standardization of the material collected. This method was
employed in the investigation and was considered a more effective
technique than the mailed questionnaire because of the lack of con-
formity in the various student disciplinary prograns being studied.

This technique seemed effective since it projected the thinking of the
officials being interviewed into areas that they might not discuss
otherwise.

Personal visitation enabled the investigator to observe the physical
facilities at each university. This enabled the interviewer to get a.
direct view of the space provided for disciplinary functions, record
system, and distances between the different referral agencies. It was
the best way to evaluate to some extent the peeple who administer and
work with the student disciplinary programs at the universities being
surveyed.

At the conclusion of each interview, a list of classified student
offenses was presented to the head disciplinary official of each school
to be rated as to the level of seriousness. This section of the
questionnaire was filled out by the various officials and returned to
the investigator by mail. Each official was given specific instructions,
written and verbal, and had sufficient time to consult with others on
his staff before completing the questionnaire. The check list provided
the study with the seriousness of various offenses committed by students

as first offenders. The list of student disciplinary offenses provided

8
a type of information not covered on the questionnaire but necessary
for a complete study of the student disciplinary program.

At each university all materials including catalogues, records,
forms, and orientation material for both males and females were
collected, the object being to collect all information regarding the
disciplinary program at each institution. This material was analyzed
and incorporated in the chapters of this thesis.

In an effort to complete the survey without a distorted view,
the writer discussed the student disciplinary program at each university
not only with the persons responsible for the program but also with
directors of service organizations, teaching staff, and students.
These comments, facts, and Opinions were of great value in pointing

out new facets for investigation.

Limitations and Scope of the Study

Scope of the study. The first objective of this study was to

 

obtain information about the different phases of the student disciplinary
programs at each university. Another objective was to evaluate the
processes, the persons responsible for and the persons working with
the disciplinary aspects of the student personnel programs. A third
objective was to obtain from the personnel officials facts, printed
materials, and opinions to queries concerning their particular student
disciplinary program.

The scope of this investigation is limited to the formal aspects
of the student disciplinary programs since much of the material utilized

in the study was fact and opinion expressed by persons responsible for

9

the programs being surveyed. No provisions were made in the questionnaire
for collection of data concerning the latent or informal aSpects of the
disciplinary programs studied. A study of the formal or structured aspects
of the student disciplinary programs seemed to be necessary as a pre-
liminary investigation to a study of the latent or informal aspects of

the university disciplinary programs.

Limitations of the study. This study was an effort to investigate

 

the student disciplinary services in a specific type of institution
geographically located in the north central region of the United States.
These universities have much in common, namely: large enrollment,
comparable over-all organization, rather similar educational objectives,
and a majority of students from the same general area. These factors
should be considered in generalizing the findings to other types of
institutions.

The conclusions reached concerning the levels of seriousness that
universities attach to student offenses were necessarily based upon the
statements made by the head personnel officials and other personnel
workers at each institution. It is recognized that some degree of
subjectivity is involved.

At the time the data were gathered, there was some evidence to
indicate that the programs at two of the universities were in a state
of transition with respect to personnel structure and policies. There-
fore, information from these universities may not reflect their exact

organization or practices at the present time.

10
Four basic assumptions were formulated, as previously stated.
Policies, practices, and conclusions were derived inductively from
fact and opinion given by the head personnel official and his staff
through extensive interviews and personal visitations by the

investigator.

Definitions of Terms

Student discipline. Student discipline is any official action

 

taken against a student or a student organization by authorized
university officials or students because of an infraction of a
university regulation or public law.

Disciplinary program. This term refers to all procedures,

 

techniques, policies, administrative actions, follow-up services,
processes of orientation and communications, and systems of records
employed by the university to assist in the prevention of unacceptable
student behavior; to regulate and redirect student conduct which is
,in violation of any university regulation or public law.

Disciplinary situation. This term designates those situations

 

where the behavior of the student necessitates disciplinary action
by university officials. This may include any breach of public laws
or university regulations.

Disciplinary action. This term denotes any official or unofficial

 

restriction, delimiting of privileges, monetary fine, suspension,
expulsion, or any other official action taken by university officials
when a student is reported for the violation of a public law or

university regulation.

11

Head disciplinary official. This term refers to the individual

 

or individuals who are reSponsible for the disciplinary aspect of the

student personnel program.

Preparation of the Structured Interview Outline

A committee of the National Association of Student Personnel
Administrators (27:160-161) reported to the annual convention at East
Lansing, Michigan in 1953 a tentative check list for the evaluation
of a student disciplinary program. This check list was used as a
basis for a first draft of the questionnaire.

The first draft of the questionnaire was prepared and submitted
to the chairman of the author's Guidance Committee. Changes were
suggested, made, and incorporated in a revised outline. The second
edition of the questionnaire was presented to each member of the
Guidance Committee for constructive criticism and comments. The
third draft was then submitted to the head disciplinary official
and other personnel workers of the university. This draft was also
presented to several members of the Social Science Research Committee
for their reactions concerning the instrument's validity for collecting
the desired information. Certain changes were recorded, and the final
draft of the outline was prepared and received approval of the writer's
Guidance Committee (Appendix A).

The check list of classified offenses was compiled after a
thorough search for every type of offense committed by students at
institutions of higher learning (Appendix B). At each university
the head disciplinary official was afforded the Opportunity to list
additional student disciplinary offenses regarded as serious at his

particular institution.

12
Selection of Participating Universities
The ten Midwestern universities selected for the study are geograph-
ically located in a similar region, in similar cultural areas, and have
generally comparable educational programs. These ten universities are
also governed by the same rules and regulations regarding eligibility in
athletic contests and other various areas of cooperation. Similarity of
the selected universities lends itself to comparable programs that can

be readily evaluated.

Procedure for the Collection of Data

After a year of preparation on the interview questionnaire and the
categories of classified offenses, the writer at the l9Sb convention of
the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators personally
contacted a representative of each university that had been selected for
investigation. Each was asked at that time for permission to make a
study of the disciplinary program at his institupion. No definite
schedule was made at that time. In March of that year, arrangements
by correspondence were made with four of the universities for minimum
periods of one and one-half days for interviewing and observation. The
material was collected from these four universities in May of l95h.
During the.latter part of August, l9Sh three other universities were
surveyed; two others were surveyed during the first part of September;
and the tenth university was surveyed the first part of October, l95h.

The interviews took place for the most part in the offices of the
head disciplinary officials. However, some parts of the survey were made

in the various other personnel offices and college living quarters.

13
Two folders were prepared for each institution. In one was placed all
the data pertaining to the specific university, including the question-
naire and additional written material by the investigator. In the
second folder all printed materials, forms, records, etc. concerning

the university were placed.

Organization of the Study

This thesis is divided into eight chapters. Chapter One, Intro—
duction, includes a statement of the problem, importance of the problem,
basic assumptions, limitations and scope of the study, research pro-
cedures, and plan of organization.

Chapter Two deals with the organization.and administration of the
student personnel and student disciplinary programs at each of the
selected universities. It discusses the types of administrative
structure and their relationship to the total disciplinary program.

Chapter Three is concerned with an analysis of the student
disciplinary phase of the student personnel program. It discusses
the various judiciary systems of each institution.

Chapter Four is concerned with the administrative personnel who
have the responsibility of the student disciplinary program. The
training and experience of these officials are discussed.

Chapter Five discusses the orientation and communication aspects
of the disciplinary program. The methods and procedures employed by
each university in these two areas are considered. The communication
and referral procedures between the disciplinary officials and student

personnel services are discussed.

1h

Chapter Six deals with classified disciplinary offenses and
official disciplinary actions. This chapter further discusses the
progran of follow-up of students under official disciplinary action
and also the methods of terminating the action taken against the
student.

Chapter Seven is concerned with the disciplinary records of
each university, records used in day-to-day operation as well as
the system of permanent records. The standards used in recording
and interpretation of the information from the records are discussed.

Chapter Eight presents the summary, conclusions, recommendations,

and implications for further research.

CHAPTER II

THE STRUCTURE AND ORGANIZATION OF STUDENT PERSONNEL

PROGRAMS AND STUDENT DISCIPLINARY PROGRAMS

This chapter presents data concerning the administrative structure
and organization of the student disciplinary programs of the various
universities studied. It also provides an analysis and general descrip-
tion of the student personnel programs and shows the relationships
between the personnel programs and the disciplinary programs.

An outstanding feature of present day student personnel and disci-
plinary programs is the diversity of their administrative structure and
organization. This diversity can be understood by a brief look at their
origins. The early history of the student disciplinary program indicates
that student discipline was largely punitive. The rules were rigid and
punishment was harsh and swift. In most institutions each infraction
of the regulations had a specific penalty which was well-known to the
students beforehand. Because punishment alone was used to control
student conduct, personnel specialists were considered unnecessary.
Usually, the President or some other administrative official had the
full responsibility of dismissing the student or imposing severe
restrictions.

The expansion of the student disciplinary program has been simultaneous
with the growth in student personnel work in general. The changed concepts
in education, industrial research in the area of personal adjustment, and

the ideas that resulted from military experience in world war II demonstrated

16

to the American educational institutions that the total education of
the student is by no means confined to the classroom. Before these
important changes, the disciplinary and student personnel programs of_
most universities developed in a haphazard and careless manner. Many
of the student disciplinary programs that exist today developed in this
manner. Since about 1933, however, considerable changes have been made
by administrators and educators in student personnel work. Their
research and planning have given rise to an increase in personnel
services which emphasize the dignity and worth of each individual
student. The student disciplinary program has been one of the personnel
services which has benefited from this planning.

Nevertheless, one of the factors that determine the organizational
structure of a student disciplinary progran is the original delegation
of authority in the charter of the institution. Many of the universities
studied have charters that grant to the faculty the power to regulate
student conduct. Other charters grant this power to the Board of Trustees
or to the top administrative officials. The manner of this delegation
of authority has largely determined the organizational structure of the
student disciplinary program and, at the same time, has largely determined
the degree of participation of administrators, faculty members, and
students in the total disciplinary program. The structures of the
disciplinary and personnel advisory committees as well as the duties
of these committees have also been determined by the initial delegation

of authority.

17

Overview of the Administrative Organization
of the Student Personnel Programs

The organizational structure of the student personnel program of
each university must be understood before the student disciplinary
program can be viewed clearly since it is within the student personnel
program that the majority of disciplinary functions are performed.

At six of the institutions surveyed, the final authority in the
disciplinary program rests with administrative officials or with
administrative-student committees. At three institutions the faculty
has the final control. At one university, the faculty was originally
given the authority to regulate student conduct, but the student
disciplinary program is now operated by administrative officials.

A brief description of the student personnel structure of each
university follows:

University A has a Dean of Students as the head personnel official.

 

Mfithin and directly under the supervision of the Dean of Students' Office
are a Men's Division and a'Women's Division. The control of the residence
halls, fraternities, and sororities is under the jurisdiction of the

Men's and'women's Divisions according to male and female divisions
respectively. The co-operatives for both men and women are controlled

by the women's Division. All other student personnel services are
directly under the jurisdiction of the Dean of Students. There are

three assistants to the Dean of Students in the Men's Division and

three assistants to the Dean of Students in the women's Division.

These assistants supervise the personnel areas stated above.

18

University B has a Vice President in charge of Student Affairs to

 

whom the Dean of Men and the Dean of women are reSponsible. Although
the Vice President is considered the head personnel official at this
institution, the student personnel programs are actually supervised by
the Dean of IMen and the Dean of Women. These two officials, with their
assistants, are responsible for the entire personnel system, which is
divided into male and.female areas.

University C has a Dean of Men, Dean of Women, and a Vice President

 

in charge of Personnel Services. The Dean of Men and the Dean of Nemen

have very little to do with the student disciplinary program with the
exception of appointing representatives to attend the meetings of the
disciplinary committees. Most of the student personnel services are

directly under the jurisdiction of the Dean of Men and.the Dean of'Wbmen‘
according to the male and female divisions respectively. These officials

are administratively responsible to the Vice President for the student
personnel program, but the student disciplinary program is the responsibility
of the faculty.

University D has a Dean of Students, a Dean of Men, and a Dean of

 

women. Because of an unusual personnel organization, these three officials
have very little responsibility for the regulation of student conduct.
Operating under the Dean of Students' jurisdiction are two full-time
workers who have the responsibility of processing students who are
apprehended violating university regulations or public laws. One of

these personnel workers is the secretary to the Senate subcommittee and
Senate Committee on Disciplinary Matters. The residence halls for men

are directly under the jurisdiction of the Dean of Students, and the

l9
residence halls for women are under the jurisdiction of the Dean of
women. The sororities, fraternities, and other student organizations
are under the jurisdiction of the Dean of Men and the Dean of women
according to male and female divisions respectively.

University E has a Dean of Men and a Dean of women who are directly

 

responsible to the Vice President in certain areas and in other areas
are directly responsible to the President. All of the student services
at this university are under the jurisdiction of the Dean of Men and the
Dean of women according to male and female divisions respectively. The
fraternities, sororities, co-operatives, and all non-academic student
organizations are under these offices according to the male and female
divisions. The personnel programs of the residence halls, however, are
under the jurisdiction of their Business Managers.

University F has a Dean of Students and an Associate Dean of Students.

 

There are a number of persons in this organization with both staff and line
responsibilities. The persons in charge of the personnel program for men
and women in the residence halls are directly responsible to the Associate
Dean af Students, who is also the Director of the Counseling Center. The
over-all organizational pattern of this personnel structure is of a
decentralized nature. The department heads of the student personnel
services have a Staff-line relationship with the Dean of Students. The
Dean of Students, in turn, is directly responsible to the President for

all phases of student activities.

University G has a Dean of Students, an Associate Dean of Students,

 

a Dean of'Wbmen, and a Dean of Men. The Dean of women and the Dean of Men

have the role of formal counselors since this institution does not have a

2O
centralized Counseling Center. These same officials have the responsibility
of screening and interviewing students who have created disciplinary
situations. The Dean of Men and the Dean of'Women have the responsibility
of the personnel programs in the fraternities, sororities, and residence
halls. The student government and other student organizations are under
the direct control of the Associate Dean of Students. The Dean of Students
is responsible for the entire personnel program. Administratively, the
Dean of Students is responsible to the Dean of the Faculty but is respon-
sible to the President of the university for the student disciplinary
program.

1

University H has a Dean of Students, an Associate Dean of Students,

 

a Counselor for Man, a Counselor for women, and their assistants. The
Associate Dean is responsible for the student organizations, and the
Counselor for Men and the Counselor for women are directly responsible
for supervising the conduct of students in sororities, fraternities, co-
operatives, ani residence halls, according to the male-female division.
The officials of the other*personnel departments are responsible to the
Dean of Students. The Dean of Students, as the head personnel official,
is directly responsible to the President of the university.

University I has a Vice President of Personnel Affairs, a Dean of

 

women, and a Dean of Men. These latter two officials, with a staff of
assistants, supervise student activities according to the male-female
division. These officials also have the responsibility of the sororities
and fraternities, but the residence halls are under the management of the

Business Division of the university. The initial delegation of authority

21
for the student personnel program was to the faculty; therefore, most
policies in this area are formulated by faculty-student committees.

University J has a Dean of Students who is the head personnel

 

official of the university. Under the Dean of Students'jurisdiction

are the other student personnel departments that report administratively
to him. ‘Within the Dean of Students' Office proper are an Associate
Dean of Students, who has the responsibility for coordination Of student
organizations, and two other personnel officials who have the full-time
responsibility of processing students who are reported for an infraction
of university rules or civil laws. In a majority of the personnel
services at this institution, the male-female division is disregarded.
As the top personnel official, the Dean Of Students reports directly to

the Vice President Of the university.

Types of Student Personnel Organizations

There appears to be no one pattern Of organization that the
institutions of this study have used uniformly. It was the Opinion Of
the head personnel Officials contacted that diversity of the student
personnel programs was wholesome if each program fulfills the functions
for which it was established.

Normally the student personnel services are the Student Government;
Scholarship or financial aids department, which would include loans and
part-time jobs; student activities programs in university student housing;
Counseling Center; and Foreign Student Department. At the universities
investigated, the diversity of the administrative organization is
emphasized by the student services that are under the jurisdiction Of

the head personnel Official. At the universities studied, most of the

22

student personnel services listed above were under the supervision of
tire head personnel Official. There was considerable diversity, however,
regarding the Registrar's Office, Health Service, Residence Halls, and
Alumni Department. At some universities one or more of these services
are within the student personnel organization, while at others they are
not.

The institutions investigated have the following structural types
of 13ersonnel programs: centralized, semi-centralized, decentralized,
and coordinated. It should be re-emphasized that these terms define the
general structure of the total program without regard to any specific
phase of the program. It has been pointed out previously that not all
stmieern.personnel services are within the organizational structure of
the :S'tudent personnel program. It was the consensus of the personnel
officzjads interviewed that the functions of the services were more
important to the student than organization and structure.

Of the institutions studied, three universities have centralized
programs. This indicates that most of the personnel services are
dira3tiLy responsible to one administrative official on a direct line
relationship. Three of the universities have semi-centralized student
Personnel programs, which indicates that most Of the student services
are I‘EESponsible to one administrative official on a staff-line relationship.
TWO of? the universities have decentralized personnel programs, which
indicates that several student personnel services are not under one

administrative Official and that the lines of authority extend to the

top Of the organizational structure of the institution without being

23
centralized. Two other universities have coordinated personnel programs.
This indicates that, although there is not a staff-line relationship, the
persons responsible for the personnel services have some structural
organization which is designed to assist in the coordination of the

various student personnel services.

Disciplinary ASpects of the Student Personnel Program

When the organizational structure of the student personnel system
is modified, these changes usually effect modifications in the student
disciplinary program. To understand clearly the disciplinary phase of
each student personnel system, the genesis and the major modifications
of the program would be of utmost importance. It seems desirable at this
time to present a brief discussion of the basic facts concerning the
history of the student personnel and the student disciplinary programs.

University A. The present disciplinary program at this institution

 

was established in l9hh. There have been only two major modifications
since the program was established. One modification was to increase the
authority of the Dean of Students. The disciplinary probations and
suspensions, formerly handled by the President, were transferred to the
Dean Of Students' Office. The second modification was the establishment
of a student court to function as an appeal court to handle traffic
violations.

University B. The basic pattern of the present disciplinary program

 

was established for girls in 1910. The date Of the establishment Of the
disciplinary program for men is not definite but was some fifteen or

twenty years ago. One modification of both divisions of the program was

2h
the establishment of a Vice President of Personnel Affairs in l9hh. In
the women's program, the major modifications have been the granting of
additional authority to girls in the judiciary system and.the reorganiza-
tion of the women's student government association in l9h5. The major
modification in the disciplinary program for men was the establishment
of a system of student courts in 1950.

University C. The basic pattern of the disciplinary structure for

 

girls was established in 1910, with one modification in 1950. This
major modification was the establishment of a joint men and women's
judiciary to handle all cases in which boys and girls were involved
off-campus. The basic organizational disciplinary pattern for men at
this university was reorganized in 1950 at the same time the major
modification was made in the women's disciplinary program. Both modi-
fications granted additional power to students in the handling of
disciplinary cases. A major modification of this disciplinary structure
was made in l95h when the Office Of Vice President Of Student Affairs
was established. Although this Official does not have the responsibility
of specific disciplinary cases, he has the administrative responsibility
of the disciplinary program.

University D. The basic organizational pattern Of the student

 

disciplinary program was established in 1931. At that time, the
responsibility of the discipline of students was granted to the
university Senate. Since that time, two major modifications have
been made in the disciplinary program. The first modification was

to establish the office of Dean Of Students in l9h3. Before the

25
establishment of the Dean Of Students' Office, the personnel and
disciplinary affairs of the college were administered by a council
of administrators, which consisted of the Dean of Men, Dean of Homen,
and academic deans. The second modification was the addition Of the
Security Office in l9h7, which has the primary responsibility of
interviewing and screening the disciplinary cases for the university
Senate. With the establishment of this office, the Dean Of Men and
the Dean of WOmen act only as referral agencies or resource persons
in disciplinary cases.

University E. The exact date of the basic organizational pattern

 

Of the disciplinary program is not definite. The only modifications
that can be recalled by the head disciplinary official were administra-
tive changes made in 1952 within the Dean of Men and the Dean of WOmen's
offices. There have been small changes in the program down through the
years, and the pattern of changes has been directed to the establishment
Of a coordinated disciplinary program.

University F. The basic organizational structure of the student

 

disciplinary program was established in l9h6. There have been no major
modifications since that date.

University G. The date of the establishment of the basic organiza-

 

tional pattern is not definite. The major modification at this university
was the establishment of a university committee on discipline.

University H. The basic organizational pattern Of the student

 

disciplinary program was established in 19h2. The major modification
since that date has been the establishment of a disciplinary committee

as an appeal board.

26

University I. The present organizational structure of the student

 

disciplinary program at this institution was established in 1951. There
have been no major modifications since that time.

University J. The major modification in the organizational structure

 

of the student disciplinary program since its establishment in l9hl has
been the placing of students on committees.
Analysis of the Administrative Organization of
the Student Disciplinary Program

To determine the exact role of the student disciplinary program
within the student personnel framework was an objective of this study.
Facts and opinions were gathered from the head disciplinary officials
and other personnel workers and placed in Table I. The various aspects
of the administrative relationship between the personnel structure and
the disciplinary program were presented together with their relationship
to the total university educational program.

A brief review of Table I reavls considerable variation in the
organizational structure and administrative relationship of the disci-
plinary aspect to the total student personnel program. The contents of
each column are explained to give a general view of the information.

The first column indicates the date that the present personnel and
disciplinary systems were established. In every reorganization, major
or minor, the procedures for handling individuals who create disciplinary
situations was of paramount consideration in setting up the new personnel
structure. It was indicated by the head personnel officials that, without
exception, major changes in the total student personnel program and in
the disciplinary program.are synonymous, and that major changes in the
former cannot be made without materially affecting the student disciplinary

program.

.27

The second column indicates the administrative official who has
the responsibility of the student disciplinary program.

The third column indicates the top administrative official to
whom the head disciplinary official is responsible.

The fourth column records any advisory committee in the total
personnel program. This column also records any committee that functions
as a judiciary board for individuals who have created disciplinary
situations.

The fifth column indicates the type of committee. Several of the
institutions surveyed have committees that advise on the total personel
program, which would include the disciplinary phase. Most of the
advisory committees have no significant relationship with the handling
of individual disciplinary cases. It was pointed out by the head
disciplinary officials that, although normally these advisory committees
do not consider individual disciplinary cases, theoretically these
committees have some authority in this area at most of the institutions.
The second type of committee shown in column five is a committee created
to screen and interview students, recommend or render decisions concerning
individual disciplinary cases. This committee's primary function is to
handle individual cases; nevertheless, it has some authority in formulating
the disciplinary policy of the student personnel program.

The sixth column indicates the organizational structure of the
personnel advisory committee. A more detailed discussion regarding the

functions of this committee is presented in the following chapter.

 

 

.—: CU

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

UmuHHwnpaovnfiEom hon—”scamm hush—”om mow snowflmoum 3:03pm Ho 5mm 3m." H.
383% 8E
Swansea $.98.“ m gsfigfi 3» seasons amigos Hmfi H
myopmhpmaaaeum m
Bflfiwfio?«.§m 393.“ 3.3 338 8» chafing 8.83% Ho 58 2E m
emfldwfinm 0-23 3303 m maefiasfi 8» guacamflm 3833 no 5.8 Bafimoufi 0
3:03pm a 528
8525803 .3903 o massaged new $333 3533 mo 53 33 m
383% o 5:8
603338006 0:02 282 oz 0.56395 5:83 no 509 opfifimoufin m
a 00.; no: mo :39
333580 5903 m fiefiéfi 8» 32mm 83280 $3 a
383% m .828 a: £32:
sapwfienooo .338.“ m asapéfi mm» pqoeammnm $32.80 omma o
3883 3 soaHom as; 23
333350 Egon.“ o .838 mm» pfiflmfim 953mg SE 08H m
383% a.
85?"an 5:8.“ w 380 8» pqoeamowm Susana no smog £3 .4
359% m gauges“ , .
83a assuage ooppano Saigon oBfiEoo «338mg 233.3 Bfiflfifim .598»
Hoqaomnmm no 93sz Ho 0.39953 no 092. buofluéd ESE on. 553339 .95 .095
Ram mo onHn. ‘ Hook

 

 

Nam—”gag mam. ZHmBHB goomm HMdZHHHHUmHQ 92¢ Amzzommmm 8.5. MG geopgm Eaamflzg

H mamas

 

29
The seventh column indicates the type of organizational structure
of the total university personnel program. Many variations of organiza-
tional structure exist in each of the student personnel programs studied;
for clarification, however, the student personnel programs were designated
by the term that most nearly describes its type of student personnel

organization.

Disciplinary and Advisory Committees

The data concerning the personnel advisory committees and also the
committees that work with individual disciplinary cases were obtained
from available printed materials and from the information provided by the
head administrative disciplinary officials at the time of the structured
interview. Column six in Table I presents a summary of these committees.

At seven universities, the head disciplinary officials have
committees that advise on all phases of the student personnel program.
At four of these universities, the head disciplinary official is chairman
of the advisory committee. sually one or more persons from the personnel
services are members of this committee, the other members being selected
from the teaching faculty and from the student body. At the seven
universities that have personnel advisory committees, the head disciplinary
official is given the prerogative of nominating the officials to serve on
the advisory committee. There are specific requirements for membership
at some institutions to insure that the committee has specially trained
members in medicine, law, psychology, etc. Other universities indicate
that the only requirement for membership is interest in the personnel

program.

30

Six of the universities have disciplinary committees whose chief
responsibility is working with individuals who have created disciplinary
situations. The requirements for membership on these committees are
the same as those for the advisory committee, namely: interest in the
personnel program and special training in specific academic areas. Only
one university of the group studied has no personnel advisory or disci-
plinary committee.

The majority of head disciplinary officials considered the advisory
and disciplinary committees of substantial value to the total disciplinary
program. Of greatest importance, in their opinion, was the committee's
ability to interpret to the student body and.to the faculty the university's
policies regarding the student disciplinary program. All of the head
personnel officials felt that the personnel advisory and disciplinary
committee system was one way of obtaining the needed cooperation between
administrators, faculty members, and students.

In addition, a majority of the head disciplinary officials stated
that the establishment of permanent committees, whether advisory or working
with individual students, was desirable. Because of the complexity of
the student-faculty-administrative rehationship, the consensus was that
the time of service on these committees should be a minimum of one year.
There were mixed reactions from the head administrative officials con-
cerning the basic question of which factor is more important in the
selection of members for these committees - training in some specialized
field or interest in the personnel program. All agreed, however, that

both factors are desirable.

31
Summary

From the interviews, observations, and analyses of the student
personnel structure and the disciplinary aspect of the student personnel
program, the following important considerations emerge:

The administrative officials interviewed at the selected universities
agreed that the changing concept of education in recent years has empha-
sized the importance of the total student personnel program. The officials
further agreed that one of the significant phases of the change has been
the disciplinary aspects of the student personnel program. Without
exception, the head disciplinary officials agreed that it is a sound
educational principle for the university to assume the responsibility
for the full deveIOpment of each individual accepted as a student.

The student personnel structure varies from university to university,
thus causing considerable difference in the basic patterns of administra-
tive organization. It was the consensus of the university officials
contacted that these variations of structural patterns are wholesome if
each program fulfills the functions for which it was created.

Of the universities surveyed, five have the Dean of Students as the
head disciplinary official; three of the institutions have a committee as
the head disciplinary body; one institution has the Dean of Men and the
Dean of WOmen as the head disciplinary officials; and one institution has
a Vice President as the head disciplinary official.

With one exception, all of the institutions studied have either a
policy committee which acts in an advisory capacity on all student personnel
matters including the disciplinary phase, or a disciplinary committee that
works with individual student disciplinary cases. At some institutions

studied, one committee performs both functions, while at others the

32
committees operate in separate areas. Two of the universities have
committees that work with individuals who create disciplinary situations,
but they do not formulate policy concerning the program. Three of the
institutions have committees that work only with policy regarding the
student personnel program. Four of the universities have committees that
formulate policy and also function as a judiciary body for individual
student disciplinary cases. One university does not have any form of
disciplinary committee.

Seven of the universities have student-faculty committees. Two
of the institutions have committees composed of faculty members only;
at one of these institutions, the all-faculty committee functions both
as an advisory and as a student disciplinary committee, and at the other
university the all-faculty committee functions only in the area of
individual student behavior cases.

All officials interviewed believed that student discipline should
be considered by the university as a service and should be given the
same positive planning as other phases of the student personnel program.
Most of the head personnel officials believed that prevention and
rehabilitation are the two principal elements of a good student disci-
plinary program and that the organization and structure of a student
disciplinary program should be conducive to these educational concepts.
The administrative officials felt that student discipline is the
responsibility of the entire student body and university staff and that
the organization under the head disciplinary official is only the structure
devised to function as a disciplinary program for those students whose

conduct needs regulating.

33

In the opinion of the head personnel officials contacted, considerable
work still needs to be done to get students and faculties to accept the
responsibility of the creation of a university climate conducive to full
educational develOpment of the student. The officials felt that the
inclusion of students, faculty members, and student personnel administra-
tors on the student personnel advisory and student disciplinary committees

would be one means of accomplishing the above objective.

CHAPTER III

ANALYSIS OF'THE STRUCTURE AND FUNCTIONS

OF STIHJEI‘IT DISCIPLII‘IARY SYSTEMS

This chapter presents an analysis of the data concerning the
structure and functions of the disciplinary system of each university
investigated. This presentation is necessary for a clear understanding
of the complete disciplinary organization and functions of each of the
judiciary bodies at each university. This presentation includes student
and faculty courts, advisory and disciplinary committees, their duties,
and their relationships.

The administrative officials responsible for the disciplinary
programs at the universities studied agreed that there are many factors
which determine the type of program now in existence at their institu-
tion. The general education movement, which emphasizes a well-rounded
educational program for all students regardless of the vocational field,
has created increasing interest on the part of teaching faculties con-
cerning the importance of the educational possibilities available outside
the classroom. The head personnel officials agreed that this changing
concept of education has done much to encourage active participation by
faculty members in the student disciplinary program. This general
education concept also has done much to emphasize to students the value
of participation in self-governing activities. The officials believed
that students are becoming increasingly aware that prospective employers
are demanding a type of employee and citizen who cannot be produced

solely by a good classroom record during college years. The interest,

3S
participation, and cooperation of faculty members and students have been
instrumental in initiating considerable changes in the organization and
functions of the disciplinary aspect of the student personnel program.

The administrative officials of the institutions surveyed agreed
that two important difficulties confront them in the disciplinary phase
of student personnel work: (1) attaining a close, coordinated relation-
ship of the various faculty and student courts and committees with the
administrative officials connected with the student disciplinary program;
and (2) the communication problem between students, faculty members, and
other administrative officials regarding the basic philosophical concepts
of the disciplinary program. This communication problem has two parts:
interpretation of the rules and regulations of the university, and the
validity or justification for the existence of any given part of the
disciplinary system. Due to the nature of the program, there are always
opposing forces on any campus which necessitate the justification of
not only the organizational structure and functions of the disciplinary
program but also of the philosophy which guides the student disciplinary
system.

With this introduction, in addition to the explanation of each
university's student personnel program presented in the previous chapter,
an analysis of the student disciplinary programs will be presented.

An Analysis of the Student Disciplinary
Systems within the Personnel Programs

University A. The basic pattern of the disciplinary organization

 

at University A is based on a dual system, with both phases being

coordinated in the Dean of Students' Office. Many of the judiciary

36
matters or cases are routed through a series of student courts; others
are routed directly through the administration. A majority of the
residence halls for men have student judiciary committees that deal with
student disciplinary situations which arise within their respective
residence hall. All residence halls for women have standards committees
which operate under the jurisdiction of the Associated Women Students
judiciary committee. All fraternities and sororities have committees
that handle the disciplinary situations involving their particular organ-
ization. These committees do not deal with individuals who are involved
in group disciplinary offenses. These individuals are handled by the
all-college student courts or directly by the administration.

University A has two student courts of equal authority in separate
disciplinary areas. One has authority only over traffic violations,
operating as a student appeals court, and the other court works with
individual students who have created other types of disciplinary situa-
tions. These student courts do not have final jurisdiction but make
recommendations to the head disciplinary official, who, at this institution,
is the Dean of Students. The student court that handles individuals who
have created disciplinary situations is also the appeal court for the
women students who appeal decisions of the Associated women Students
judiciary committee. This court, however, is not the appeal court for
the men's residence halls, the sororities, or the fraternities. Decisions
regarding any of these groups are appealed directly to the administration.

University B. The highest judiciary committee at University B is a

 

student-faculty group. This committee has the dual responsibility of

serving as the advisory group in the total area of student personnel and

37
operating as the appeal court from the all-college student court for
individual students or organizations. Usually the only disciplinary
situations regarding individuals that come before this council are those
involving student raids or riots.

The second highest judiciary body is the all-college student court,
which is composed of seven students. This court operates as the traffic
appeal board and also as the appeal board for students or organizations
that wish to appeal a decision from a lower court.

This university divides the rules and regulations into two groups,
namely: violations of university rules and violations of specific
organizational rules. Three lower courts have been created to handle
the violators of university rules. The men's committee handles individual
male disciplinary cases, the student committee handles cases of organiza-
tional violations of university regulations, and the women's self-government
association committee handles the cases of individual girls who have
created disciplinary situations in violation of university regulations.
The three committees that have jurisdiction over the violation of specific
organizational rules are the interfraternity committee, which enforces
the rules governing the fraternity group; the Pan-Hellenic committee,
which enforces the rules of the sororities; and a student committee,
which enforces the regulations of all unaffiliated women's organizations.

University C. At this institution, jurisdiction over the student

 

courts is held by a faculty subcommittee on discipline. This subcommittee
derives its authority from a Board of Trustees which has been granted
autonomy by the state legislature. The faculty subcommittee on discipline

consists of three faculty men from the three largest colleges of the

38
university and operates as an appeal board for students who wish to
appeal a decision of the joint men and women's judiciary committee.

The faculty subcommittee also operates as an advisory committee for
all procedural matters regarding the student disciplinary program.

The joint judiciary committee consists of five male and five
female students; the group handles disciplinary cases in which university,
state, or national laws are violated. Individual cases of girls handled
by this committee are largely those involving girls who have violated
rules other than those within the jurisdiction of the women's self-
government organization. The majority of disciplinary cases handled
by this committee, however, are those in which both males and females
are involved in the same breach of the regulation.

The women have a separate court system at University C. The house
judiciary councils have the supervision of regulations within each
individual residence hall with the exception of rules regarding drinking
of alcohol and rules and rules regarding returning to the residence halls
after designated hours. Individuals involved in these latter types of
disciplinary situations are handled by a women's central judiciary court.
The central judiciary court handles cases of girls regardless of where
the disciplinary situation arises so long as it involves only girls.

The highest and most powerful women's court is the supreme court, which
Operates as an appeal court from the central or house judiciary bodies.
This supreme court also renders decisions initially concerning individuals
who have created serious disciplinary situations such as theft, sex
offenses, drinking of alcohol on campus, etc. The faculty adviser to

this supreme court is the Dean of women.

39

The judiciary system for men at University C operates in the same
manner as the women's, with two exceptions. First, the men do not have
a supreme court. Men who have created serious disciplinary situations
are usually referred directly to the joint judiciary committee. The
second exception is the interhouse council judiciary, which has the
responsibility of hearing decisions appealed from the house judiciaries.

At University C, the sorority and fraternity councils handle the
infractions of regulations concerning their respective groups. Sorority
and fraternity members involved in group infractions are referred through
the same judiciary process as other students. Because most group
infractions occur off-campus, the individuals are referred to the joint
judiciary court.

University D. Compared to the other institutions studied,

 

University D has a unique disciplinary structure. The final authority
for the regulation of student conduct at this institution is the
university Senate. The university Senate consists of the deans, full
professors, and top administrative officials of the institution. The
university Senate has a subcommittee to which responsibility for the
functioning of the student disciplinary program has been delegated.

All individuals who commit serious breaches of university regula-
tions are referred directly to the Security Office. The Security Office
is a part of the Dean of Students' Office and is administratively
responsible to the Dean of Students. The Security Office is responsible
for the initial screening and interviewing of all students who are
referred to this office for disciplinary action. The head of the

Security Office is responsible to the Senate Subcommittee for discipline

ho
concerning all student conduct. The Security Officer serves as a
non-voting secretary to the Senate Subcommittee on Discipline as well
as to the university Senate Committee on Discipline.

Each of the living groups - sororities, fraternities, men and
women's residence halls, and other women's groups - has some type of
judiciary structure to handle those individuals who have created minor
disciplinary situations such as interpersonal conflicts, excessive
noise, minor destruction of property, etc. The interfraternity discipli-
nary committee and the sorority disciplinary committee recommend to the
Senate Subcommittee on Discipline the action to be taken against member
organizations in violation of university regulations.

At University D the Dean of Men, the Dean of WOmen, and the Dean
of Students have very little responsibility for individual disciplinary
cases or for the enforcement of university regulations against organiza-
tions. The Dean of Men and the Dean of women act as referral agencies
in disciplinary matters and are often called to testify in disciplinary
cases.

The Dean of Students has jurisdiction in two specific areas relating
to the regulation of student conduct. When the offense is of a serious
nature, the Dean of Students has the authority to withhold the student
from classes until the student has been heard by the Senate Subcommittee
on Discipline. Secondly, the Dean of Students must grant permission
before a student may appeal his case from the Senate Subcommittee on

Discipline to the university Senate Committee on Discipline.

In

University E. This institution has neither an advisory committee

 

for the student personnel program nor a student disciplinary committee.
The Dean of Men, the Dean of women, and their staffs are reaponsible
for the regulation of student conduct.
The sororities and fraternities have committees whose function is
to hear cases of their individual members and member organizations that
have been charged with infractions of university regulations. These
committees make a recommendation to the Dean of Men or to the Dean of
'women, and the final action is taken by these officials or their assistants.
At University E, the residence halls for both men and women are
under the jurisdiction of the Business Manager; he, in turn, is responsible
to the Vice President and Treasurer of the university. This jurisdiction
includes both business management and the student personnel aspects of
the residence halls.
The men and women's residence halls have similar judiciary systems.
Each corridor has a standards representative to whom all violations within
the corridor are reported. This corridor standards representative is a
member of the residence hall standards committee, which is composed of
the officers of the residence halls, the standards representatives, and
the faculty sponsor of the hall. These residence hall standards committees
determine the penalty to be imposed for student violations, but their
decisions must have the approval of the Manager of the residence halls.
These standards committees have the authority to enforce all residence
halls and most university regulations. Because of the limitation of
authority granted to the residence halls judiciary committees to enforce

university regulations, the Dean of Men and the Dean of Women are usually

h2
asked to take further action against the student whenever a serious
offense occurs within the residence halls. When a serious offense
occurs outside the residence halls, the judiciary committees of
residence halls often take further action against students after the
Dean of Men or the Dean of Women have taken the initial disciplinary
action.

University F. The head committee established to regulate student

 

conduct at University F is the Student Affairs Committee. This committee
consists of six students and six faculty members and operates as an
appeal board for individual student cases from lower student courts.

The Dean of Students, who is chairman of this committee, also has the
prerogative to refer a student's case to this committee.

Within the student government structure is a student supreme court
which hears all cases involving infractions of university regulations
and recommends action to the Dean of Students. Most of these cases
‘involving individual students are referred to this court by the Dean
of Students.

At the time this study was conducted, each of the student counselors
in the men and women's residence halls had the responsibility of enforcing
the regulations of the residence halls and of the university. The student
counselor reports the individual violator to the head counselor for
disciplinary action. If the charge is serious enough, the case is then
referred to the Director of Counseling and Activities, who may put the
individual under further restrictions. The names of all students who
have disciplinary action taken against them by the Director of Counseling

and Activities are given to the Dean of Students for his official records.

h3

The fraternities at University F have a judiciary committee, which
consists of seven fraternity presidents. The members of this judiciary
committee are selected on a rotating basis with a one-year term of office.
This judiciary board takes action against fraternity groups but does not
have jurisdiction over the individual members. Each fraternity has the
initial authority to regulate the conduct of its own members.

Each sorority at University F is responsible for the enforcement of
sorority and university regulations among its own individual members.

The authority for the enforcement of these regulations stems from the
Associated'Women Students organization. The actions taken against
sorority groups are taken by the judiciary board within the Pan-hellenic
organization.

At this university, men and women's disciplinary cases are not
handled separately. The male-female division has been disregarded with
respect to student discipline, and the initial screening and interviewing
of all students referred to the administration is done by the Assistant
to the Dean of Students.

At the time of this study, plans were under way at University F for
the establishment of a new system of student courts which would enable
the men and women's residence halls, Pan-hellenic and the Interfraternity
Councils to regulate the conduct of their respective individuals and
groups. The authority of these separate courts could be appealed to
the supreme court of the student government.

University G. At this university, there is a student-faculty

 

disciplinary committee composed of five faculty members and two students.

The faculty members are appointed by the President after nomination by

141:

the Dean of Students. The students on this committee are selected from
the senior men and women's honorary societies. The Dean of Students is
the chairman of this student-faculty committee, which serves as an appeal
board for all students desiring to appeal the decision of the Dean of Men
or the Dean of women.

Both the sororities and the women's residence halls have a standards
committee which regulates house rules and some of the Associated women
Students regulations. The more serious offenses which cannot be handled
by these groups are referred to the Dean of WOmen. Except in very serious
cases, the Dean of women has the choice of referring these students to
the Associated Women Students judiciary committee or to the Dean of ~
Students for disciplinary action.

The procedure described above is applicable to the men's residence
halls and fraternity groups, with the serious cases being referred to the
Dean of Men. The Dean of Men and the Dean of women have the authority
to handle designated types of disciplinary cases, and the others are
referred to the Dean of Students or to the student-faculty disciplinary
committee. The student government at this university does not have a
student court.

University H. It is the responsibility of the Dean of Students,

 

who is the head personnel official at this institution, to regulate the
conduct of students. There is a faculty committee, of which the Dean

of Students is chairman, to which a student may appeal his case. When

a student appeals his case to the faculty committee, the Dean of Students
presents the administrative side of the controversy; and the Counselor

for Men or the Counselor for women is the adviser to the student at this

b5

time. Most cases that do not come under the jurisdiction of the
Associated women Students, fraternities, or sororities are reported to
the Counselor for Men or to the Counselor for women, according to the
male-female division. These two officials do the initial screening

and interviewing of those students referred and recommend the action to
be taken by the Dean of Students.

The fraternity groups have a judiciary board composed of seven
fraternity presidents or their representatives. The fraternities
rotate membership on this judiciary board yearly. The principal
function of this board is to take action against member organizations
when there is a group infraction of college regulations. Individual
fraternity members are responsible to the officials of their fraternity
when the infraction of the rule is minor. More serious infractions are
referred to the Counselor for Men.

In the sororities at University H, the housemother and the judiciary
chairman of each sorority have, jointly, the authority to place girls
under certain restrictions, such as week-end or evening confinement to
the sorority house, etc. When this action is taken within the sorority,
the name of the girl is also reported to the central judiciary board.
The central judiciary court is composed of representatives from the
women's residence halls, Pan-hellenic, town area, and the women's co—
operatives. The chairman of this committee is appointed by the Associated
‘Wbmen Students council. This court has three faculty advisers from the
Dean of Students' Office and has jurisdiction over disciplinary cases of
all student women referred to it by student organizations or by the Dean

of Students' Office.

to

Each women's residence hall has a judiciary board. Each Spring an
all-senior committee selects the girls for the new judiciary board. This
judiciary board works with the old judiciary body during the Spring to
facilitate a smooth transfer of functions from the outgoing judiciary
board to the incoming one. Appeals of decisions from this judiciary
board can be made to the central court, which has been described in the
preceding paragraph. In case of an appeal, the chairman of the residence
halls judiciary board attends the central court session and presents the
residence hall's side of the case.

The men's residence halls do not have a judiciary system at this
university. The Counselor for Men has the responsibility of the student
personnel program in the men's residence halls, and all serious violations
of the rules in the halls are referred to him. All judiciary cases which
occur off-campus are investigated by the Counselor for Men.

University I. This institution has a unique and complicated, but

 

clearly defined system of judiciary procedures. The final authority for
all student disciplinary cases rests with a faculty committee on student
conduct and appeals. This committee is divided into two separate sections.
One section is entirely administrative and consists of the Dean of Men

and the Vice President in charge of Personnel Affairs, or his representa-
tive who is always a counselor from the student counseling bureau. The
third member of this administrative group is the dean, or his representa-
tive, from the student's academic school. If the student is a girl, the
Dean of Women would replace the Dean of Men on this committee. If both
male and female students are involved in the disciplinary situation, then

the Dean of Men and the Dean of Women both serve on the committee. This

117

committee has the authority to take any action against students ranging
from reprimand to expulsion. The student has the prerogative to appeal
his case to the other section of this committee, which is the faculty
section composed of five members selected by the faculty, one from each
school, with the chairman appointed by the President of the university.
The faculty section of this committee has final authority in all matters
dealing with the regulation of student conduct, but it is conceivable
that a student could appeal his case from this section to the entire
faculty.

Another faculty committee that has as part of its function the
regulation of student conduct is the committee on student personnel.

The schools of this university elect members to this faculty committee,
which also has ex-officio members including the President of the
university. This committee on student personnel has many functions,
among which is the responsibility of all infractions concerning academic
dishonesty, either individual cases or groups. It also has the authority
to formulate rules for the prevention of academic cheating and all other
forms of dishonesty in the academic area.

At University I, the student government has within its structure a
student court whose principal function is to handle all cases of student
violations of the university's traffic regulations. This court consists
of seven judges, four of whom must be students from the school of law.
One of the unusual features of this court is that the judges hold office
for the entire time they are enrolled at the university unless removed
for disciplinary action by the student government. Appeals from this
student court would go to the faculty committee on student conduct and

appeals.

118

The women's self-government association has a judiciary board which
considers cases of girls who have violated the association's rules and
regulations. This judiciary board also serves as an appeal body for all
the women's living units. In the women's residence halls, each floor has
a representative to the hall judiciary committee. The chairman of this
judiciary board is the representative of the women's self-government
association and has the responsibility of interpreting the rules of the
association to the hall judiciary board. Decisions from this residence
halls judiciary board may be appealed to the association's judiciary board.

The judiciary system of the men's residence halls at University I was
designed to process all disciplinary situations that occur within the
residence halls. The student counselors within each of the halls have
considerable authority in the area of student conduct and may reprimand
or even place a student on probation. In each case, notification of such
action must be referred to the Manager of the men's residence halls.
When an individual case so warrants, it is referred to the joint judiciary
committee, composed of six representatives from different residence halls,
none of whom.may come from the residence of the violator. This joint
judiciary committee is composed of three student counselors and three
regular students, whose duty is to make recommendations about individual
cases to the Manager of the residence halls. The Manager must give final
approval of the decision and notify the student of the committee's action.
Appeals from this committee may be made to the faculty committee of the
men's residence halls, which consists of eight members. If the violation
is an infraction of a university regulation, the student may be referred

directly to the faculty committee on student conduct and appeals.

149

Individual members of fraternities and sororities come under the
same jurisdiction as other students. The responsibility of the approval
and regulation of the social rules for these groups rests with a faculty
committee on student life and interests.

University J. There is no committee for disciplinary affairs at

 

University J. The final authority in this area rests with the Dean of
Students, with appeal to the Vice President possible. The Dean of
Students also has the authority in the area of academic cheating when
the infraction occurs outside the student's academic school. If the
breach of dishonesty occurs within the student's academic school, the
case becomes the problem of the student's academic dean.

‘Within the immediate organization of the Dean of Students are two
officials who work full-time with students who have been referred because
of behavior problems. University J has disregarded the male-female
division in handling student disciplinary cases. One of the disciplinary
officials is a man and the other official is a woman; each handles behavior
problems of both male and femaka students. These two officials perform
the initial screening and interviewing of students who have created
behavior problems. Although decisions are actually made by these two
officials, the Dean of Students gives official approval to their decisions.

There are two men's residence halls at University J, one of which has
a judiciary board. The representatives on this board are chosen from the
units within this residence hall. The function of this committee is to
enforce the rules and regulations of the hall and of the university.

Appeals from this judiciary board may be made to the Dean of Students'

50
Office. This student judiciary board refers the more serious cases to
the Dean of Students' Office.

Each of the women's residence halls has a judiciary board which has
jurisdiction over girls in their respective hall. Decisions from this
board may be appealed to a judiciary council composed of girls from all
residence units. All residence halls judiciary boards report quarterly
to this disciplinary council, and the council reviews the cases of all
girls who are repeat offenders. These frequent offenders are in many
cases referred to this body for advice regarding rules and regulations
of the university.

The Pan-hellenic group has jurisdiction over sororities. Each
sorority has a judiciary board that enforces house rules and handles
minor infractions of university regulations. Appeals from these
sorority judiciary bodies may be made to the disciplinary council.

This council is supervised by the student activities bureau, which is
a department within the Dean of Students organization.

Fraternities operate in the judiciary area in a manner similar to
sororities at this university. Each fraternity makes an effort to
enforce house and university regulations. The more serious individual
violators demand the attention of and are referred to the Dean of
Students or his staff. The Interfraternity Council takes action
against member organizations that violate university or fraternity

rules.

Special Analytical or Evaluative Techniques
Utilized in the Disciplinary Programs

One of the purposes of this study was to determine special aspects
or techniques used in the disciplinary programs of the institutions
investigated. 'With the exception of University I, all institutions
indicated the use of one or more of the special tools or techniques
listed below.

The officials at universities A, D, E, F, and J indicated that
analytical tests such as aptitude, verbal and non-verbal intelligence
tests are used in the disciplinary programs at their universities.

The officials at universities E and F indicated that evaluative
techniques such as interest and personality inventories, rating scales,
and biographical data are also used in the disciplinary programs at
their institutions.

The officials at universities A, B, C, D, F, G, and H indicated
the use of the polygraph in the disciplinary programs. Most of the
institutions studied use the polygraph on a voluntary basis, and the
machine is limited to cases in which the individual uses it to prove
his innocence rather than the university employing the machine to prove
an individual's guilt. It was further indicated that the majority of
,the individuals who take the polygraph test are those involved in theft.
At four institutions, the officials stated that a majority of these
individuals were females.

At universities A, B, C, D, and H the officials indicated that
specially trained psychological workers are used in the disciplinary

programs at their universities.

S2

The officials at the institutions studied indicated that the
importance of these devices was in the remedial area of the disciplinary

program rather than an attempt to prove guilt for any infraction of the

I'll-1.630

Similarities and Differences of the Disciplinary Programs

It seems desirable to present some of the important organizational
and structural similarities as well as differences in the disciplinary
programs at the institutions investigated. It is the Opinion of the
investigator that the similarities and differences of the various programs
can best be discussed by examining closely three features: (I) The
original authority for the regulation of student conduct at each university.
This largely determines the administrative structure and also materially
affects the organizations responsible for the disciplinary program.

(2) The administrative structure of the judiciary bodies and the lines

of communication in each disciplinary program. (3) The advisory system
with respect to participation of students, faculty members, and administra-
tive officials. This indicates the level and the degree of faculty-
student participation in the disciplinary program.

At universities A, B, E, F, G, H and J, the authority for the
regulation of student conduct was originally delegated to the administra-
tion by the charter or by the governing boards of the institutions.
Therefore, the delegation of authority to faculty and student groups in
these universities has been made by the administration. The relationship
between the faculty and the administration at each institution varies

greatly and often is very complicated. This complexity indicates varying

53

degrees of interaction and influences between the faculty governing
groups and the administration concerning the regulation of student
conduct regardless of the original delegation Of authority in this
area.

There is also a variation in the degree of authority which any
academic school within a university has with regard to student conduct.
At universities where the authority was originally delegated to the
administration, usually the schools within the university have very
little control over the student outside the academic area. Individual
academic schools have much more jurisdiction over students at those
universities where authority was originally delegated to the faculty.

At four of the universities studied, the original authority for
the control of student conduct was delegated to the faculty. At these
universities, the role of the administrative officials is limited to the
day-tO-day advisement of the student judiciary bodies and to the interpre-
tation of the university's rules and regulations. At three institutions,
the policy for the Operation of the student disciplinary program and the
final decision in individual student cases are responsibilities of the
faculty. At the fourth institution where authority for the regulation
of student conduct was originally delegated to the faculty, however,
the student disciplinary Program is Operated by the administration.

One of the similarities of all the universities studied is the
self-governing policy concerning girls. Due to the fact that women
are governed by many more rules than men at these institutions, the
females have much more authority and greater participation in the area

of self-government than males.

Sh

At all of the universities investigated, the lines of communication
and appeal routes are directed from the lower courts of the disciplinary
program toward the final authority. Because of the lack of lower student
courts, the routes are much shorter where there is little student partici-
pation. Usually at the lower levels of the program, jurisdiction is
delegated to student committees when the infraction is of a minor nature.
If the offense is serious, the individual detected is usually referred
directly to the highest disciplinary official or committee for the initial
action. Most off-campus infractions are referred in the same manner
regardless of the seriousness of the offense.

At universities A, B, E, F, G, H and J, with certain exceptions for
women, the lines of communication and appeals are directed strongly
toward the administration. At universities C, D and I, these same lines
of control are strongly directed to a faculty committee.

While universities A, D, F, G, H, I, and J have some student
participation in the student disciplinary program, universities B, C,
and B have much more student participation.

Institutions A, B, E, F, G, H, and J have a high degree of partici-
pation by administrative officials in the disciplinary program while,
by comparison, universities C, D, and I have very little participation

by administrative officials.

Summary
At universities A, C, I and J, it was indicated that the disciplinary
committees have as one of their duties the investigation of all complaints

against students who have been referred to them for disciplinary action.

55

At universities A, B, C and J, the disciplinary committees have
as one of their functions the recommendation of final disciplinary
action to be taken against the student.

The committees at universities C, D, G, H, and I have the authority
to decide final action in the disciplinary area.

At universities B, C, D, F, G, H and I, the committees function as
an appeal board either in policy or in individual student cases, or both.

At universities B, C, and G the committees perform the function of
approving the decision of the head disciplinary official or of another
committee regarding individual student cases.

At universities B, F, H, I and J, the committees perform the
function of formulating policy as it relates to the disciplinary phase
of the student personnel program.

The administrative Officials at the schools investigated agreed that
the disciplinary committees have a rather important undefined function,
the duty to be on call in the event of an emergency such as student raids
or riots.

Some of the committees have regularly scheduled meetings but most
are on call at the discretion of the head disciplinary official. It was
felt by many of these officials that the latter was a better arrangement
because of the limited amount of time that faculty members and students
have for this type of activity.

At nine of the institutions investigated, the fraternities and
sororities have the final responsibility in event of an infraction of
university regulations by any of their member organizations. At one

institution, group infractions are handled in the same manner as individual

56
student violators. It is also the general pattern at all of the
universities for the individuals involved in these infractions to be
referred to the regular organizations designed to regulate student
behavior.

The general pattern of disciplinary functions in residence halls
varies according to the supervisory plan at the particular institution.

All institutions studied have a women's self-government association,
which varies from university to university. These organizations have
jurisdiction for the enforcement of all rules and regulations delegated
to them in their charters. None of the universities investigated allows
women the final authority for all university regulations which affect
them.

At three of the universities, the final jurisdiction for the
disciplinary program rests with the faculty. At seven universities,
the responsibility of the disciplinary progrmn rests with the administra-
tion.

At seven of the universities, there is relatively little participa-
tion by students in the disciplinary program. At three universities,
students participate very actively in the disciplinary program.

The administrative officials all agreed that one requisite for a
well-developed disciplinary program is full participation and cooperation
of administrators, faculty members, and students.

The head disciplinary officials further agreed that the over-all
purpose of the disciplinary program should be preventive and remedial

in nature.

CHAPTER IV

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIALS IN DISCIPLINAEY PROGRAMS:

THEIR DUTIES, TRAINING, AND STATUS

The two preceding chapters were concerned with the organization
and structure of the disciplinary program and with the functions of the
judiciary groups within the administrative framework at each university
investigated. The present chapter describes the duties, training, and
status of the administrative personnel in the student disciplinary
program.

Tables II and III present information regarding the qualifications
and educational training of the personnel with positions of responsibility
within the disciplinary program. These tables will serve as bases for
succeeding discussions.

The head disciplinary Official and the assistant disciplinary
'Officials were interviewed at each institution. Since University E has
two head disciplinary officials, one in charge of the male disciplinary
program and one in charge of the female disciplinary program, both
Officials from this institution were included in the total study.

At three of the universities investigated, the final authority for
disciplinary affairs rests with committees whose chairmen are either
elected or appointed by the university President on a yearly basis. The
heads of these committees were not included in this investigation since
it was felt that the personal qualifications of any one of these persons

would have no permanent effect on the disciplinary program.

58
Head Disciplinary Officials

Past research yields little information about personnel who are
responsible for disciplinary programs in major universities. One
factor that has discouraged the compilation of this information is
the variation and many combinations of duties performed by these
Officials. Another factor which has retarded research in this particular
area is the degree to which each head disciplinary official takes an
active part in the actual operation of the disciplinary program. No
valid studies have been made that would determine the common character-
istics of the personnel who hold the position of head disciplinary
official.

The term "head disciplinary official"l, as has been explained in
Chapter I, is not an official title but merely denotes the administrative
official responsible for the disciplinary aspect of the student personnel
program. If this official is not the head personnel official, he usually
is considered for advancement to the position of head personnel official.
When one person acts in the capacity of both the head personnel and the
head disciplinary official, his job is usually considered equivalent to
the position of Vice President. The assistant disciplinary Officials
are generally considered first-line personnel officials and usually

advance to the position of head disciplinary official.

 

l
Supra., p. 11

59

Professional training of the head disciplinary officials. The head

 

disciplinary Official's job can be understood more clearly if the duties
performed by this Official are presented. These duties vary considerably
at each institution, but there are basic personnel constructs which
characterize this position at all of the universities investigated. The
head disciplinary officials at the various institutions were asked to
indicate the duties they perform within the disciplinary program. A
summary of their responses follows:
Provide the students, faculty, and parents with adequate
orientation concerning the relationship between the student

and the university.

Encourage and stimulate the participation and cooperation
of students and faculty members in the disciplinary program.

Provide student judiciary groups with adequate interpre-
tation of university rules and regulations.

Serve on committees that affect the disciplinary phase
of the personnel program.

Handle individual behavior problems that warrant the
attention of the head disciplinary Official.

Serve as the focal point of a referral system to all
remedial agencies that assist in the functioning of the
disciplinary'progrmn.

Provide training programs for students and faculty
members who participate in the disciplinary program.

Serve as the liason Official with the campus police
and other local law enforcement Offices.

Serve as the administrative representative for parents
of students who have created disciplinary situations.

Provide an efficient record system with clearly
defined criteria regarding the policies and procedures
Of recording the disciplinary information on the
permanent records of students.

Provide an adequate budget for publications
necessary for clear communications regarding the
entire disciplinary program.

Provide for competent evaluation of the disci—
plinary program by having research conducted periodically.

Attend significant personnel meetings, conferences,
and workshops to discuss current problems in the student
disciplinary area.

Confer with other educational leaders, including
academic deans and department heads; administrative
officials; and student leaders on methods of improving
the student disciplinary program.

Explanation of Table II. For a clearer understanding of the

 

personnel who head the disciplinary programs at the institutions
surveyed, an explanation of Table II seems desirable. Seven of the
institutions have head disciplinary Officials; the other three have
faculty committees. It was impossible to collect data regarding
personnel at those institutions having faculty committees as head of
the disciplinary progran.

The first column indicates the title of the head disciplinary
official.

The second column indicates the graduate major of the head
disciplinary official.

The third column indicates the graduate degree of the head

disciplinary official.

61

The fourth column indicates the undergraduate major of the head
disciplinary official.

The fifth column indicates the number of years that the head
disciplinary official has held his present position.

The sixth column indicates the academic rank held by the head
disciplinary official. At the institutions where the position of head
personnel and head disciplinary official is synonymous, academic rank
is acquired automatically when the official assumes the position. At
other institutions, academic rank must be earned by the official and is
retained in whatever position he might hold at the university.

The seventh column indicates whether or not the head disciplinary
official teaches an academic course.

The eighth column indicates the area of jurisdiction of the head
disciplinary official. At each institution surveyed, this jurisdiction
includes all students, with the exception of University E where the
jurisdiction over the students is divided by the male-female division
and is supervised by two head disciplinary officials.

The ninth column indicates the percentage of time that each head
disciplinary official estimates he devotes to the operation of the
student disciplinary program. This would include the various phases
of written and oral orientation, handling of individual cases, committee

work, follow-ups, and records.

 

oz ,1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mm 3:3st mow nommomonm fl @9632?” 5:3 lbwaonohmm mpguspm a .
a HE Ho 839
3:33pm 339580 H
. a
mmw 3333 02 nommmuonm : 853m. waoom .93 353.5 3533 m
3 H2 + .3 .mbfi innocuomnom Mo anon
um 3:33...” 8w 33398 N @3on .nd Pagoda $533 a
.58 H2 no 5.3
umu 3:35pm oz 0:02 w Hoonom H33 9.82 Hoonom mucouspm
3 H3285 g Egoo Ho anon .m
. 58$ 5
, Swami
nommomonm
uoa so: now H2 m bandage ASE .3 .+ imam no: mo 509
H
ROH :0803 oz mommomonm ‘ Emomodwnm .hnm .3
2 N + 33”.”me .mfi .33 .mg 550.3 no 5mm
upcovgm 003.2300 n
.52
Baovspm 399.2500 0
HQ
mucougm 02 0H 55$ p53 no.5 m
a cog
umm Maggi oz 83398 ; 53mg .93 :3 3833 a
. .33 H2 + 83.3992. A6835 mo mama
mzogoza 20503 mama. Mg . quQHEo Mona: Ewan mafia: guano “Sum
ngAmHoqu ImHmE. egg": EZHEHomHn maggwmmnz: Egg Egg . gfiflHomHn umEHzD
EH3 mam. mo 3mm 2 E 35943. odéfioa. mg no a?
mogamommm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EHOHEO EZHAmHomHQ Bagam 93mm

HH mqmfi.

 

63

Table II shows that three of the eight head disciplinary officials
hold doctor of philosophy degrees, one has a doctor of education degree,
one has a doctor of divinity degree, one has a bachelor of laws degree,
one has a master of science degree, and the eighth head disciplinary
official does not hold an academic degree but has had considerable
training as an Army career man.

The graduate academic majors of the head disciplinary officials
include: one in law, two in psychology, one in personnel and guidance,
one in physical education, and one in philosophy. One head disciplinary
official did not state his academic graduate major.

The junior head disciplinary officials in terms of length of service
are at University E and University G, both of whom have held this position
for two years.

It is interesting to note that the last three persons appointed as
head disciplinary officials at the universities investigated all hold
doctoral degrees. It is also interesting to note that the two head
disciplinary officials with the longest tenure also hold doctoral degrees.
The other three officials interviewed are not working toward a doctorate.

A doctoral degree does not seem to be the most important criterion
for the position of head disciplinary official. However, Table II shows
that the head disciplinary officials recently appointed have doctoral
degrees. The disciplinary officials felt that the trend toward academic
upgrading of persons in other student personnel services is also apparent

in the disciplinary program. There were mixed reactions on the part of

6b
the head disciplinary officials regarding the most important academic
area as a prerequisite for the position of head disciplinary official.

Teaching and other educational experience. A brief review of the

 

educational experience of the head disciplinary officials will be
considered in conjunction with their academic training.

Three of the head disciplinary officials interviewed have had
teaching experience in secondary schools, one for a period of eleven
years. Five of the officials have had experience as college teachers,
one for a length of ten years.

One of the head disciplinary officials coached athletics in high
school for six.years and in college for fourteen years before accepting
his present position. Three of the officials have held other administra-
tive positions in college. Three of the officials have had considerable
administrative experience in business or in the Armed Forces. Another
official has had considerable experience as a college personnel counselor.

An analysis of the background of this group of officials indicates
that considerable diversity of experience is one of the basic require-
ments for the position and, due to the scope and complexities of the
disciplinary program, would better enable the disciplinary official to
perform the duties of his position. The head disciplinary officials
were not agreed, however, as to the type of experience which would best

qualify a person for the position of head disciplinary official.

65

Academic rank of head disciplinary officials. Table II indicates

 

the universities where the head disciplinary officials hold academic
rank. At all universities investigated, the academic rank goes with

the job of head personnel official and is incidental to the disciplinary
program.

Six of the eight head disciplinary officials have academic rank,
one has the administrative status of Vice President, and the eighth head
disciplinary official has no academic rank.

An analysis of the academic rank indicates that there are six full
professors: four have doctoral degrees, one has a master's degree, and
the sixth professor holds a bachelor's degree. The academic rank of
these officials is held in various academic schools.

Three of the head disciplinary officials with the rank of full
professor teach at least one course. One teaches advanced counseling
and personnel, one teaches history and philosophy of religious literature,
and the third teaches psychology. Five of the head disciplinary officials
do not teach.

Percentage of time spent on disciplinary functions. One of the

 

important data collected at each institution was the percentage of time
each head disciplinary official estimates that he devotes to disciplinary
functions of the personnel program. It should be noted that the per-
centages of time are merely estimates since the disciplinary officials do
not keep accurate records of the time devoted to the disciplinary aspects

of this program.

66

For a complete view of the time devoted to the disciplinary program
by administrative officials, the total time spent by all disciplinary
officials at each institution should be considered. An analysis of the
time spent by each head disciplinary official is presented:

At University A, the head disciplinary official indicated that 35%
of his time is devoted to the operation of the disciplinary program.

The two head disciplinary officials at universities F and H estimated
that they spend 25% of their total time on disciplinary functions.

At University E, both of the head disciplinary officials indicated
that they devote approximately 10% of their total time to the operation
of the student disciplinary program. .

At universities G and J, the head disciplinary officials indicated
that they spend approximately 5% of their total time working with student
disciplinary functions.

The head disciplinary official at University B did not indicate the

percentage of time that he devoted to disciplinary functions.

Assistant Disciplinary Officials
The next group to be presented is the Assistant Disciplinary Official.
As indicated previously,2 there are other officials at each university who
actively participate in the operation of the student disciplinary program;
for this investigation, however, detailed information was collected only on
the head disciplinary officials and the first assistant for women and the

first assistant for men.

 

2
Supra. , p. 57

67
The duties of the assistant disciplinary officials vary at each
of the institutions investigated. At several of the universities, the
duties of the assistant disciplinary officials have a high degree of
stability; at others, the assistant disciplinary officials assist the
head disciplinary official on a daily and undetermined schedule. A
discussion of these duties will be presented.

University A. The assistant disciplinary official for women is

 

responsible for the orientation of women students and interpretation
of the university rules and regulations governing the women's residence
halls. Because of the large number of women residing in the halls,
this assistant has the most important task involving the disciplinary
program for women. ther assistants in the women's division are
responsible for discipline in their own particular area.

The assistant disciplinary official for men is responsible for
the disciplinary functions for all men regardless of their place of
residence. This assistant has the authority to place students on two
types of probational status and, in the more serious cases, recommends
to the head disciplinary official the action to be taken against the
student.

The assistant disciplinary officials for women and for men are
the principal contacts with remedial services at the institution. It
is their responsibility to make the contacts with these agencies whenever
it is felt that the agencies can assist in the rehabilitation of a student.
These two assistants also are responsible for the personnel programs in
the men and women's residence halls; this responsibility enables them to

facilitate referrals to these agencies.

68

University B. The assistant disciplinary official for women is

 

responsible for the disciplinary program for all women students. This
person is the adviser to the women's self-government association; her
assistants are the advisers to the women's judiciary courts and committees.
In the more serious disciplinary cases, she recommends to the head disci-
plinary official the action to be taken against women students.

The assistant disciplinary official for men has the over-all
responsibility of the judiciary structure established at this institution
to work with students who have violated university regulations. This
would also include the reSponsibility to exercise jurisdiction over cases
in which organizational violations occur. This assistant recommends to
the head disciplinary official the action to be taken against men students.

University C. The assistant disciplinary official for women at

 

this institution has jurisdiction over all phases of the program affecting
women. Her duties also extend to student courts established to handle
both male and female disciplinary cases. She takes final action in

cases when the violation is under the jurisdiction of the women's self-
government association rules and when the offense is entirely within the
women's area.

The assistant disciplinary official for men is the adviser to the
committee that handles violations by both men and women. Due to the fact
that most off-campus infractions are committed by males, the duties of
this official consist largely of processing students who have been
apprehended by law enforcement officials. This assistant has little
authority and operates mostly in an administrative advisory capacity.
Serious infractions in the men's area are appealed for final decision

to a faculty committee.

69

University D. A committee has the final jurisdiction in all

 

disciplinary cases, but the Security Officer devotes considerable
time to the initial screening and interviewing of students reported
for violations of university or state regulations. This Security
Officer has no authority in the disciplinary program and is a non-
voting secretary to the faculty committee on discipline. The male-
female division has been disregarded in the disciplinary program at
this institution; therefore, the same official handles both men and
women student violations.

University E. The two assistant disciplinary officials, like

 

the two head disciplinary officials, operate strictly according to
the male-female division at this university. Although these two
people were the ones interviewed, disciplinary matters are handled
by eleven people at this university. Their duties are so general
and broad in scope that it is not possible to give an adequate
description of the duties of any one assistant. The pattern of
responsibility is divided according to the areas of administrative
supervision. The assistant disciplinary officials recommend to the
head disciplinary officials the action to be taken against students.

University F. This institution has disregarded the male-female

 

division in the handling of serious university disciplinary offenses.
One assistant disciplinary official works with both men and women
violators. This assistant takes certain disciplinary action and refers
other student violators to the head disciplinary official. The
principal function of this official is the contact with campus police

and the interviewing and screening of serious disciplinary cases.

70

University G. The Dean of Men and the Dean of Women are assistant

 

disciplinary officials at this institution. Their duties are very
similar, each having jurisdiction according to the male-female division.
They take some action against students but refer the more serious
violators to the head disciplinary official. Both of these officials
perform extensive counseling and administrative roles, which give their
disciplinary functions a wider prospective.

University H. The two assistant disciplinary officials at this

 

university have similar responsibilities, according to the male-female
division. They may take limited action against student violators and
recommend action to be taken by the head disciplinary official in the
more serious violations. These officials are the advisers to the
judiciary bodies on campus and supervise the training of the student
leaders in disciplinary matters.

University I. The assistant disciplinary officials at this

 

university are members of a committee which takes the initial action
against all student violators except traffic violators and cases of
academic cheating. Most students with behavior problems are referred
initially to these officials, who decide whether or not the offense or
problem is serious enough to warrant a meeting of the committee. These
assistant disciplinary officials do not have the authority to take
official action against student violators.

The assistant disciplinary official for women at this institution

is the adviser to the women's self-government association.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

«OOH 3533 a oz nommomonm H oocoflom .QJE .BoHonohmm Hog 35893 H.
$593.34 fiaoom Humaofinm
mm 8503 a oz 082 ma banana mooz 33538
I I I I I I I L a. 5me I riom .998 I memo? moInmoQ H
mom I a I .. InszdHa .. m2- I .. .. Immoz .. .. m I .. .. I mmmamca .. nomoz ..... am a v 5a no 3mm
ROH :28: HQ. oz. onoz NH hpmgno 4.: 83m gum 5:63 on
..... .1 L s as - - memes a
mmm 52 HQ. oz ocoz w a 00:38 .Hom 4.2 :honoeBzmm com on
um bopmHm nonmqsoo
ROH c863 HH< oz maoz w L moHanoom 0:02 0:02 a G953 Mo noon 6
I I I wen.“ IIIIII Gm SIHWHI I sz I I I Immom I I I m I I I I NMmHmom I Immom I .. I ndmzuomm I I mom MoIQMmm
&M\HImm 3:32pm H2 oz 932538” w 53de 4.2 QHHSH 353% no .m
I on momma a... museum noon .pmmd
RH 5503 3.4 oz . nommomonm N wononozmm .nfim Hogomnom 5:83 90 noon
23.0.ng vfipmHmmm H
mm no: HH4 oz nommomohm 4 N sonon 4.2 i. 005336 a. no: mo Swen
@5332 a. QoHooN wfiHmmqsoo 959334
omppdfioo n
mm 853 :4 oz “gnomes : flames 5.3m .93 .mem 853 no 88
............... ----m.mpmammm----- ..-....om§mI........fi.:.........:.-..-...... o
mom :62 HQ mm» 98.05.3qu H J anHmcm .ném hopmHz a 52 .Ho amen
on 6.5.5ng
mm 5803 HH¢ new nommmmonm HH smHchm V .44: awaHoeozmz.A 8803 Ho amen m
""""" 1III'I." alul-llo""lllu'luluj""olnlll ol'"- nl'"olv""""
men do: HQ; oz homeomohm gm .3 .mbE 4.: .53. Hoonom no: mo noon
mm 2883 de§ oz hommomohm m .3 63m .mé qupmosom 3.3ng no
monogmom opoHoomma. soon on 3.52 a
a mom no: 3 oz 802 m 335% l 6a.: Gauchos 3833 Ho
HwHoom a. 093.630 8.3.9 3 .pmmd
szHeosz zOHBOHQWHmE. moan. Mzdm -flHoHEo M533 gown ~82: EH9 “Bum
nggmHomHn ogaom .mHomHn .gommnzz Manama Eggm IEEHzD,
EH3 mama mo 9. g 0333. Uganda.
mofizmummm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

QQHEO ngquomHn azmnpam Baaamfl

HHH E38

 

 

71

University J. The assistant disciplinary official at this university

 

works with both men and women disciplinary cases. His duties consist of
the initial screening and interviewing of all violators. He has an
assistant who devotes all of her time to the disciplinary phase of the
personnel program. This official has the authority to take final action
against violators, with the approval of the head disciplinary official.

Explanation of Table III. The first column indicates the title of

 

the assistant disciplinary official at each university studied.

The second column indicates the graduate academic major of the
assistant disciplinary official. It should be noted that the graduate
majors are in a variety of academic areas, with psychology and personnel
leading in terms of numbers with three each.

The third column indicates the graduate degree held by each assistant
disciplinary official.

The fourth column indicates the undergraduate academic major of each
assistant disciplinary official.

The fifth column indicates the length of time that each assistant
disciplinary official has held his present position.

The sixth column indicates the academic rank of each assistant
disciplinary official.

The seventh column indicates whether or not the assistant disciplinary
official teaches in an academic area.

The eighth column indicates the jurisdiction of each assistant
disciplinary official. iost of these assistants have jurisdiction

according to the male-female division.

73
The ninth column indicates the percentage of time that each assistant
disciplinary official estimates he devotes to the total disciplinary
program. This would include orientation, communications, individual cases,
follow-ups, committee work, and records.

Professional training of the assistant disciplinary officials. Table

 

III indicates that there are fifteen assistant disciplinary officials who
are considered first assistants in the disciplinary programs at the insti-
tutions studied. Four of these assistant disciplinary officials possess
doctoral degrees, seven have master's degrees, and four do not have
graduate degrees. I

Two of these assistants, both of whom have doctorates, have been
appointed within the last year.' Five other assistants have held this
position for a period of four years or less; two have doctorates and the
other three have master's degrees. Eight of the assistants have held
their present positions for a period of five years or longer; four have
master's degrees and four do not have graduate degrees.

University E is the only institution studied where the assistant
disciplinary official has a doctor of philosophy degree and the head
disciplinary official does not possess a doctorate.

There is an apparent trend that the majority of the assistant
disciplinary officials are working t0ward advanced degrees, although
this is not a requisite for the position.

Teaching and other educational experience. At this point, a brief

 

review of the educational experiences of the assistant disciplinary

officials will be presented.

7h

A.large majority of the assistant disciplinary officials have had
teaching experience in secondary schools or in college; one has had
administrative experience in secondary schools; two have had administra-
tive experience in college other than their present positions; one has
had administrative experience in business; several have had administra-
tive experience as members of the Armed Forces; one has had considerable
experience as a social worker and as a psychiatric nurse; and three of
the assistant disciplinary officials have had experience as college
counselors.

Academic rank of the assistant disciplinary officials. Table III

 

indicates the universities where the assistant disciplinary officials
hold academic rank.

Eight of the fifteen assistant disciplinary officials have academic
rank. One holds the rank of professor, one is an associate professor,
four are assistant professors, and two are instructors. Seven of the
assistant disciplinary officials do not hold academic rank.

Two of the assistant disciplinary officials teach at least one
academic course. One holds the rank of professor and teaches psychology.
The other is an instructor and teaches in the history department.

At those institutions where the assistant disciplinary officials
have academic rank, the provisions of tenure are the same for these
officials as for faculty members with similar rank.

At those institutions where the assistant disciplinary officials
do not have academic rank, tenure is of an administrative nature and

depends on the person's ability to perform the duties of his job.

75

Percentage of time spent on disciplinary functions. One of the

 

important data collected at each institution was the percentage of time
each assistant disciplinary official estimates that he devotes to
disciplinary functions of the personnel program. It should be noted
that the percentages of time are merely estimates since disciplinary
officials do not keep accurate records of the time devoted to the
disciplinary aspects of this program.

For a complete View of the time devoted to the disciplinary program
by administrative officials, the total time spent by all disciplinary
officials at each institution should be considered. An analysis of the
time spent by each assistant disciplinary official is presented:

At University J, the assistant disciplinary official indicated that
his entire time is devoted to the disciplinary functions of the personnel
progrmn.

The assistant disciplinary officials for men at universities A and C
indicated that 50% of their time is devoted to the disciplinary program.
The assistant at University F indicated that 33-1/3; of his time is
spent working with the disciplinary program. The assistant at University
H estimated that 25% of his time is occupied with the disciplinary program.
The assistant at University I estimated that 20% of his time is devoted
to the functions of the disciplinary program.

The assistant disciplinary officials for women at universities B and

C estimated that 8% of their time is spent working with the disciplinary
program. The assistant disciplinary officials for women at universities
A.and I indicated that 5% of their time is devoted to some phase of the

disciplinary program.

76

At University E, the assistant disciplinary official for men
indicated that 5% of his time is directed to some phase of the disci-
plinary program, while the assistant disciplinary official for women
estimated that only 1% of her time is devoted to the functions of the

disciplinary program.

Summary

The officials interviewed stated that there is a trend toward the
selection of disciplinary officials who possess similar experience and
training required in other personnel positions.

The head personnel officials further stated that the trend toward
academic upgrading of persons in other student personnel services is
also apparent in the disciplinary program.

No specific academic area or type of training was agreed upon by
the disciplinary officials as requisites for competent personnel workers
in the disciplinary program.

Six of the eight head disciplinary officials have academic rank.

Three of the institutions surveyed have committees as head disci-
plinary officials.

One institution has two head disciplinary officials whose areas of
jurisdiction are based on a men and women's division.

Three of the eight head disciplinary officials teach at least one
course in the academic area. Five of the head disciplinary officials.
do not teach.

With one exception, the head disciplinary officials at the institu-

tions surveyed are men.

77

There are fifteen assistant disciplinary officials who are considered
first-line disciplinary officials in the personnel programs at the insti-
tutions investigated.

Two of the institutions surveyed have disregarded the male-female
division with regard to major infractions; therefore, both men and women
disciplinary cases are handled by one staff. One other university has
a modified program and has partially'disregarded the male-female division
in the disciplinary program. The officials at this institution work
with both men and women students in certain phases of the disciplinary
program.

One institution surveyed has two personnel workers whose duties
consist solely of working with the disciplinary program.

There are indications that the turnover of the assistant disciplinary
officials is more rapid than in other jobs in the personnel program.

Seven of the fifteen assistant disciplinary officials have held their
present positions four years or less.

The head disciplinary officials are agreed that the most important
element in any disciplinary program is people. The qualifications most
needed by disciplinary workers are a sincere interest in people, adequate

experience, and competent training.

CHAPTER V

ORIENTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS IN TIE

STUDENT DISCIPLINARY PROGRMM

The purpose of this chapter is to present: (1) information
concerning the orientation aspect of the student disciplinary prOgram;
and (2) information regarding the communications between the offices
of the disciplinary officials, related institutional departments,
and non-university agencies concerned with the student disciplinary
program.

Probably no other aspect of the student disciplinary program is
as important as the initial orientation regarding the standards of
conduct expected of the student by the university. Personnel officials
at large universities agree that one serious hindrance to student
orientation is the complexity of a large college community. They
further agree that, with students from practically every state in
the union and from foreign countries, a multiplicity of verbal and
written information as well as considerable time is necessary for
proper orientation and for the student to adjust to the new environment.

At each institution studied, a dual process of orientation is
continued throughout the year. First, the formal program of orienta-
tion, as devised by the university, utilizes student leaders, faculty
members, and administrators. The other process is the informal aspect

of orientation, which consists of the older students orienting the new

79
students regarding university life. This informal orientation includes
many of the tips and short cuts picked up in bull sessions, chats with
friends, etc., which will save the new student much of the seemingly
unnecessary activity demanded by the formal schedule of orientation.

The disciplinary officials felt that these two orientation processes
were often diversified but not entirely opposite.

Most large universities employ several methods of student orienta-
tion, which operate simultaneously. One method is a general convocation
with compulsory attendance of all new students. At this convocation,
top administrative officials present a brief overview of the university;
and selected student leaders encourage the new students to participate
wholeheartedly in university life. Specific rules and regulations are
not usually elaborated upon at this time. The general convocational
method is of great value because it emphasizes the over-all relationship
between the student and the university.

Another method of orientation used by the institutions surveyed is
divisional meetings of new students for males and females. This method
is feasible since it gives emphasis to the different set of rules required
of women students over and above the rules and regulations of an all-
college nature.

The third method used at M majority of the universities studied is
orientation by the individual living units, which would include sororities
and fraternities even though many of their members do not reside in

sorority or fraternity houses.

Many of the institutions surveyed employ the above methods in
various combinations. Several of the institutions use all of the
methods, but there is a trend at most large universities to eliminate
the general convocation because of the increasingly large number of
students enrolling at the universities each year.

Orientation should be continuous for the full school year; however,
after the initial process of orientation, emphasis then is focused on
the communications between the student and the university.

Avenues of communications from both administrators and faculty to
students should be so well-developed that a constant clarification of
standards, rules, and regulations can reach even the fringe group of
students. Communications between the students and the university ad.‘ -
istrators are essential in order to ascertain student reaction to the
policies and procedures of the student disciplinary program. This
enables the disciplinary officials to determine the extent of student

participation in the program to regulate their own affairs.

Orientation

An effort is made at each of the universities studied to disseminate
information necessary for the student to become a full-fledged member of
the college community. Student personnel officials agree that students
cannot be expected to adhere to university standards unless the rules and
regulations are communicated to the student. A continuous transmission
of this information to new students is essential for the preservation of
the standard of conduct demanded by the university as well as by community,

state, and national laws.

81
A discussion of the orientation program at each university will be
presented as follows: (1) orientation prior to the student's coming to
campus, (2) orientation after the student arrives on campus, and (3)
orientation in academic departments concerning student behavior.

Orientation prior to the student's coming to campus. One of the

 

important types of data collected from the head disciplinary officials
interviewed concerned the material sent to prospective students before
arriving on campus to enroll.

Each of the universities studied sends material to prospective
students regarding the rules and regulations governing the student's
relationship with the university. This information is usually contained
in booklets or handbooks which are printed specifically for new students.
There is considerable variation regarding the type as well as the number
of regulations sent to students prior to enrollment. This information
ranges from the most important all-university regulations to the minor
rules of the living units. Generally this information is sent directly
from the office of the head personnel official or from the registrar's
office.

Due to the structure of the student personnel organizations, some
of the universities studied have a program whereby considerable informa-
tion of a limited scope is sent to prospective students from the living
units or from student government organizations. This information largely
contains the rules that govern that particular area of the student personnel.

program.

82

More information is sent to prospective women students than to
prospective male students due to the fact that women students are
required to abide by more regulations than male students. This difference
in the rules is one of the determining factors in the lack of coordination
of orientation material sent from a common source to all prospective
students. Other factors are the lack of facilities in the registrar's
office and the shortage of labor in the office of the head disciplinary
official to handle the mailing of material to large numbers of prospective
students.

It is generally agreed among the head disciplinary officials that
one factor which also deters the mailing of more material to prospective
students is the cost involved in the printing of student publications.

The disciplinary officials pointed out that only a portion of the publica-
tions are concerned with rules and regulations; since the student publica-
tions are so costly, the officials feel it is more advantageous to
distribute the publications after it is certain that the student will
enroll at the university.

Little information regarding rules and regulations governing student
behavior in the scholastic area is available in the publications sent to
prospective students. Information of this nature would be very important
to the student and to his parents, especially when adequate material is
not available concerning the position of the institution in the total

student-university behavior relationship.

83

In summary, considerable information containing general university
rules and regulations is sent to all students who apply for enrollment
at the universities studied. College officials are reluctant to mail the
more expensive publications containing specific rules and regulations to
prospective students because of the large number who are admitted but who
do not enroll.

The variations in the mailing of information to prospective students
range from a majority of the institutions that send very little material
to the relatively few institutions that mail considerable material
regarding not only all-college regulations but also the more detailed
rules and regulations of the living units.

Most of the universities studied have programs whereby prospective
students may come to the campus during the summer prior to his enrollment
in the Fall. One purpose of this visit is to acquaint the student with
academic and non-academic rules and regulations which would aid him in
becoming adjusted to university life.

Orientation after the student arrives on campus. Because of the

 

various programs, methods, and combinations of methods of orientation
employed by the universities studied, the orientation program of each
university is presented.

University A. A general convocation of all new students is held

 

the first day of the orientation week. The President and other administra-
tive officials address the students; however, the Dean of Students is the
only official who Speaks on the subject of the student-university relation-

ship in the area of conduct.

8h

Due to the large residence halls system at this university, much
of the responsibility for interpreting rules and regulations to new
students rests with the supervisory personnel and the student leaders
of the residence halls. An extensive program of orientation takes place
in the residence halls beginning the first day the new student arrives
on campus.

A copy of the rules and regulations governing the residence halls
is available in each room when the student arrives on campus. Informa-
tion is also available through other sources, such as printed material
given to new students during orientation week. No orientation is given
to returning men students, but the women's groups have standards meetings
in the residence halls, where attendance of the returning student is
compulsory.

Individual residence halls meetings as well as individual meetings
with students are included in the orientation phase of the residence
halls. As a follow-up to this orientation week, one night is set aside
the following week for a question-and-answer session, which enables the
student to have clarified for him all matters which were not clearly
understood during orientation week.

At this university, the residence halls orientation is in conjunction
with the requirement that all new students must live in the residence halls
during their first year on campus. An effort is made to have a continuous

program of orientation throughout the year.

85

University B. The rules and regulations of this university are

 

issued to new students with instructions that it is the student's
responsibility to acquaint himself with them. A list of suggestions
for freshmen is also issued at that time concerning the standard of
conduct expected of students by the university.

At each living unit, committees from the women's self-government
association explain the rules and regulations governing women students.
This association also has meetings of all new women students, at which
time the Dean of women explains what the university expects in the area
of conduct.

At this institution, there is little formalized orientation for men
other than by living units. Much of the orientation is performed by the
large system of fraternities.

University C. Much of the orientation during the year is performed

 

by the living units. The women's regulations are explained to all women
students by staff and student assistants in the living units. A concise
publication outlining the relationship between the college and the student
is used as a basis for the initial orientation.
All social chairmen of the men and women's residence halls are given

the regulations governing organizations as well as individuals. These
chairmen disseminate this information to the students in sectional meetings
within the residence halls. In addition, each residence hall has a house-
book of regulations governing the student's conduct in each particular
living unit. This information is also included in the sectional orienta-

tion meetings.

86
The Interfraternity Council and the Pan-hellenic groups have chapter
meetings to impart the rules and regulations of the university to their
members.
This university employs the newspaper and other forms of communica-
tion for orientation purposes whenever the need arises for a particular
regulation to be transmitted to all students.

University D. Publications regarding the student's relationship

 

with the college are available to all students during the orientation
period. The students at this university are encouraged to read the
catalogues as well as all printed material specifically designated for
new students. Newspaper advertisements and articles are also used by
this institution as a method of transmitting information to students.

Many new students at this university move directly into sorority
and fraternity houses their first year on campus; therefore, a great
burden for the orientation of new students regarding rules and regulations
rests with fraternity and sorority groups.

Mimeographed sheets of rules and regulations and freshmen orienta-
tion booklets are available to freshmen through the living units.
Orientation meetings are held by the student counselors in the men and
women's residence halls, at which time many of the general university
rules are covered and pertinent information is transmitted to the new
students regarding their relationship with the specific residence hall.

University D has little formalized orientation but has used the
newspaper medium to good advantage in conveying rules and regulations

and in interpreting college policy to students.

87

University E. The student handbook and the associated women students'

 

booklet on women's activities are available to new students during orien-
tation week. These publications, together with the guide book for the
women's residence halls and the book covering the regulations of the
physical facilities of the residence halls, constitute much of the orien-
tation material presented at this university.

In the men's residence halls, general rules of the university and
rules of the residence halls are on the desk of each student when he
arrives on campus. Orientation meetings by units are held in the dining
room of the residence halls, with attendance compulsory. Since work with
students living in residence halls is under the jurisdiction of business
management, the residence halls orientation is separate from the orienta-
tion performed by the Dean of Men and the Dean of'Nomen.

Periodically the Dean of Men and the Dean of Women hold conferences
with student leaders and interpret the policies of the college concerning
rules and regulations governing organizations as well as individuals.

Orientation is extensive in both the men and women's residence halls.
Most of the orientation performed at this institution during the year is
of an informal nature.

University F. The student handbook is available to all students

 

during orientation week. Special material is also available from the
residence halls. The basic college of this university participates in
the orientation of new students, especially in the area which would
assist the student in acquiring a fundamental understanding of his total

relationship with the university.

88

One night of the orientation week is scheduled for new students to
assemble by units in the residence halls, at which time student assistants
explain the rules and regulations of the university and of the residence
halls.

At this university, both new and old students are encouraged to
attend group meetings in the living units throughout the year, at which
time university standards and behavior problems are discussed.

University G. A general convocation is held during the first week

 

of the school year for all new students. The second aspect of the program
is divided into an all-men orientation meeting and an all-women orienta-
tion meeting, at which time rules and regulations that were covered in

the all-college orientation meetings are further defined according to

the male—female division.

At this institution, the women's self-government association
periodically interprets university rules and regulations to all women
students. The Dean of Men and the Dean of Wbmen meet frequently with
student leaders to acquaint them with the rules and regulations of the
university.

The fraternities and sororities are charged with the responsibility
of orienting their new members with the university rules and regulations.

One of the unique features of the orientation program at this
university is the written agreement that each new student is asked to

sign regarding his relationship with the university.

89

University H. A convocation is held for all new students, at which

 

time most of the general rules and regulations of the college are pre-
sented. Later the students are assembled into smaller groups, with
discussion leaders giving additional information and answering questions
regarding university regulations.

Residence halls meetings are also held, and the student counselors
assist the students in becoming familiar with the rules and regulations
of the residence halls as well as with those of the university.

The fraternities and sororities have judiciary committees that have
the Primary responsibility of imparting to new members of their organiza-
tions the standards of conduct required by the university.

The leaders of all student organizations, including the women's
self-government association, meet with advisory personnel in an effort
to become acquainted with the university rules and regulations so that
they, in turn, can interpret these regulations to the members of their
group.

University I. Orientation at this university begins with two group

 

convocations, divided according to the male-female division. At these
convocations, the Dean of Men, the Dean of'Women, other administrative
officials, and student leaders outline the major rules and regulations
which will govern the student during his enrollment at the university.
Much of the orientation is presented to students by the living units.
The student assistants in the residence halls, along with the student
judiciary boards, have specific procedures for interpreting the rules

and regulations to new students.

90
At this institution, the largest phase of continuous orientation
is conducted by the residence halls, which is separate from the orien-
tation performed by the staffs of the Dean of Men and the Dean of Women.
Fraternities and sororities also have student committees that have
the primary responsibility of acquainting new students with university,
fraternity, and sorority regulations.

University J. The handbook outlining the student's relationship

 

with the college is available to all students. Publications on tips for
freshmen are distributed in the residence balls to new students.

Fraternities and sororities, as well as various student organizations,
have formalized procedures for acquainting new students with the rules and
regulations of their reSpective groups as well as with the general rules
of the university.

Orientation at this institution is conducted throughout the year by
student government leaders and student counselors of the residence halls.
One important phase of the orientation program as it concerns student
behavior is the training of students who assist in the operation of the
student disciplinary program.

The large number of new students who reside off-campus presents a
major problem in the orientation program at University J.

Summary of orientaaion. Most of the universities surveyed have

 

extensive programs of orientation for students in individual living units.
Much of the orientation presented is concerned with the operation of the
particular living unit, with only general orientation of the major rules

of the university.

91

The prominence of residence halls as university housing is a
major factor in determining the method of orientation. Those universities
with large systems of residence halls generally require new students to
live in the residence halls for the first year and concentrate orienta-
tion in this area; likewise, those universities with large fraternity
and sorority systems emphasize the orientation program through these
groups.

The disciplinary officials are agreed that one aspect of the con-
tinuous orientation program that needs considerable develOpment is the
communications of university rules to new students who are permitted to
live in private housing off-campus. At some institutions, this affects
a significant percentage of the student body.

Another problem is coordination of the orientation program to insure
that information is not duplicated and that all necessary orientation
material is transmitted to students. Coordination of the orientation
program is usually a greater problem at those institutions with de-
centralized personnel programs.

The personnel officials revealed that orientation programs in the
residence halls are the most continuous and best planned phase of inter-
preting the rules and regulations to students throughout the year.

Another effective method is the delegation of responsibility to
fraternities and sororities for the orientation of their members con-
cerning all necessary rules and regulations. This is rather significant
since student violations by fraternity and sorority groups are viewed by
many personnel and disciplinary officials not only as an infraction of

university rules but also as a divergence from university philosophy.

92
The study revealed that the most proficient initial orientation by
any specific group at the universities surveyed is performed by the
judiciary committees of the women's self-government association.

Orientation in academic departments concerning student behavior.

 

This section is concerned with the efforts of the universities surveyed
to coordinate the orientation between the academic and non-academic areas.

At most of the institutions studied, the only responsibility of the
head disciplinary official with respect to orientation in the academic
area is the over-all relationship between the student and the university.
At most institutions, the one specific academic area in which the head
personnel official has authority is in the area of excessive absences.

Most orientation regarding behavior in the academic area is per-
formed by the academic schools, usually on a departmental or college
basis. At most of the universities studied, the instructor has the
prerogative to present to his students the rules and regulations regarding
classroom behavior. The instructor also has the prerogative to make
judgments regarding behavior problems that arise in his classroom. The
disciplinary officials enter the case only when the referral has been
made by staff members in the academic area.

In the area of cheating and other forms of dishonesty in the scho-
lastic area, there is a wide diversity in the processing of individual
violators. At most of the universities surveyed, the dean of the academic
school has the authority to make the final decision in all cases of
academic dishonesty occurring within his school; at some institutions,

the individuals are handled by the academic departments entirely; at others,

93
the individuals are handled by committees consisting of academic as well
as non-academic officials. This diversity of authority presents a problem
for adequate orientation in the academic area.

In the academic orientation program at all of the universities sur-
veyed, broad citizenship orientation is also presented to enable the
student to further understand his total relationship with all phases of
the university.

Estimates of the effectiveness of orientation with respect to the

 

disciplinary program. One of the purposes of this study was to collect

 

data on the effectiveness of the various aspects of the student discipli-
nary program. he head disciplinary officials at each instiution were
asked to estimate the percentage of effectiveness of the orientation
program with respect to the disciplinary functions. Table IV presents
this information. It should be noted that the percentages indicated

are estimates only.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE IV
ESTIMATED PERCENTAGE OF EFFECT 'ENESS 0F ORIENTATION
WITH RESPECT TO THE DISCIPLIHARY PROGRAM
UNIVERSITY 10% 20% 30% h0% 50% 60% 703 80% 90% 100%
A X
B X...L.X
C X...J.X
D X
E X.....X
F X...,.X
G X.....X
:= H X
I X.....X ‘
J X X l 4

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9b
In Table IV, University J indicated 90% effectiveness in trans-
mission of rules and regulations and 70% effectiveness in acceptance of

orientation material by the students.

Communications

This section is devoted to data collected concerning the communica-
tions between the office of the head disciplinary official, related
departments, and other agencies regarding student disciplinary functions.

Local police department. Geographic location of the university is

 

a major factor in the relationship between the office of the head disci-
plinary official and the local police department. Another factor that
influences this relationship is the quality of the law enforcement agency
at the university. A competent campus police department tends to establish
strong relationships with local police agencies. Personalities are also
very important because of the informality of many of the relationships.
This informal relationship aids materially in expediting reports by local
law enforcement agencies to college authorities regarding student violators.
This relationship further tends to prevent serious conflicts between the
local police department and college officials relative to differences in
philosophy regarding dispositions of law violations by students.

Communications with the local police department at several of the
institutions studied are through the campus police department, which is
an effective system since the campus police department is viewed as a
legitimate law enforcement agency by the local police authorities.

Three of the universities studied have informal coffee hours and
meetings between the disciplinary officials and the local police, at which
time standards and procedures are agreed upon regarding communications

relating to student violators apprehended by local police agencies.

95

Campus police department. The major conflict arising in relation

 

to campus police departments is the same as that stated for local police
departments - conflict between police methods and educational philosophy.
One impediment which affects communications and relationships between

the campus police and the disciplinary officials is that the campus police
must operate as an educational service agency within the university and,
at the same, practice police methods necessary for the operation and
security of the university.

Several of the universities studied do not have campus police
departments; instead, they employ watchmen and other individuals whose
sole responsibilities are in the areas of night protection and automobile
parking. At one university, the campus is serviced by the local police
department. This institution contributes several thousand dollars yearly
to the local police department for this protection.

Communications and relationships between the office of the disci-
plinary officials and the campus police departments vary considerably at
the universities studied. At one university, the head disciplinary
official personally trains the campus police. None of the head disci-
plinary officials surveyed, however, have jurisdiction over the campus
police department.

Counseling center. Disciplinary officials refer many students who

 

have created disciplinary situations to the counseling center for remedial
service.

At many of the universities studied, the counseling center is under
the jurisdiction of the head personnel official; this system ensures

strong administrative lines between the counseling center and the office

96
of the disciplinary officials. The officials interviewed stated that
difficulties arise at institutions where communications between the
counseling center and the office of the disciplinary officials have to
cross divisional lines.

At one university, the assistant disciplinary officials have the
responsibility of personal adjustment counseling.

The disciplinary program at another university is within the
counseling center; therefore, any problem concerning communications
would be interdepartmental.

Two of the universities studied do not have counseling centers but
have psychological services which are under the health service.

Health service. In general, at all the universities studied, the

 

relationship between the head disciplinary official and the head health
service official is harmonious. Some of the head disciplinary officials
also have jurisdiction over the health service, which alleviates the
necessity for crossing divisional lines when communicating to the health
service regarding matters of a behavior nature.

The health service performs two main functions in the disciplinary
program, both related to the physical condition of the individual. Many
students who have created behavior situations are referred to the health
service to determine if a physical condition contributed to the student's
behavior problem. Another major service rendered by the health service
is the screening of special students for admission by ascertaining
whether or not the prospective student's health might be a factor in
preventing him from adjusting satisfactorily to the standards expected

of all students by the university.

97

The health service also contributes a general service to the
disciplinary program by participating in group discussions with students
to explain the necessity of rules and regulations concerning food con-
ditions and sanitation standards which must be adhered to in all university
living units.

At most of the universities studied, specific doctors in the health
service receive practically all behavior referrals from disciplinary
officials. Many women disciplinary officials refer women students
directly to female doctors in the health service.

{ental health or psychological clinics. From a structural stand-

 

point, the mental health or psychological clinics at most of the institu-
tions studied are separate departments within the university health
service. Usually in this organization, the director of the health service
is the head official of the mental health or psychological clinic. At
other universities, the psychological clinic is within the counseling
center or within the academic psychology department.

One major conflict between the mental health or psychological clinics
and the office of the disciplinary officials in communications is the
degree of confidence that exists between the client and the psychological
worker. Many mental health workers, because of professional ethics, will
not reveal information which is necessary for the disciplinary official
to make administrative decisions regarding the student's relationship
with the university.

There is some disagreement between psychological workers and disci-
plinary officials regarding the disposition of student cases when the
welfare of the university and the welfare of the individual seemingly are

in conflict.

98
At some of the universities studied, the communications between
the different psychological services are formalized; however, at most
of the universities studied, the relationship is on a very informal
basis.

Registrar's and admissions office. Communications between the head

 

disciplinary official's office and the registrar's office are probably
the most important of any departmental relationship of the student
disciplinary program.

At the universities studied, the admissions office has the pre—
rogative and final authority to admit all students who meet the normal
admissions standards of the university. When there is a background of
behavior problems involved, however, a more thorough investigation of
the prospective student's background is conducted.

There are two primary methods of admitting students with backgrounds
of behavior problems. At some of the institutions studied, the admissions
officer has the final authority for admissions but seeks the recommenda-
tion of the head disciplinary and head personnel officials. At other
institutions, the head personnel and head disciplinary officials have the
final authority in permitting students with backgrounds of behavior
problems to enroll at the university. When the latter method is utilized,
these prospective students are admitted on a conditional basis, and the
head personnel and head disciplinary officials usually assume greater
responsibility for the student's conduct during his enrollment at the
university. The problem concerning admission of prospective students
with delinquent backgrounds demands immediate and direct communications
between the registrar's office and the office of the head personnel or

head disciplinary official.

9-9

Another area of communication between the registrar's office and
the head disciplinary official's office is the matter pertaining to
disciplinary records. At most of the institutions studied, when disci-
plinary action is taken against students who have committed serious
offenses, the disciplinary action is recorded on the student's official
record in the registrar‘s office.

Two major conflicts which often arise in communications between
the office of the disciplinary officials and the registrar's office are:
(l) accepting probational students from other universities, and (2)
jurisdiction regarding character references of present and former students.

The head disciplinary officials are agreed that location is an
important factor in the communications between the registrar's office
and that of the disciplinary officials. 'When these two offices are
located in the same building, the relationship tends to be more harmonious
and the communications are more effective.

Academic departments. A few of the universities investigated have

 

formalized systems of communication between the academic departments and
the disciplinary officials regarding the disciplinary program. At a
majority of the universities, the communications are on an informal basis.

Some of the academic schools and departments have better relation-
ships with the disciplinary officials than others because of greater
interest in the student's develOpment outside the academic area.

At two of the universities surveyed, the disciplinary officials are
members of committees on personnel policy that meet periodically with
academic deans in an effort to agree on policies and procedures regarding

communications.

100

At three of the universities studied, schools within the university
have great autonomy over student conduct. The dean of the academic
school must be consulted before a student from his school is dismissed
by university officials. At these universities as well as at three other
institutions studied, the dean of the student's academic school must be
consulted whenever major disciplinary action is taken against students for
infractions of university regulations.

At those universities where the faculty has final authority in the
disciplinary program, policies formulated by faculty committees regarding
the disciplinary program are binding on all academic departments. This
tends to formalize the system of communications between the academic
departments and the office of the disciplinary officials.

Living units. The system of communications between the living units

 

and the offices of the disciplinary officials is essential for efficient
operation of the student disciplinary program. Through this system of
communications from the living units, the routes of many of the behavior
problems are expedited. Disposition of behavior cases must also be
communicated to the personnel workers in the living units so that they
can intelligently participate in remedial efforts to assist the student.
Each type of living unit has merits and disadvantages relating to
communications. Several of the institutions investigated have problems
of communications between the disciplinary officials and the residence
halls, especially when the personnel aspect of the residence halls is
under the jurisdiction of management. The geographic location of soror-
ities, fraternities, and co-operatives often impair communications between

these organizations and the offices of the disciplinary officials.

101

One of the principal problems relating to communications between all
living units and the offices of the disciplinary officials stems from the
commonly accepted concept that all living units should make an effort to
solve their own behavior problems. In many instances, the failure to
communicate with disciplinary officials regarding serious violations
usually creates disturbing conditions that impair the system of communica-
tions between the living units and the disciplinary officials.

Communications between university disciplinary officials and the
fraternities and sororities are facilitated principally by meetings and
other methods of communications such as mimeographed material, bulletins,
telephone calls, etc. The presidents of these organizations meet period-
ically with the administrative adviser, at which time social rules and
standards of conduct for the organizations are communicated to these
representatives.

At one of the universities investigated, the disciplinary officials
meet weekly with the presidents of living units. These conferences serve
to clarify rules and regulations and to expedite communications between
the student groups and the disciplinary officials.

Office of adviser to foreign students. Disciplinary officials at

 

several of the universities indicated that they have communications with
the office of the foreign student adviser regarding behavior problems of
foreign students. The disciplinary officials interviewed are not agreed
that foreign students who create disciplinary situations should be handled
by the regular disciplinary process. Some of the disciplinary officials

felt that disciplinary action against these students should be taken

102
within the office of the foreign student adviser. One factor which
supports the latter supposition is the amount of information available
to the foreign student adviser, most of which was collected prior to
the foreign student's enrollment at the university.

Summary of communications. The disciplinary officials revealed

 

that communications between the office of the disciplinary officials,
related university departments, and other non-academic agencies are
generally harmonious.

Communications between the office of the head disciplinary official
and the local law enforcement agencies usually are facilitated through
the campus police department. A competent campus police department tends
to cooperate well with the local law enforcement agencies.

One source of conflict between law enforcement agencies and the
university disciplinary office regarding communications stems from a
difference in philosophy regarding disposition of students who are appre-
hended by local law enforcement agencies.

The head personnel officials stated that communications are more
effective at those institutions when the disciplinary officials do not
have to cross divisional lines while working with university departments.

Probably the most important relationship the office of the disci-
plinary officials has with other departments is with the registrar's and
admissions office. Two reasons for this importance are: (l) communica-
tions regarding the admission of students with questionable behavior
backgrounds, and (2) communications regarding the recording on the student's

official record of disciplinary action taken by university officials.

103

The most difficult area of communications is adequate communications
to students who reside in private housing off-campus.

Estimates of effectiveness of communications with related departments

 

regarding disciplinary functions. One of the purposes of this study was

 

to collect data on the effectiveness of the various aspects of the student
disciplinary program. The head disciplinary officials at each institution
surveyed were asked to estimate the percentage of effectiveness of the
communications system with respect to the disciplinary functions. Table V
presents this information. It should be noted that the percentages

indicated are estimates only.

 

TABLE V

ESTIMATED PERCENTAGE OF EFFECTIVENESS OF COHhUNICATIONS WITH
RELATED DEPARTMENTS REGARDING STUDENT DISCIPLINARX FUNCTIONS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

UNIVERSITY 1075 20% 30% 110% 50% 60% 70% 80% 905% 100%
A ' x
B x.....X
C *
D x
E x.....x
F X.....X
Git-
H X...L..X
I x...‘.x
J x

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

W At Universities C and G, the disciplinary officials did not wish
to make estimates regarding the effectiveness of communications.

10h
Summary

The purpose of this chapter was to present information regarding:

(1) orientation aspects of the student disciplinary program including
orientation prior to the student's enrollment, orientation after the
student arrives on campus, and orientation in the academic areas; and (2)
communications between the office of the student disciplinary officials,
related university departments, and non-university agencies.

The disciplinary officials surveyed are agreed that orientation
regarding the total student-university relationship is one of the most
important aspects of the total student personnel program. This relation-
ship usually embodies all of the standards expected of students by the
university and also serves to clarify the university's obligations in the
student-university relationship.

Another important aspect of the orientation program is the trans-
mission of rules and regulations to new students through the living units.
This orientation further defines the total student-university relationship
but is concerned with a Specific area of university rules.

Two processes of orientation operate simultaneously at the institu-
tions surveyed: (l) the process formalized by university officials and
utilizing student leaders, and (2) the informal orientation by older
students, utilizing many of the short cuts which would aid the new students
in adjusting to campus life.

The universities surveyed employ several methods of orientation,
namely: (1) general convocation with compulsory attendance of all new

students, (2) orientation meetings according to the male-female division,

105
(3) orientation by living units where the specific rules and regulations
of the living units are presented, (h) orientation by student government
leaders for student organizations and new students interested in general
orientation concerning the university, and (S) orientation by the women's
self-government association regarding the rules that women students must
observe over and above standards of an all-university nature.

Many of the universities use combinations of the various methods of
orientation. There is a trend toward the elimination of general convoca-
tions due to the increasingly large number of new students each year.

Those universities with large residence halls systems usually
concentrate orientation in this area, while universities with large
fraternity and sorority systems usually emphasize orientation of rules
and regulations through these groups.

The student disciplinary officials have relatively little authority
regarding orientation in the academic area with the exception of the total
student-university relationship, which transcends all areas of the university.

The head personnel officials revealed that one aspect of the orienta-
tion program that needs considerable improvement is the orientation of new
students who reside in private housing off-campus. Another defect is the
lack of coordination of the orientation program. Universities with de-
centralized personnel programs usually have difficulty with coordination
of the orientation program.

The study revealed that the most proficient initial orientation by
any specific group at the universities surveyed is performed by the women's

self-government association.

106

Communications are closely related to orientation programs. It is
an accepted concept among disciplinary officials that orientation should
be a continuous process throughout the school year. After the formalized
aspect of the orientation program is completed, however, emphasis then is
focused on communications to various university departments and non-
university local agencies regarding the disciplinary program.

Communications between the office of the disciplinary officials and
related university departments are largely on an informal basis. Because
of this informality, personal relationships play an important role in
facilitating communications between the departments.

Disciplinary officials surveyed indicated that they are more assured
of effective communications when the communications do not cross admini—
strative divisional lines.

At most of the institutions investigated, the student disciplinary
program and related student personnel departments are under the juris-
diction of the same university official, thereby minimizing the necessity
for crossing administrative divisional lines.

The major obstacle in communications between the office of the
disciplinary officials and the campus and local police departments is
the difference in philosophy of law enforcement agencies and educational
concepts of a university.

Another hindrance to effective communications regarding disciplinary
functions is the autonomy of academic colleges at several of the institu-'
tions investigated. The relationship and communications between academic
colleges and the office of the disciplinary officials depend on the degree
of interest of the academic dean in the welfare of students enrolled in

his college.

107

Student disciplinary officials rely very strongly on direct communi-
cations with the mental health or psychological services. With one
exception, communications with these services are relatively concordant.
Many mental health workers, because of professional ethics, will not
reveal information which is necessary for the disciplinary official to
make administrative decisions regarding the student's relationship with
the university.

Most disciplinary officials indicated that communications between
the office of the disciplinary officials and the registrar's and admissions
office generally are effective, but they encounter some problems in com-
munications regarding the admission of students with delinquent behavior
backgrounds .

The disciplinary officials interviewed indicated that communications
between the office of the disciplinary officials, related university

departments, and non-university agencies are generally harmonious.

CHAPTER VI

CLASSIFICATIONS OF OFFICIAL DISCIPLIUARX ACTIONS
-AND STUDENT DISCIPLINARY OFFENSES, AND

DESCRIPTION OF FOLLOW-UP PROGRAMS

When a student enrolls at a university, the student enters into a
moral agreement with the university that he will obey the rules and
regulations and will observe the standards expected of students by the
university. The university, as part of its agreement, agrees to furnish
the student with classrooms, professors, extra-curricular activities,
and other things necessary for a university education.

The peOple who support the institution charge the university
officials with the responsibility of keeping the student-university
.relationship in acceptable limits. When a student is reported for
violation of a national, state or university law, this report is evi-
dence that his relationship with the university is not acceptable. The
officials of the university have the responsibility of taking the initial
action to clarify the student-university relationship and to assure that

the student fulfills his obligations of the initial agreement.

Official Disciplinary Actions
At the universities surveyed, the disciplinary officials are charged
with the specific responsibility of reaffirming the agreement between the
university and the student when the student creates a disciplinary situa-

tion. The disciplinary officials employ restrictions, limitations, and

109
other administrative measures in an effort to assist the student in
complying with his obligations regarding the initial student-university
agreement. These measures normally are called disciplinary actions.

When the disciplinary officials feel that the resources of the
university have been exhausted in the effort to get a student to fulfill
his obligations of the student-university agreement and the relationship
cannot be brought back within acceptable limits, the disciplinary officials
are obligated to sever the relationship. This action normally is called
suspension. A permanent suspension normally is called

Levels of severity of disciplinary actions. Data in Tables VI

 

through XI were compiled in an effort to summarize the disciplinary
actions employed by the ten universities investigated. The data are
presented according to the level of severity of the disciplinary action,
as indicated by the head disciplinary official at each university.

Disciplinary actions normally employed by head disciplinary officials,
administrative or faculty disciplinary committees are listed in Tables VI
through IX. Disciplinary actions which are employed by student judiciary
committees are listed in Tables X and XI, with the disciplinary actions
in Table XI employed entirely for women students.

Tables VI through XI present information in an identical manner as
follows:

The first column indicates the disciplinary action.

The second column indicates the official or committee with authority
.to execute this disciplinary action.

The third column describes the principal provisions of the disciplinary
action.

The fourth column indicates the method of terminating the action.

llO

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Page 3 Human? no: he: Hangman unwashem pnouwmohm 33.2me h.
9999” on damage 90: km: cofimgg pagom ogpgoo 530mm :3”ng H
Sam.“ on meQQmewpon he: Hangman goofing 3539..“ mo amen Hdmmflsmfim m
goon op Hmong pom has comdeoonm puma—«Ema pnoofimohm 83ng 6
Spam op damage pod be: 53.93 #85353 oomph—EH. mo gom :0.“ng m
tampon on demand pod E nounmfizvnm vamqmfimm nnnnn mepmam nowmgmonm m
pcoofimmnm
Span op demand won .3: 8dean saga ooppflsnoo Avgowm 53.3an 9
Sum.“ op Human? son he: nosed—E pamgom anon 3.533 moflmgmunm 0
$3280 323m
Sag op damage has Hammfisman wagon“ pcmgmohm oofiw @3ng m.
Page.“ op gamma won an: "8.“ng wagon 953mg noamdaxm a.
zoflbd mo 2894359 20Hao< ho mzo BHPQE 295 Mm 205.3. 35.5399 Man—”EH2:

 

 

 

 

ZOHBod EZHHHHOmHQ mo g..." Bah

H> mafia

 

lll

 

.aoo Efiafiomfi

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$2.803 Hanofiom 955 mo 8th 33me ......... :opmfiomsm a
3833 mo 58
EEBfi ficomumm ofip .8 ooflom 33mg ooppdfioo 338m nopaamam H
Soon 9 $262 8322 2.3 Ho oofloo Bpfimoo 3833 no 53 coagmusm m
2.38 3 3:328 no 95 .«a €23 3388 $533 .3 50o :omeomsm o
. Wampwm wmmsmmm mompmna ........ ‘.
soughopfi Homogmm ooppgoo hpdpodm
5.38 B 3:33..“ 25.» .3 venom 33mg gigs Bazofi nopgmupm m
no 53 3 3268 83H; .8 figmoufi mmcmompm mo..qmmm upmn¢
. Jamamumpm modmmm
memqu Hwaomnom 05p Mo ooflom opfifiuoocH cusps mo noon nopmdommzm a
no: no noon
gown op @268 832: 2n» «0 82mm 33me 8338 328m @3263 o
93pm.” op pmoodmn coppwnz nopmcommsm pamcdahom ooppHEEoo hpgowm cowmnomgm o
gpmu op pmoddoy :oppwnz Qfip mo ooflnom opgwoofiu pnooamohm 03$ nowmnommsm m
gown 3 p832 8323 95» mo 82%. 33.33 389$ Mo 58 SpEMmmpm a
11...“? . I
2892. mo 202559 2022 .8 szmEomm mom: E on904 Egafizo
I Efipfloflo l

 

 

ZOHBU4. EZHHmHomHQ .mo Ema 9209mm

 

HH> mama.

 

 

 

112

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

smfibnmpna Hmcomnom hoaomqsoo hnmnwamaoman noaomnboo doapwnoum huwcammaomfla a
on hafiofiuoflmm mfiogmm gafiofln .
smabhmPQH chomhmm mowgfibavom HdeloH30Iwhvxo oz omppHano huasowm abapmnOHm hwwcaamaomfln H
pmflhomnmhp no unvnm no o>apmnpmfinfian<
Azmwbhopnw Huqomnmm HwfiOflmmo mpqouzpm no amen mafiprOHm waowmmo m
. ho humnaanaomwm‘omImpnommm
pmmnwma noppfihz. mason campnmo pd umaoahpmmm
pnoaHH0hnm prov mummmcwnp pawnspm cm3b3_wo swam noapwnonm sumnflamfiomwn c
How pommmm :H hHHQSnD HM wmahomqwhy no mumnm I I I I mum MOIcmmm
qwmm ofiemwmowlmmmmmz IIIIIIIIII
mHHm Hwapnmvamcoo no Umvhoomm upcovspm Mo :won
83333 03833 mg: H83 3593 5mm .32. aofianofi Efiafiofin m
- -mmqmnmpm moummm
w m ow o .
swabhmpaa Hanomnmm in :Huwmwm mmnpnwvaz;ammbm.m0Iqmmm n9mmM. :oapwnonm humnfiamaomfin m
n.9whpmawmh no hypnm qmz mo nmon .pmmd
Hmbbewn pom :oapapmm meanhmz. moppfleaoo maazowh :oawaOHmINwwnHHmHomwn a
833.553 03.2824 mofififlom mmfigoo 338m 8329a Efiaflofin o
awasoagnaonnpxm 02 I mammIomeman¢
abapmcaenmp oapmsogsd hoabmnmn no vaom vnmcfimmnm mofip nowpwnohm hudcflamaomwn .m
xwmxo>mu pmanmm oasd
mmfipfl>flpow
$8va 85.23 33350.23 02 3833 Ho Emma 83380“ hmfiaflofin .«
pmwhomnwnp no Mupcm
ZOHBQa mo ZOHB¢ZHzmma 20Hao¢_mo mZOHmeomm 2cmz.wm 20Hao¢IHm¢2HgmHoqu MHHmmwbH

 

 

 

 

 

ZOHBU¢ HMdZHAMHomHm ho gabmq QmHmB

HHHP mqmda

 

113

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Eggs.“ Hanomumm mmmogfinm 90.33900 Efiamaomwn wowmgg h.
mo :OHpOanmom IIIIIIIIIIIII no medpoanpmmm
«pawnspm no anon
smfibhmpqa Hanomuom mcwcnmz. mmvgaesco mpwnwnpmdqfiau4 unuafimmum mo nmppoq H
3mfi>hmpqfl quomnmm uonunoo manuamvoow mo amsbz.mo anon noaemnoam Hmcomnom m
£88023 chomnom I I I I I I I mow WOIqmom
pompcoo chomnom mmapfibapoa nmab3.mo camn ncwuwnonm @5090 o
96% Mo 3380 IIIIIII mom mo Inmom
..... mmgmumpm modmom
ocoz cwmv oflemumom npnwunpm mo cwmm .pnmd 06690 oflsmuwud h
on unawpwucoéooom IIIIIIIIIIIII mo wagon
I .mpnouspm mo mama
onoz mcagnmz. cmen3.mo madam .pmm4 wcwcnu2.hwwqaamaomflm m
. cm: «0 mammn .pmm¢ ,
982 Wfifimz mdmfiofimmo 059393qu vgmmm no 9393 a
83.258 333m
oqam mo pqmexwm omcmmmo camaoomm mmmppfiesoo pcmuSPm macaw huwponozn 0
you mafia mpwqamon .
maoz ‘fiwauhuas anovwmmum oofi> vcmewhmum mo umppmg m
pmmsvon :mppwhz msgamo op Umpofihpmmm amzv you mpcmuapm nowpwnonm Hwfioom d
. maze: mo cwon .pmmm
dauphmo pa vapofihvmom I I qumunpm no smog
2033. mo 23% 20:3 mo 943895 225 Mm 202.04 MESH—Moan EH 2.5 . _.

 

 

ZOHBQd_HMd2HQmHomHn ho QH>MH_mHMDOh

NH mqm<a

 

 

ocoz

 

 

 

 

 

0:62
mnoz mnanhmz. cmeoz.mo mama .ocmsanmom
£02 Ho «33
0:02
282 wfifias 3.3 3.30 cgamm
3333 35.52
swabhmpnw annomhmm mcowpoaupmmh Huaowhmm mowpvfiesbo pcmcspm mQOflpoanpmmm

3.3 oofifimom

 

32 no 385m

mafia:
mocmvammh scam Hammfismfin

"""""" I)"

macaw hudpwcuz

83358 3533

833on
«Sun 383 8m

 

ocoz

wnannmz.

833:8 3833

39.393 3330

 

93.... mo 385m

ooppflEEoo
B 85533 3E

momppfisaco pamuspm

mocam humpmaoz

 

vacuumn cmppwhz.

hpfimnmbfln: dew pcmufipm
sunspon pusuqoo manwpmmOOd
mo pnmsmoamm anomasgaco

 

8: .3“ 3833
no 3.3 3 .334

upcodapm mo mama

 

833801.335:

 

 

ZOHHud ho ZOHHdZHzmMB

 

 

20H904_h0 mZOHmeomm *

zcmz.wm Aw

ZOHBud HMdZHAmHQMHQ

 

NEH

 

20H904.HMd2quHomHn ha am>mqflmhhHh

unmqmdy

 

115

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0002 H.
0002 H
0002 00.00003 00003 .00 0000 00.00.000.000 0000000 2
000000.300» 03000000 0003 0.000000 000302000 200.00.00.00 0. 00003 00.300.00m 0030000000 0 -
000000 000 H000 0000
003050000 0.3000004. 00030000000 000300000 000000000 0.00003 000000.000 0030000000 0
000000 00.0 00000000
0030000000. 03000000 000.000.000.000 000300080 000000000 0.00003 00300000 0030000000 0
000000 000 H000 000m 0
0002 n
0030000000. 03000000 3&0 .00 00m0000 #003 000300000 200000000 0 .0000? 00.00.00.000 02003 0
00030000000 IIIIIIIIII
000000 00.0 H000000m 05000000
00.300.20.000. 03.000000 00030000000 000300000 000000000 0.00003 05000000 m
. 009000 0000 4.0000000
0003000 0000.003 00030000000 000.000.0000 200000002. 0.00003 000000000 0
009000 000 H000 000m IIIIIIIIIIIIII
0.0000000 .00 0000
205.00 mo 203025 2050.4. 00 02885000 2023 Mm 202.00 25.53an EHmfimbHé

 

 

 

 

 

maszPHm 2553 mg HHHdHQmmmm Bog Eon—”2.00 HggfiomHn

HN mama.

 

116

Comments on special disciplinary actions. Data in Tables VI through

 

XI show that great conformity exists among the universities with regard
to official disciplinary actions. There are, however, some specific
disciplinary actions that warrant special comment.

Universities C and J have two types of suspensions. One is for a
definite period of time, which is specified at the time of the suspension,
and the other is for an indefinite period.

At University D, suspension is an action used to withhold a student
temporarily from the university until the student can appear before the
faculty committee on discipline.

Universities A.and F are the only universities surveyed that have
two types of disciplinary probation: strict disciplinary probation and
regular disciplinary probation. Identical terms are used at both institu-
tions to designate these probations.

University C is the only university studied that employs a work
probation. This probation requires the student to work for a Specific
length of time on a designated job.

Personal and campus restrictive probations for men students are
employed at two of the universities. This restrictive type of probation
requires the student to report to his room at specified hours. Although
employed for women students at all the universities, the restrictive type
of probation is used for men students at Universities A and H only.

Universities B and C employ the disciplinaiy'action of monetary fines.
Most of the fines are levied by student committees.

University F is the only university studied that employs the lowering

of academic grades as a disciplinary measure.

117

Estimates of effectiveness of official disciplinary actions. This

 

table indicates the estimated percentage of effectiveness of the discipli-
nary actions employed by the institutions surveyed. The estimates of the
disciplinary officials are measures of the versatility of the actions in
their entirety rather than of the effectiveness of any one disciplinary

action.

 

TABLE XII

ESTIMATED PERCENTAGE OF EFFECTIVENESS OF
OFFICIAL DISCIPLINAR’ ACTIONS

 

UNIVERSITY 1075 20:2: 30% 1.0% 5034 60% £7053 80% 90:5 100%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A X.....X

B X

C X

D X

E X

F 0

G ' X.....X
i H X

I 0

J X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Disciplinary officials at Universities F and I did not estimate
the effectiveness of the disciplinary actions employed at their insti-
tutions.

The head disciplinary officials agreed that the disciplinary actions

employed at their institutions are well-defined and varied enough to cover

the range and diversity of student disciplinary offenses.

118

Classification of disciplinary offenses according to severity.

 

Disciplinary officials evaluate each student disciplinary situation on
its own merits, giving special consideration to individuality and other
variables before a course of action is taken. An effort was made, how-
ever, to obtain from each university the level of seriousness attached
to specific categories of student offenses rather than to individual
disciplinary situations.

Each head disciplinary official was asked to rate a list of offenses
according to the level of seriousness attached to the particular offense.
Sixty-five offenses were divided into twenty categories. Under each
category, specific offenses listed covered most student offenses in that
area. Additional student offenses particular to their institutions were
added to the master list by disciplinary officials at several institutions.

A summary of the rating of the student offenses indicates that the
disciplinary officials are in major agreement on the level of seriousness
attached to the following categories: poor citizenship, disorderly
conduct, conduct minor, financial irregularities, theft and burglary,
and infractions of social rules. Considerable variance is indicated in
the categories of illegal use of alcohol, illegal use of cars, explosives,
fires, false identification, and destruction of property. Because of the
extensiveness of the list, a summary of the classified disciplinary

offenses is included in Appendix B.

119
The Follow-Up Program

An effort was made to collect data concerning three aspects of the
follow-up program concerning probational students: (1) follow-up during
the period of time the student is under disciplinary action, (2) follow-
up after the disciplinary action is terminated and while the student is
still enrolled at the university, and (3) follov-up after the student is
graduated or drop outs of the university.

A few of the institutions studied compel the student to report to a
disciplinary'official for counseling at regular intervals during the
probational period.

Many of the universities surveyed make it mandatory that the student
appear personally to terminate his restrictive status. Other institutions
demand that the student write a letter requesting termination of his pro-
bational status. Several of the institutions employ both the written
request and personal interview methods of terminating probational status.

None of the institutions investigated has established a formalized
program to follow-up students who are or have been on a probational status.

The matter of a follow-up program brought sharp disagreement among
the disciplinary officials interviewed. Some of the disciplinary officials
indicated that follow-up programs of any nature were very unimportant,
while other disciplinary officials indicated that the disciplinary program
is not complete without some system of follow-up regarding students who

have created disciplinary situations.

120

Estimates of effectiveness of the follow-up program. Disciplinary
officials were interviewed in an effort to obtain data regarding the

effectiveness of the follow-up aspects of the disciplinary program. The

estimates of the disciplinary officials are listed in the following

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

table.
TABLE XIII
ESTIMATED PER ENTAGE 0F EFFECTIVENESS OF THE FOLLON;UP
ASPECT OF THE DISCIPLINARY PROGRAM

UNIVERSITY 10% 20% 30% h0% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

A X

B X......X

c X......X

D X

E

F

G

H

I X.....X

J X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

At Universities E, F, G, and H the disciplinary officials felt that
the follow-up aspect of the disciplinary program was relatively unimportant
and did not estimate the effectiveness of the follow-up regarding pro-
bational students.

Disciplinary officials at the other six institutions indicated that
they were not satisfied with their existing follow-up programs and plan

to further strengthen this aspect of the disciplinary program.

121
Summary

By virtue of his enrollment, the student enters into a moral agree-
ment with the university that he will obey the rules and regulations and
will observe the standards expected of students by the university.

The disciplinary officials are agreed that this is a reciprocal
agreement and that the obligations of the agreement are binding on both
the student and the university. They further agree that when the student
violates his part of the agreement the university officials have the
responsibility of taking the initiative in bringing this student;
university agreement back within acceptable limits.

The officials surveyed indicated that disciplinary action is one
of the best developed aspects of the diSciplinary program.

The disciplinary officials further agree that the actions are
mostly preventive in nature and should be enforced for the welfare of
the individual as well as of the university.

Most of the disciplinary actions are for an indefinite period of
time, and the student must take the initiative to terminate the disci-
plinary action. It was felt that termination is a good method of
reviewing the student's disciplinary situation and verifying any change
of attitude.

Most of the disciplinary actions imposed by student judiciary
committees are for a definite period of time, and the action is auto-
matically terminated at a specified time. In addition, the penalties
imposed by student committees at most of the institutions investigated

are fixed penalties for specific disciplinary offenses.

122

The classifications of disciplinary action indicate considerable
conformity in types of disciplinary actions employed by the institutions
surveyed. However, special disciplinary actions at Universities B, C,

D, and F are not used by the other institutions studied. Another
deviation is that Universities A and H employ personal and campus
restrictive probations for men students.

A list of student offenses was employed to obtain the level of
seriousness that each university attached to specific categories of
student disciplinary offenses. The list included twenty categories.
Sixty-five offenses were on the original list, and thirty-five student
disciplinary offenses were added by disciplinary officials at several
institutions.

No formalized program of follow-up with respect to probational
students has been established at any of the universities studied. Follow-
up is informal only and is conducted solely during the student's enroll-
ment at the university.

The disciplinary officials are not agreed on the importance of the
follow-up aspect of the disciplinary program. Some indicated a definite
preference for a formalized system of follow-up for probational students,
while other disciplinary officials felt that this aspect of the disciplinary

program was relatively unimportant.

CHAPTER VII

UNIVERSITY RECOdDS AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP

TO DISCIPLINARY PROGEAHS

The purpose of this chapter is to present: (1) the system of
student records employed by the universities to record information
of a permanent nature, and (2) the system of student records of a
non-permanent nature employed by university officials and student
judiciary committees to facilitate guidance and communications
regarding students who create disciplinary situations.

Student records fulfill definite functions in the operation of
an effective personnel program at all institutions of higher education.
Wrcnn (h0:h36) indicated that student personnel records have two major
functions. One is the utilization of the information on the records
in individualizing personnel services for each student. Secondly, it
is deemed good personnel administration to provide a systematized
recording of facts and other information that will provide an accurate
record of the student's relationship with the university. The student
personnel officials interviewed agreed that these data should accurately
reflect the student's conduct at the university but felt that a majority
of student records do not fulfill this function.

A major problem confronting student personnel officials at the
universities studied is lack of money for improving record systems; they

have not been able to convince administrations that the record systems

12h
need improvement. The disciplinary officials observed that students,
parents, and higher administrative officials do not consider an inadequate
record system as a sensitive problem area of the student personnel program.

Three types of permanent records have been established at the ten
universities to record the progress or lack of progress of students:

The official record, generally known as the scholastic transcript,
is maintained by the office of the registrar and is used primarily to
record the student's scholastic progress.

The second type of record is maintained by the staff of the academic
colleges for each student enrolled in the particular academic area. These
records of the academic colleges are used by the staff of the student's
academic dean to facilitate an accurate check on the student's academic
and non-academic progress.

The third type of record, generally known as the student personnel
record, is maintained by the staff of the head personnel official. The
primary purpose of these records is to record important information re-
garding the student's non-academic relationship with the university.

These records are used by the personnel officials for a number of reasons
while the student is enrolled, such as recording loans, scholarships,
disciplinary action taken against the student, etc. After the student
leaves the university, this information usually is condensed and filed as
a permanent record.

.A conflict within the personnel area concerns the centralized filing
system.versus the decentralized filing system. Many personnel officials

feel that, although the centralized filing system helps to solve the

125
problem of labor to maintain the records, confidentialness and individuality
are sacrificed when the individual personnel records are not retained in
the office of the student personnel official. Two of the universities
studied have centralized filing systems in the student personnel program,
and the non-academic records and official transcripts are maintained by
the registrar's office. Several institutions have modified forms of the

centralized filing system of student personnel records.

Permanent Student Personnel Records
Disciplinary actions are only a part of the information recorded on
permanent personnel records. None of the institutions surveyed have per-
manent disciplinary records per se; disciplinary information is recorded
on the student's permanent personnel record.

Disciplinary actions recorded on the official transcript. The ten

 

universities investigated record disciplinary actions on the official
transcript. The disciplinary actions recorded as well as the provisions
governing the time they are to remain on the official transcript vary
considerably at these institutions.

Five of the universities record disciplinary probations, suspensions,
and expulsions on the official transcript. Two of the institutions record
only suspensions and expulsions on the official transcript; less severe
disciplinary actions are recorded on the personnel record of the student.
One institution reCords only expulsion on the official transcript of the
student. Another institution pencils in disciplinary actions on the
official transcript; if a student is dismissed from the university, however,

the dismissal is recorded permanently on the record.

126
If a student has not been involved in extensive difficulty during
his enrollment, disciplinary actions at most of the universities surveyed
are removed from the official transcript when the student is graduated
from the university. Borderline cases are left to the discretion of the
head personnel official.

Standards for determining information to be recorded on permanent

 

ersonnel records. In addition to disci linar" information recorded on
J

 

the official transcript in the registrar's office, much information is
usually accumulated during the student's enrollment that is recorded

and maintained within the student personnel program. ‘When a student is
separated from the university by graduation or drop-out, this information
is condensed and filed as a part of the student's permanent personnel
record.

The standards regarding the selection of information to be recorded
on permanent personnel records vary from institution to institution.
Several universities indicated that all significant information regarding
the student's behavior is recorded on the permanent personnel record.
Other universities record only official disciplinary actions taken against
the student, thus omitting 81y subjective information by disciplinary
officials.

Considerable variation regarding the number of disciplinary or
personnel officials who have the authority to record information on the
student's permanent personnel record was observed at the universities
surveyed. Staff officials are consulted at most of the institutions

whenever questions arise regarding the recording f disciplinary information,

127
but the routine recording of information on permanent records is performed
by the clerical staff. At one university, eleven persons have the au-
thority to record information on the student's permanent personnel record.
At other institutions, only one or two people have the authority to desig-
nate information to be recorded.

In general, few written criteria for the selection of material to be
recorded on the student's permanent personnel record are available at the
ten universities studied. Tradition and the judgments of the head personnel
and head disciplinary officials usually determine what information is re-
corded. This tends to create inconsistencies in the system of permanent
personnel records.

Standards for dissemination of information from permanent personnel

 

records. At most of the institutions, the clerical staff disperses infor-

.—

 

mation from the student's record when there is no derogatory information
regarding the student. hnenever there is derogatory information on the
record, only designated personnel officials have the authority to dissem-
inate it.

At most of the institutions studied, the disciplinary officials and
head personnel officials are the only staff members who have the authority
to discuss the disciplinary aspect of the student's record with employers,
government agencies, etc. The disciplinary officials indicated that more
information regarding the student's relationship with the university is
furnished to the armed forces and government agencies than to other sources.

The disciplinary officials further stated that they not only COOperate

128
fully with government agents but also assist them in extensive probing
regarding the student's disciplinary offenses. Three of the institutions
indicated that the Federal Bureau of Investigation and other government
agencies may examine the student's permanent record, but this privilege
is not extended to other agencies or companies.

At one university, disciplinary information cannot be divulged to
employers unless the employer has acquired written permission from the
former student. At a few of the institutions, the dissemination of
information depends on the individual behavior problem being investigated;
therefore, special types of disciplinary offenses are not discussed with
non-university persons.

Accessibility of records. Policies governing the standards for

 

disseminating disciplinary information about students as well as other
policies related to permanent personnel records are relatively consistent
within each university. The confidentialness of the disciplinary aspect
of the personnel record depends on the basic policies formulated and
interpreted by the head personnel official.

All clerical staff directly connected with the disciplinary official's
office as well as the clerical staff of the head personnel official's
office have access to the disciplinary information recorded on the student's
permanent personnel record. The number of staff members who have access
to the disciplinary records varies from two staff members at one university
to all administrative officials at other universities.

Faculty members at a few universities may examine personnel records
if they have a valid reason, which is usually determined by the head

personnel official.

129

Estimates of effectiveness of permanent student personnel records.

 

An effort was made at each university to determine the effectiveness of
each aspect of the student disciplinary program. Table XIV presents the
estimated percentage of effectiveness of the permanent system of records
[employed by each university. It should be emphasized that the percentages
recorded are estimates made by the disciplinary officials at the time

this survey was conducted and that any change in personnel or personnel

policy regarding student records would materially affect the estimates.

 

TABLE XIV

ESTIMATED PERCENTAGE 0? Eli MEG IVEIESS 0F
PZILAJLNT STUDENT P450 1 IE; I CORDS

 

UNIVERSITY 10% 20% 30% h0% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

 

 

 

 

A X
B X
C X... COX

 

U
N

 

tii
>4

 

'71
>4

 

 

 

G X... ..X
H X
I Xoooboox

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

J ' _ X...L..X

 

 

 

 

.‘VAAO'

sac-o-

oopqc~

 

.-_..._.,“ _,‘. , ._

_. w-divw- -. v W

130
hon-Permanent Disciplinary Records
This section describes these records in the disciplinary program
that are considered non-permanent. Information from these non-permanent
records of the disciplinary program might be channeled to and become a
1
part of one or all three types of permanent records previously mentioned.
Accurate records by student committees, living units, Interfraternity
Council, and Pan-hellenic assist in the general administration of the
student personnel program. In addition, these records furnish a basis
for assisting individual students in need of guidance. Several discipli-
nary fficials emphasized that these records facilitate more effective
communications regarding students who create disciplinary situations.
Coordination of non-permanent recOrds with the central system of
personnel records has proved a difficu t task. Many officials stated
that no definite policies have been established concerning the disposi-
tion of non-permanent student disciplinary records. At some of the
universities, the non-permanent records are compiled and kept in a con-
densed form but have little future use.

Student committees. The records concerning disciplinary matters of

 

a non—permanent nature in living units depend on the tjpe and the amount

of judicial worx performed by the student committees operating in the
particular living unit. Interest of the student personnel officials in

(‘i

part or self-government in the

—J

providing judiciary committees as a
residence halls has been a great help in providing complete student

records in this area.

 

Supra., p. 12h

131

Student judiciary committees at most of the universities studied
notify the head disciplinary official of all action taken against students
in the living units. The disciplinary actions then become a part of the
student's personnel record. At some of the universities, judiciary
records of the living units are destroyed at the end of the year. At
other institutions, the records are sent directly to the head disciplinary
official or to the staff member responsible for the particular living
unit.

Fraternities and sororities do not have elaborate record systems
since none of the judiciary systems of these organizations have the
authority to handle individual disciplinary cases at the universities
studied. The disciplinary records of these organizations are concerned
with group infractions and, in most instances, are turned over to the
head personnel official immediately after disposition of the violation.

The disciplinary officials indicated that most of the women's living
units have excellent disciplinary record systems.

Housing office. Many of the institutions surveyed house a large

 

percentage of students in private homes off-campus. Communications
between the landlord and the university are usually channeled through
a central agency. The housing office, as this central agency is commonly
called, receives complaints regarding student behavior in off-campus
housing.

The housing office at a few of the institutions is within the
office of the head personnel or head disciplinary official; therefore,

a separate system of records is not necessary. At other universities,

132
the housing office is separate and housing directors do not have access
to personnel records; this separation necessitates a system of records
that enables the housing director to process complaints regarding students
in off-campus hous‘-g. The system usually is very informal, and the
information is recorded temporarily until an investigation of the diffi-
culty can be made and the situation referred to the disciplinary officials.
At most institutions, the record of each student is destroyed after final
disposition has been rendered by the disciplinary officials or the relation-
ship between the student and the landlord is again harmonious.

Other records. At those universities where the campus police depart-

 

ment has been organized as a legitimate law enforcement agency, the records
are subject to specific standards of law.

A few of the universities do not have an official police department
but employ persons who perform the protection and security function by
informal methods. Records maintained by these groups are usually of an
informal and non-permanent nature and are referred to an administrative
official for inclusion on the student's personnel record or the permanent
administrative file.

Many of the records maintained by academic schools are non-permanent,
and only the student's academic record is retained as permanent at several
of the universities. It is assumed by the academic deans that information
concerning the non—academic record of the student's relationship with the

university is adequately recorded in other offices.

133

Estimates of effectiveness of non—permanent student personnel

 

records. Table XV presents the percentage of effectiveness of the non-
permanent system of student records employed at each university. It
should be emphasized that the percentages indicated are estimates by
the disciplinary officials at the time this survey was conducted and
that any change in personnel or personnel policy regarding student

personnel records would materially affect the estimates.

 

TABLE XV

ESTIMATED PERCENTAGE OF EFFECTIVENESS 0F
NON-PERMANENT STUDENT PERSONNEL RECORDS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

UNIVERSITY 10% 20% 30% h0% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
A X
B X
C X
D X......X
E X
F X
G X.....X
H X
I X......X
J X......X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

13h
Summary

Three types of permanent records have been established at the
universities surveyed: (1) official record, commonly known as the
transcript, which is maintained by the registrar's office; (2) records
maintained by the office of the student's academic dean; and (3) non-
academic records maintained by the personnel officials.

Most universities record suspension, expulsion, and disciplinary
probation on the official transcript in the registrar's office but
permit this information to be removed from the student's record when
the student is graduated from the university.

The criteria for recording information concerning disciplinary
actions taken against students are verbal, and only at a few of the
institutions are the criteria in writing. These criteria as well as
policies governing the dissemination of disciplinary information from
the records usually are formulated by the head personnel official.

The policies that determine what officials may examine student
records containing disciplinary information vary considerably among
the universities. Some universities allow faculty members, representa-
tives of government agencies, and staff members to examine the records.
Other universities insist that the information on the record should be
interpreted by a staff member and generally allow only immediate staff
members and clerical help to have access to the records.

Disciplinary and personnel officials are not agreed as to the
better system of student personnel records - centralized or decentralized.
lWo of the universities maintain a centralized system of student personnel
records; several other institutions employ modified forms of the centra-

lized filing system.

135

In general, student disciplinary committees connected with student
government and women's self-government association keep excellent records
regarding disciplinary situations handled by these committees during the
school year. The records are destroyed after the essential information
on each case is sent to the personnel office to become a part of the
student's permanent personnel record. The summary of the committee's
work is bound or filed by year, which constitutes the permanent records
of these committees. Usually the more authority designated to student
disciplinary committees, the more complete are their disciplinary records.

Officials of the housing office investigate off-campus disciplinary
situations at most of the institutions and report the situation to the
disciplinary officials by telephone or in some other informal manner;
therefore, they maintain a very limited record system concerning student
disciplinary problems.

Academic colleges with much autonomy were found to maintain more
complete systems of student records than academic colleges with little
authority for the supervision of their students' activities. The academic
colleges with much autonomy usually extend their record systems to cover
scholastic information as well as any relationship which the student might
have with the university.

Some of the universities maintain personnel folders only on those
students who have created disciplinary situations.

The disciplinary officials are fully agreed that the record.system
is one of the least satisfactory aspects of the student disciplinary
program. They further agree that lack of time, Space, personnel, and
adequate processes for compiling information are the major handicaps which

prevent the establishment of adequate record systems.

Ch} TER VIII

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Statement of the problem. It was the purpose of this investigation:

 

(l) to study the organization, administration, and operation of student
disciplinary programs in selected Uidwestern universities; (2) to compare
these programs; (3) to identify those procedures that appeared to be
educationally sound and functionally effective; and (h) to recommend
these procedures that appeared to be worthwhile and desirable.

Importance of the problem. Many educators predict that in the

 

D

ensuing ten years the umber oi persons to enroll in institutions of
higher education will reach new heights. This indicates a growing
demand by society for the type of training provided by institutions of
higher learning.

Since about 1933, much has been written about the personnel services
that existed at universities and colleges. Little has been written,
however, directLy on student disciplinary programs; hence, most of the
eneral field is concerned with a specific

published literature in this

ar-
C.)
’

academic area such as counseling, psychology, social work, etc. This
lack of specific research concerning student disciplinary programs in
their entireties has forced disciplinary officials to extract contribu-
tions from the different academic disciplines and apply these to their
own disciplinary program. This study was designed to provide information

concerning student disciplinary progrmns in their entireties which would

give disciplinary officials a basis for comparing the disciplinary program

of their institution with those in this study.

13?

Methodology. A quantitative and qualitative study of the student

 

disciplinary programs was conducted at ten selected universities. The
specific methodology employed in this study was: (I) structured inter-
view employing an interview outline; (2) direct observation; (3) discus-
ions with supervisory personnel of residence halls, campus polio
departments, counseling centers, teaching personnel, and students; (h)
examination of catalogues and other printed material; and (5) check list
of student disciplinary offenses.

An interview outline was prepared and submitted for suggestions and
criticisms to members of the Guidance and Social Science Research Com-
mittees. At the l9Sh convention of the National Association of Student
Personnel Administrators, a representative of each university selected
was personally contacted for permission to make a study of the student
disciplinary program at his institution. In the Spring of lQSh, a letter
was sent to each representative arranging a definite visitation schedule.
Each institution was visited; personnel and disciplinary officials were
interviewed.

Comparable educational programs and.similar geographical locations
were major factors in the selection of the ten universities for study.
These institutions also are governed by the same rules and regulations
regarding eligibility in athletic contests and various other areas of
activity. Similarity of the selected universities lends itself to

comparable disciplinary programs that can be readily evaluated.

138
Summary and Conclusions
Through personal visitation of each university and extended interviews
with the p rsonnel and disciplinary officials, facts and opinions were
collected regarding the organization and operation of the student discipli-
nary programs. A summary of the general findings and conclusions follows.

Summary of the student lisciplinary programs. Each head disciplinary

 

official was asxed the question: "Uhat changes would you make in your
A. . 0 up w "1
student uiSCiplinary program ii you had the complete freedom to do so?

University A. The head disciplinary official at this university

 

stated that he would include a disciplinary committee in the program.

University B. It was indicated by the head disciplinary official

 

that he would add a Security Officer to the student disciplinary program.

Universit* C. The head disciplinar? official stated that he would
.L

 

implement the following changes: (1) require all students to live in
approved housing, (2) establish a system of centralized personnel records,
(3) place adult supervision in fraternities, (h) emphasize through orienta-
tion to the student the risk of receiving a civil conviction in court,

(5) emphasize more comprehensive orientation concerning academic cheating,
and (6) delegate final authority in the student disciplinary program to

students.

University D. The head personnel official indicated that he favored

 

the establishment of a system of identification cards for students. He
also indicated that he favored a merger of the physical and security

offices.

 

l . . . ..
This question is on base 178, Appendix A.

A. U

139

University E. The men officials at this university recommended no

 

changes, but the head disciplinary official for women indicated that she
favored the operation of the women’s residence halls by the Dean of women's
office.

University F. The officials at this institution indicated a strong

 

preference for the establishment of a centralized system of records at all
levels of operation in the personnel program.

University G. The head disciplinary official indicated a desire for

 

more extensive orientation to new students regarding moral issues involved
in student life.

University H. The head disciplinary official expressed a desire to

 

create an atmosphere that would stimulate faculty and student cooperation
in the disciplinary program, especially in cases where the student infringes
on the rights of the group and the group, in turn, protects the individual.
Another preference was for more specific regulations regarding students

who reside off-campus, particularly in fraternities.

University I. The officials at this university expressed preference

 

for: (l) the establishment of a more effective follow-up program of students
who are on probational status, (2) greater uniformity and coordination to
prevent classroom dishonesty, and (3) additional training for disciplinary
committees.

University J. The head disciplinary official felt that increased

 

attention should be directed to the rehabilitative process for students

who create disciplinary situations. He further indicated that the standards

lho
in this area are uncertain and need validation. A second recommendation
by this official concerned the prevention of faculty members projecting
their own adolescent behavior to the student.

Another question asked was: "What steps could be taken by the
schools of the'Hestern.Conference to mutually aid in raising the level
of effectiveness of the student disciplinary programs?"2

The responses were based on the possibility of an annual meeting of
the disciplinary officials for the primary purpose of discussing student
disciplinary problems.

University A. The head disciplinary official at this institution

 

felt that very little could be accomplished by a meeting of this type.

University B. The head disciplinary official felt that such a

 

meeting would be worthwhile and would be a means of solving the important
problem of using uniform classifications of disciplinary penalties for
entry on permanent personnel record cards.

University C. The disciplinary official at this university indicated

 

that an annual meeting would be instrumental in the formulation of a
stylebook for the disciplinary prograns of the ten universities.

University D. The disciplinary official felt that a meeting of this

 

type would be of some benefit but made no comment about special tepics
that could be considered at the meeting.

University E. No comments were offered by the disciplinary officials

 

at this university.

2
This question is on page 178, Appendix A.

ihl

University F. The official at this university indicated that an

 

annual meeting of the disciplinary officials would be of little assistance
in the operation of the disciplinary program.

University G. The head disciplinary official indicated that such

 

an annual meeting would be of benefit and that special consideration
should be given to an exchange of ideas on basic student disciplinary
problems and philosophy of the moral issues of student life.

Universi y H. The head disciplinary official indicated a desire

 

for an annual meeting of the disciplinary officials to exchange ideas
about specific student disciplinary problems. It was also recommended
by this official that the ten universities establish student inter-
visitation to study student disciplinary problems.

University I. The officials of this university indicated a preference

 

for an annual meeting f the disciplinary officials, with special emphasis
on the case study approach.

University J. The head disciplinary official expressed a desire for'

 

an annual meeting to accomplish the following: (1) determine the level
of seriousness of academic cheating, (2) define specific standards of
conduct, (3) evaluate the disciplinary programs, emphasizing the weaknesses
of the programs. It was stressed by this official that research concerning
students who create disciplinary situations should be rotated to other
disciplinary officials of the ten universities.

Estimates of effectiveness of the total student disciplinary program.
Table XVI presents the percentage of effectiveness of the total disciplinary

program employed at each university. It should be emphasized that the

lh2
percentages indicated are estimates by the disciplinary officials and that
any change in personnel or personnel policy regarding the total student

disciplinary program would materially affect the estimates.

 

TABLE XVI

LSTILATZD PLUG: 4TAGE OF T-’34“IV£JBSb OF THE
TOTAL ST KIT DISC IPLIHARY P.0ui.

 

HIV'“"I"Y 103 20% 30$ h0% 50% 60% 70$ 80% 90% lOO%

 

 

 

 

A X

B X
C a

D X

 

F]
N

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

F K

G X
H X
I X
J u 1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

do

s

At UniverSities C and J, the diSCiplinary offiCials did not
indicate the percentage of effectiveness of the total student disciplinary
programs at their institutions.

Further summary and conclusions. M1 administrative pers nnel

 

officials interviewed are agreed that it is a sound educational principle
for the university to accept the responsibility of the full development
of each individual accepted as a student. The officials further agreed

that part of this responsibility is to prevent the violation of students'

11:3
privileges and civil rights. Each university surveyed has established
a formalized disciplinary program to fulfill this responsibility. These
programs vary from institution to institution, but it was the opinion of
the disciplinary officials that this variance was wholesome if the program
performs the functions for which it was established.

Student discipline should he considered as another personnel service
and should be given the same positive planning and encouragement by
administrators that is given to other aspects of the student personnel
progra . The disciplinary officials agreed that the same ends in other
student personnel services such as self-discipline, self-direction, etc.
are desirable in the disciplinary program. It was the opinion of the
officials interviewed that student discipline is also the resoonsibility
of the entire faculty and student body.

Nine of the universities have established committees to function in
the area of student discipline. One university has no disciplinary
committee. Three of the nine institutions have policy-making committees;
four have committees that formulate policy and also function as a judiciary
body for individual student cases; and two have committees that work with
individuals who create disciplinary situations, but they do not formulate
policy concerning the program.

Host of the living units have judiciary organizations to handle
students who create disciplinary situations in the particular living
unit. Most of the fraternities and sororities have been delegated the
authority to take disciplinary action against member organizations that
violate university social rules. Officials concluded that the best

judiciary system operated by students is the women's self-government

115

Another important aspect of the personnel as well as the disciplinary
program is t‘e moral agreement between the student and the university when
the individual is accepted as a student. The data of this study indicated
a lack of understanding and awareness on the part of the students and the
university officials regarding the full significance of this moral agree-
ment. The obligations of this agreement are the bases of many of the
policies and procedures evployed by university officials in an effort to
regulate the conduct of the student.

Each university studied has specific official disciplinary actions
that are employed by disciplinary officials to re-establish the total
student-university relationship once the student has violated his original
agreement. The survey indicated great conformity in disciplinary actions
employed by the universities to assist in regulating student conduct.

No formalized program of follow-up regarding probational students
has been established at any of the institutions studied. There was sharp
disagreement among the disciplinary officials regarding the merits of a
formalized follow-up program of probational students. Some officials
indicated a preference for a formalized follow-up program; others were
not receptive to any form of follow-up program of probational students.

Considerable concern was expressed by the disciplinary officials
regarding the system of permanent records as well as the system of non-
permanent records in the day-to-day Operation of the judiciary organiza-
tions. Very few of the universities have written criteria for recording
and interpreting disciplinary information from the records. The discipli-

nary and personnel officials were unanimously agreed that the record

1M;
association. At the institutions studied, this association has final
jurisdiction over special designated rules and regulations for women.

The investigation revealed a trend toward the sekaction of disci-
plinary officials who possess experience and professional training
similar to that required in other administrative personnel positions.
The head disciplinary officials are agreed that the most important
element in the disciplinary program is peOple; therefore, the qualifica-
tions most needed by disciplinary workers are a sincere interest in people,
adequate experience, and competent training.

Orienting new students to the rules and regulations is one of the
most important aspects of the disciplinary program. Personnel and
disciplinary officials emphasized that, regardless of the thoroughness
of the orientation, students are held responsible for observing the
standards of conduct demanded by the university. Two aSpects of orien—
tation that need considerable improvement are: orientation of new
students who reside in off-campus housing, and coordination of the
orientation program. The study revealed that the most proficient
aspect of the orientation program is performed by the women's self-
government associations.

Basic differences in philosophy between officials of different
departments and officials of the disciplinary program tend to impair
effective communications. The investigation revealed that communica-
tions between disciplinary officials and administrative officials of

other departments generally are harmonious.

1&6
system is one of the least satisfactory aspects of the student disciplinary
program. The establishment of a complete system of records is hampered
primarily by lack of time, Space, personnel, and adequate processes for

compiling information.

Recommendations

One of the purposes of this investigation was to ascertain those
student disciplinary procedures and practices that are worthwhile and
desirable. From extended interviews with the personnel and disciplinary
officials and visits to each university, several recommendations emerged.
These recommendations are divided into two categories: general recommen-
dations and suggestions for further research.

General recommendations.

 

(1) Due to the increasing significance of the student personnel
program in institutions of higher learning, the head personnel official
should be a major administrative official, preferably a Vice President.
This level of official would tend to increase the prestige of the entire
student personnel program.

(2) By active support and by stressing the importance of the
program, university officials should encourage disciplinary officials in
the intricate task they perform for the students and the university.

(3) Personnel and disciplinary officials should re-evaluate the
policies and practices of the disciplinary program in view of the total
student-university relationship.

(h) The faculty and student body should be oriented more extensively

concerning the goals of the student disciplinary program.

1h?

(5) Personnel and disciplinary'officials should adopt a program
that will assist in better selection, more effective training, and more
competent evaluation of student judiciary representatives.

(6) The values of self-government should be stressed more strongly
in an effort to improve the judiciary systems in living units.

(7) Universities should provide a program of continuous and exten-
sive orientation. Moreover, criteria should be established to determine
how much of the information presented in the orientation process is
accepted by new students.

(8) Greater consideration should be given to coordination of the
orientation program.

(9) Personnel and disciplinary officials should evaluate the system
of follow-up of probational students to determine its value to the total
disciplinary program.

(10) Further consideration should be given to the function of records
in the disciplinary program. Personnel officials recommended that written
criteria for the recording, interpretation, and accessibility of discipli-
nary information should be adopted as personnel policy. Consideration
should be devoted to better coordination of permanent and non-permanent
records in the disciplinary programs.

Suggestions for further research. It is suggested that a study of

 

the latent or informal aspects of disciplinary programs would be of value.
A study of this type would be concerned with such questions as: Do the
disciplinary committees actually have authority or do they merely function

to make students, faculty, and parents think the disciplinary programs are

1148
operated democratically? how do the various aspects of disciplinary
programs actually operate compared to how the disciplinary officials
state they operate?

This 'wvesti'ation revealed 5; JGCifiC problems in student discipli-
nary programs that might be solved if research su plied answers to the
fell cwin ng questions:

(1) What constitutes an effective personnel organisational structure
in large, medium-sized, and small universi mi 8? Ihat is the relationship
of the disciplinary aspect to the total personnel program? Uhat philoso-
phies should guide a good personnel program? The disciplinary program?
That criteria are used by officials to reorpaaize a stu1dent disc mp nary
program in conformity with the specific university philOSOphy?

(2) What are the full implications of the total student-university
relationsh p? What are the obligations of the student and the university
when the individual is accepted as a student? hnat criteria do officials
use to define the university's limits of responsibility before a student
is separated from the institution?

(3) What criteria should be used for sel mting the head disciplinary
official? The assistant disciplinary official? Uhat experience and
professional training are necessary for these positions?

(h) What is the relationship of discipline by student groups to the
educational concept of self-government? How should student judiciary
representatives be selected? How can faculty and student judiciary

workers be trained effectively? What criteria might be employed to

evaluate the effectiveness of student and faculty judiciary groups?

1A9

(5) What are the criteria for an effective and comprehensive
orientation program that would present to the new student information
necessary for him to become a full-fledged member of the university
community? {ow could the acceptance of the presented information be
measured or evaluated? What is the division of responsibility between
the university administration and the student's academic college for
the orientation of new students?

(6) What factors hinder the cooperation of faculty and students
in the student disciplinary'program? {ow could the faculty and student
climate regarding the regulation of student conduct be evaluated? What
authority in the disciplinary program should be delegated to student
committees?

(7) What are the advantages and disadvantages of a centralized
system of personnel records? 'What criteria should govern the selection
of disciplinary actions included in the student's permanent record?
What disciplinary information about present and former students should
be disseminated? To whom should this information be given?

(8) What do high administrative officials think of disciplinary
programs in relation to university philosophy? In relation to the
personnel program?

(9) What degree of influence do apathy and motivation exert with
regard to probational students? Background research on probational
students would be of value in determining their patterns of behavior.
more effective methods of solving conflicts between the individual and
the group should be formulated. Measurements might be formulated to

identify students Lao suffer from disorganized work habits, simple

150
immaturity, and other personality characteristics that hamper the
student's adjustment to college life.

The problems in the foregoing areas appear significant en01gh
to warrant further research. Officials of the disciplinary program
could make greater contributions to the university and to the general
educational develOpment of each student if provided with extensive
research in these vital areas of student personnel work.

lesearch in the area of student discipline has been presented in
fragments, with specialists stressing the importance of specific aspects
of the program. Literature in this area should be concerned with the
development of policies, practices, and procedures of the disciplinary
program in its entirety. This research Would make possible a more
realistic approach to student behavior problems and student disciplinary

programs in institutions of higher learning.

BI BLIOGPAPEX

2.

3.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

1h.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

A erican Council on Education Studies. Student Personnel Work in
the Postwar College. 'Washington, D. C.: Volume 1k, lo. 6,

April, 19h3. PP-253"65

 

 

Bailey, H. W. "Disciplinary Procedures", Encyclopedia of Educationa
Research. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1950. pp. 1330-32.

 

Baruch, D. W. New'fiays in Discipline. New York: thraw-Hill Book
Company, 19H9.

 

Bean, C. H. "The Psychology of Discipline", Educational Forum,

 

Clark, Selby G., Daryl G. Hagie, and'Wilfred M. Landrus. "Discipline
in College Residence Halls", The Personnel and Guidance Journal,
December, 1952. pp. 189-193.

 

Clark, Selby G. "Let's Make the Campus Disciplinary Program
Effective", The Personnel and Guidance Journal, March, 1955.

pp. 393-396.

 

Cowley, U. H. "Freedom and Discipline", Educational Record, Volume 25,
Jammy,l%m.

 

Cunningham, Ruth. "Group Discipline", National Association of Dean
of women Journal, 38:3h-35, October, l9h7.

 

 

Eginton, D. P. "Progressive Principles of Discipline", Clearing
House, 10:259-268, 1936.

Foley, John D. "Discipline: A Student Counseling Approach",
Educational and Psychological Measurement, Autumn, 19h7.

 

Good, Carter V., A. S. Barr, and D. E. Scates. The Methodology'of
Educational Research. New York: D. Appleton-Century, lShl.
890 pp.

 

 

Gustad, John'w. "Factors Associated with Social Behavior and
Adjustment: A Review of the Literature", Educational and

Psychological heasurement, Volume 12, No. 1, Spring, 1952.

 

 

Grusendorf, A. A. "Education and Discipline", School and Society,

57:6h-70, May, l9h3.

 

Hagen, K. H. "Do You Believe in Discipline?", National Education
Association Journal, 37:232, April, l9h8.

 

 

15.

16.

17.

22.

23.

2h.

26.

2?.

152

Hawkes, H. E. "Constructive Discipline", Association of American
Colleges Bulletin, Volume 1h, April, 1925.

 

 

Jacoby, Dean L. "Campus Judicial Systems", Bulletin of the United
States National Student Asso ociation, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,

 

 

"A Joint Recommendation of Commit ees of the American Association
of Collegiate hegistrars and Admissions Officers, American
College Personnel Association, National Association of Deans
of Women, and.National Association of Student Personnel
Adginistrators", College and University, 28: h: 565-571, July,
19 3.

 

Lloyd-Jones, Esther. "Personnel Jork and General Education",
The Fif -Eirs t Yearbook of the National Society for the Study
of Education, Part I. Chicag 30, Illinois: University of Chicago
Press, 195 . 371 pp.

 

 

Mann

 

2C. R. "Democratic Disci line" Educational Research,
3

5-124- , 19,410

McGinnis, U. C. "On Guidance, Discipline, and Growth", Journal
of Education, 131:121—122, April, 19h8.

 

ciphne',

Miner, Robert J. "The Therapeutic H: mdling of Dicc
8: 0-61, Part II,

Educational and Psychological . ea surement,
Autumn, 19h8.

UL so).
U18

 

Monroe, Hal ter S. Encyclopedia of 'ucational Research. New York:
The Machillan Company, 1950.

 

Mowrer, O. H. "Discipline and Mental Health", Harvard Ed.ucctiona1
Review, 17:28h-296, October, 19h7.

 

Mueller, Kate Hevner. "Sex Differences in Campus Regulations",
The Personnel and Guidance Journal, May, 195k. pp. 528-532.

 

National Association of Deans and Advisers of Ken. Report of the
Third National Survey of Functions of Student Administration
for Men in Colleges and Univer§s ities of the United States.

('7

ha rch, l9 ho. —hl pp.

 

 

 

 

Iational Association of Deans and Advisers of hen. Proceedings of
Thirty-Third Anniversary Conference. St. Louis, hissouri:
Washington University, 1950-1951. p. 83.

 

 

National Association of Student Personnel Administrators. Proceedings

 

 

of Thirty-FiftEI Anniversary Conference. East Lansing, Lichigan:
LlCll”an State College, 1992-1953. pp. 160-161

 

28.

30.

31.

32.

36.

37.

38.

39

hO.

bl.

153

National Association of Student Personnel Administrators. Proceedings

 

of Thirty-312mt Anniversary Conference. Roanoke, Vir'inia:
1he Hotel noanoke, 1953-195h. pp. 135-1h1.

 

Potsdam Guidance Conference. Discipline and the Guidance Progran.
Potsdam, hew York: State University 1eacners College, August,

9530 32 pp.

 

Redl, Fritz. "Discipline and Group Psychology", lition_1 Association
of Deans of women Journal, Volumes 10-11, Octooer, 947.

 

 

Sheviakov, George U., and Fritz Redl. Discipline for Today's
Children and Youth. Depa mrtnent of Supervision and 013 riculum
Development, Hational Education Association, 19“. 6h pp.

 

 

Strang, iuth. Group Activities in College andf fieconda ary School.
New York: Harper d Brothers, 19h1. pp. 38-09.

 

Tuttle, {arold S. Dynamic Psychology and Conduct. New York:
Harper & Brothers, l9h9.

 

‘Uarren, Constance. "Discipline for Democracy", Progressive
Education, 23:11hF, 19h6.

 

Williamson, E. G. Trends in Student Personnel Work. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press, 19h9. pp. 201-213.

 

Williamson, E. G., and J. D. Foley. Counseling and Discipline.
New York: HcGra I-Hill Hook Compw , 19h9.

 

Williamson, E. G., Warren Jorve, and Barbara Lagerstedt-Knudson.
"What Kinds of College Students Become Disciplinary Cases?",
Educational and Psycaolo ical H on: wa‘nent, Volume 12, Ho. b,
Winter, 1952. pp. 600-620.

 

wittenberO g, Rudolph H. T e Art of Group Discipline. New York:
Associated Pre ess, 1951.

 

wrenn, C. Gilbert. "Student Discipline in a College", Educational
and Psychological Heasurement, 9:625-33, Part II, Autumn, 19h9.

 

 

wrenn, C. Gilbert. Student Personnel work in College. New York:
flmlbmfldinsCame,1%fl. mhlflflhflh

 

Yost, Mary. "Discipline at Stanford University", National
Association of Deans of Women Jou.ma , 9:10-11, October, 19h5.

 

APPENDIX A

155

gm; 9:; mg DISCIPLINARY PROGRAMS 1y, SELECTED W

 

 

would you like a summary of this survey? Yes No

I.

(Title) (School)

 

m INSTRUCTION

This questionnaire was devised in an effort to obtain all the
aSpects of the student discipline functions at several selected
universities. Included are questions designed to obtain information
about the personnel who have the major responsibility of actively
working with those students who create disciplinary situations at
your school. .

Some of the questions can.be answered.by checking the response
you choose, others should.be answered by writing in the appropriate
answers 0
been provided at the end of the questionnaire for additional comments
or clarification. '

Please make your reSponses as clear as possible. Space has

ADHNISTRATIVE STATUS OF DISCIPLINARY FUNCTIONS.

The purpose of this section is to identify the status of the

student disciplinary function in relationship to the other personnel
services of your various departments.

A. 1. Nam Of InStitutim COOOOOOOOOOOO0.000000IOIOOOO0.00.0000...

2.

3.

5.

Year present disciplinary organization established .........
‘What major modifications have been made since that time?

a. ........................................................
What is the title of head disciplinary official at your
school? ....................................................
‘What official are you responsible to regarding student

disciplinary functions?

.0........COOOO...O...00.00.0000...OOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0.0.0....

6.

156

that type of personnel organization do you have at your school?
a. Centralized ..............
b. Semi-centralized .........
c. De-centralized
d. Co-ordinated..............
Other ...................

Does your school have any staff members that devote their full-
time to disciplinary functions? Yes..... No......

a. If answer is yes, how many staff members and what functions

do they perfom?000.00.0000....OIOOOOOOOOOOO0.00000COOOOOO.

How many staff members do you have in the administration WhO‘VOTk
part-time with student disciplinary functions?

Does your school utilize any Special analytical or evaluation
techniques in the disciplinary functions other than the
disciplinary interview or committee hearings?

a. Analytical tests ..............

b. Special evaluative techniques other than tests ...............
c. Pelygraphs 0.0.0.0.... 000000 0..

d. Psychological equipment .........................
8. Others .00.....OOOOOOOOOOIOOOOOOOO 0000000000 O .....

157

f 10. Does your school have an advisory committee on disciplinary matters?
YeSOCCCC N000...

a. If answer is yes, check one or the combination your school
utilizes.

Faculty Committee ........

Student Committee ........

Faculty and Student Committee . . . . . . . .

Special Committee

Others .....................................................
b. What is the frequency of'meetings of above committee?

Number on Committee?............'

How are the Committee Members selected?..... ..........

Requirements for membership?..........................

What are the length of appointments?...................

% 11. Check the major responsibilities of the Committee. Also check the
percentage of time the Committee works in each area that you checked.
This percentage should be determined by the total amount of time the
Committee devotes to disciplinary functions.

a. Investigate complaints..........percentage ........

b. fiecommand actions "
c. Decide final actions ........... " ........
d. USed as appeal board ........... " ........
e. Approves Dean's Decisions ...... " ........

Other duties ....... ..... ....... " ........

. 158
II. ADMINISTfigTIVE STAEE CONCERNED WITH THE DESCIPLINaRY'FUNCTIONS.
The follOwing Questions are designed—t3 Obtain infbrmation about the person
who is head discipline official at your school.
X A. HEAD DISCIPLIIL-di OFFICIAL.
1. what is your OffiCial title?000000OOOOIOCOOOOOOOOOOOOO3000......
2. mgrees heldOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.00.0.0...
mjor (under.gmduate) oooeoeooooooo
mjor (wadmte)00.00000000000000000

3. ”01.658101131th I.OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO00......ICOOOOOOOOOOOO

4. Educational experience.
Teaching: Secondary School ...........years.......
College ....................years ......
Others .....................years.......
5. Administrative experience.
Secondary School ...........years.......
College ....................years.......
Others .....................years.......
6. Personnel Experience (other than present position).
Guidance and Personnel Administration.
Secondary Schools ...........years......
College years
Others ......................years......
Counseling.
Secondary School ...........years.......
College ....................years.......

Others OOOOOOOOOOIOQOO09.0.0year800000..

10.

ll.

12.

13.

159

Number of years as head disciplinary officer at this school? ......
Do you have academic rank? Yes..... No......

If yes, what rank?............................

Do you.have any teaching duties? Yes..... No......

If yes, what subjects do you teach? ...........................

what group or groups of students come under your jurisdiction regarding
the student disciplinary functions?

All students ............
All i‘kn 0.000.000.0000...
All-woman 00000090000000.

Others OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOIOIOOOOOOOOOOOOO

0......OOOCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO00.000007.OOOOOOOOOOOOOO.0.0.0.0...

What percentage of your total time is devoted to the disciplinary}
metion8?ocococooocoosooooboooo

Indicate which of the following are duties closely related to your
disciplinary functions. Please also indicate the precentage of time
spent on each area you check. ‘This percentage should be based on
the total amount of time you devote to disciplinary functions.

Orientation (disciplinary) ...... Percentage ......

Communications " ...... " ......
Records " ...... " ..a...
Forms " ...... " ......
Procedures " ...... " ......
Policies " ...... " ......
Others " ...... " ......

On the scale below, please circle the number that in your opinion
indicates the percentage of effectiveness of the total disciplinary
program.at your school.

10 2g 30 1.0 so 60 70 go m _1_9_Q_

160

 

 

(Title) (School)

3. A scam OF THE FIRST ASSISTANT WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR DISCIPLINARY
I FUNCTIONS ma MEN.

This section of the questionnaire is an effort to obtain information about
the person who, as an assistant to the Head disciplinary official, has a
major responsibility for the disciplinary functions relating to.MEN at
your school.
1. imat is your OffiCial title?00OOOOOOIOOOOOIOOIOOOO00.0.0000...
2. Degrees held OOOOOOOOOOOOIOIOOOIOOO

Major (Under-graduate) ............

MJor (wadmte) OOOOOIOOIOOOOOOOOO
3. Prefessionaltm1n1ng 0.0.00.0...000......OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

00.0.0000...0.0...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

4. Educational eXperience.
Teaching: Secondary‘School ............years.........
College ...... ...... ........years.........
Others ......................years.........
5. Administrative experience.
Secondary School ............years.........
College .....................years.........
Others-......................years.........
6. Personnel Experience (other than present position).
Guidance and Personnel Administration
Secondary School ............ycars.........
College .....................years.........
Others ......................years.........
Counseling
Secondary School ............years.........
College .....................years.........

Others IO.IO...00......0.....year8000000000

-6-

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

O

161

Number of years as assistant disciplinary officer at this school?.....
Do you have academic rank? Yes...... No.......

If yes, what rating do you hold?......................
Do you have a Civil Service rating? Yes...... No......
If'yes, what rating do you.hold? .....................
Dc you.have teaching duties? ‘Yes...... No......

If yes, what subjects do you teach?............................

What group or groups of students come under your jurisdiction regard-
ing the student discipline functions?

All students ...........
111111198 OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

lemen OOOOOOOOOOOOOO

others OIOOCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOU...OOOOCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

What percentage of your total time is devoted to student disciplinary
funCtion8?.OOOOOIO000......

Please indicate which of the following are duties closely related to
your disciplinary functions. Please also indicate the percentage
of time you devote to each of the areas you check.

Orientation (Disciplinary)..... percentage ......

Communications " .... " ......
Records " .... " ......
Forms " .... " ......
Procedures " .... " — ......
Policies " .... " ......
Others " ..... " ......

On the scale below, please circle the number that in your opinion
indicates the percentage of effectiveness of the total disciplinary
program at your school.

l0 20 3o 40 so 60 70 so 90 100

162

 

 

f

CITitle) (School)

C. A SURVEY OF THE FIRST ASSISTANT NHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR DISCIPLINARI FUNCTIONS

This section of the questionnaire is an effort to obtain information about the
person who, as an assistant to the Head Disciplinary Official, has a major
responsibility for the disciplinary functions relating to WOMEN at your school.
1. mat is your OffiCial title?00000000000OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.
2. Di‘grees held OOOOOOOOOOOOIOOOOOOO
Major (Under-graduate) .................

Dhjor (Graduate)

3. Horessional traming 0.00....0.0.0.0...0..0..00.0.0.0...0.00.00.09.00...

4. Educational experience.
Teaching: Secondary School .......years......
College ................years......
Others .................years......
5. Administrative experience.
Secondary School .......ycars......
College ................years......
Others .................years......
6. Personnel Experience (other than present position).
Guidance and Personnelflhdministration
Secondary School . . . . . . .years. . . . . .
College ................years......
Others .................years......
Counseling
Secondary School .......years......
College ................years......

others 0.0.000...OOOOOOOyearB...0..

10.

11.

12.

13.

O

. 163

Number of years as assistant disciplinary officer at this school?........
Do you have academic rank? Yes..... No......

If yes, what rating do you hold?...............

Do you have a Civil Service rating? Ies..... No...”

If’yes, what rating do you hold? .....................

Do you have teaching duties? Yes..... No.....

If yes, what subjects do you teach? ....

What group or groups of students come under your jurisdiction regarding
the student discipline functions?

All stwcnta 0.00....
All men 00.00.0000...

All woeen ...........

others O...0.0...00....80.0.00...OOOIOOOOOOOOOCO0.0...00......

COOIOOOOCOOOOOOOOOOO..0.00.000.00.000.0.0.00.0...0..0.0.0.0...

What percentage of your total time is devoted to student disciplinary
functions?.................

Please indicate which of the following ere duties closely related to
your disciplinary functions. Please also indicate the percentage of
time you devote to each of the areas you check.

Orientation (Disciplinary) . . . . . percentage . . . . .

Communications " ..... " ......
Records " ..... " ......
Fbrms " ..... " ......
Procedures " ..... " ......
Policies " ..... " ......
Others " ..... " ......

On the scale below, please circle the number that in your opinion
indicates the percentage of effectiveness of the total disciplinary
program at your school.

31.9 20 so 40 so 60 70 so 90 igo

16s
III. QQIENTATIOI‘I REGARDING THE: DISQPLI:§..-RX FUNCTIOI—IS.
This section is an effort to get information about your orientation program
that is Specifically related to the orientation of college rules, regulations,
and other information about students behavior while attending your school.
A. ORIENTATIOIZ.

1. Prior to coming to campus.

a. what information is available to students about the rules and
regulations of the college before they arrive on campus?

b. uhat information is available to parents of new prospective
students?

2. At the beginning of school year. 7

a. what General Information is available to all students regarding
the disciplinary functions?

b. What information is available for new students regarding the
student disciplinary functions?

0. shat orientation is done by living units regarding the student
disciplinary functions?

d. What publications are available (with information concerning the

disciplinary functions at your school)?

e. Others.

-10..

165

41 what efforts are made during school year to orient new and old students
in matters that are connected with student behavior?

8..

5. Indicate by a check in what ways the academic departments aid in the
orientation of new students concerning student behavior?

a. Orient students about cheating .......
b. Refer persons with excess absences.....
c. Orient students with regard to classroom behavior ......

d. Teach courses that give college rules, regulations, etc. .......

8. Others O...OOOOOOCOOOOCOOOOOOOOOOOOOO...OOOOOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

6. On the scale below, please circle the number that in your opinion
indicates the percentage of effectiveness of your orientation
program with respect to the disciplinary area.

 

o 10 20 30 49 5o 60 7o 80 90 100
COlilUNICaTIOISS. '

This section is an effort to obtain information about the communications
with respect to student disciplinary functions between your office and
related departments and agencies.

1. What efforts are made by your office to facilitate communications
with various local police departments?

8..

2. What efforts are made by your office to facilitate communications with
your campus police department?

8..

- 11 _

166

dhat efforts are made by your office to facilitate communications
‘with.your Counseling Center?

a.

What efforts are made by your office to facilitate communications
with your Veteran.Centers?

8..

What efforts are made by your office to facilitate communications
with your mental Health or Psychological Clinics?

3..

What efforts are made by your office to facilitate communications
with your Health.Ccnter?

8..

What efforts are made by your office to facilitate communications
with your Academic Schools and Departments?

a.

10.

11.

167
what efforts are made by your office to facilitate communications
with Living Units?

a. Residence Halls.

b. Fraternities and Sororities.

c. Go-Ops. and other living units.

What efferts are made by your office to facilitate communications
with.Registrar and Admissions Office?

a.

What efforts are made by your office to facilitate communications
with Military Departments (ROTC or NROTC).

a.

What other departments or agencies do you.work with in an effort to
facilitate communications regarding disciplinary functions?

On the scale below, please circle the number that in your opinion
indicates the effectiveness of the Communications between your office
and related departments and agencies regarding student disciplinary
functions?

10 20 30 40 50 60 7O 80 90 100

-13-

IIV}

168
mumsmxrxou 9:; THE DISCIPLINAR! mmggms.

In most Institutions of higher learning there are individuals whose behavior
is not acceptable to the College because this behavior conflicts with the law,
rules and regulations of the College, or standards set up by the student body.
when this occurs, there is a process or processes that each individual school
has installed in an attempt to correct the situation. This process could be
broken into steps or series of events.

The following questions are naked in an effort to determine this process at
your school.

A. MALES.

1. that is the first major step with regard to men in the disciplinary
process at your school?

a.
b. What else might be done at this step?
c. Is there anything else that could be done at this step?

2. What is the second major step with regard to males in the
discipline process?

a.
b. What else might be done at this step?
o. Is there anything else that could be done at this step?

3. What is the third major step with regard to males in the discipline
process?

a.
b. What else might be done at this step?

c. Is there anything else that could be done at this step?

A.

169

What is tho fourth major step with regard to males in the discipline
process?

a.

b. What else might be done at this step?

o. Is there anything also that could.bo done at this step?

Wat is the fifth major stop with regard to males in the discipline
proccss?

a.

b. “hat else might be done at this step?

o. Is there anything also that could.bc done at this step?

What are the other major steps with regard to men, if any, to
conclude the process?

a.

b. what also might be done at this step?

o. Is theru anything clso that could be done at this step?

-15-

B. FEMALES (if not the same as for males). 17°

1.

3.

What is the first major step with regard to women in the disciplinary
process at your school?

a.
b. What else might be done at this step?

o. Is there anything else that could.be done at this step?

What is the second major step with regard to females in the discipline
process?

a.
b. ‘what else might be done at this step?

o. Is there anything else that could be done at this step?

What is the third major step with regard to females in the discipline
process?

a.
b. what else might be done at this step?

o. Is there anything else that could be done at this step?

-16-

171

44 What is the fourth major step with regard to females in the discipline
process?

a.

b. ~hat else might be done at this step?

o. Is there anything else that could be done at this step?

5. 'What is the fifth.major'step with regard to females in the discipline
process? A

a.

b.. What else might be done at this step?

c. Is there anything else that could be done at this step?

6. what are the other major steps with regard to women, if any, to
conclude the process?

a.

b. What else might be done at this step?

c. Is there anything else that could be done at this step?

Space has been provided on the next page for making any additional comments or
clarifications concerning the disciplinary process regarding girls or boys.

-17;

172

DISCIPLINARI RECORDS.

An effort is being made here to obtain the types and use of records at your
school in connection with the student disciplinary functions. Please be as
specific as possible.

A. PERMANENT RECORDS.

1

‘3.

What information is recorded on a student's permanent record regarding
his behavior while in school?

a. Disciplinary actions taken by the school...............

b. Scholastic cheating ................

c. Misbehavior where official action is not taken by school .........
d. Off campus reports of law violations......................

e. Others ..........................................................

00.0.00...OOOOOOIOOOOOIOOIIOOOCOOOOIOOOOOOIOOIOOOOICOOOOOOOCOOOIO

What are the standards for selecting the information to bu recorded
on his or her permanent record?

a.

What procedure is used when this infbrmation is given out to prospective
employees, other schools, etc.?

a.

Do you give any more information to Government and Armed Forces
Investigators than to other agencies?

8..

To whom are thCSe records available?

8..

On the scale below, circle the number that in your opinion indicates
the percentage of effectiveness of the permanent records in respect
to the student disciplinary functions.

l0 20 30 4o 50 60 70 so 90 100

-13-

173
B. RECORDS (OTHER.THAN PERMANENT) USED IN THE DISCIPLINARX PROCESS.

1. What efforts are made to maintain complete or partially complete
records concerning a student's behavior in the following:

a. Living units.

b. Housing Office.

c. Campus Ralice Department.

d. Academic Schools or'Departments.

e. Judiciary Committee (ANS) or other agencies that have any
part in the total discipline fUnctions.

2. On the scale below, please circle the number that in your opinion
indicates the percentage of effectiveness of the records in respect
to student disciplinary process at your school?

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 7O 8O 90 100

-19-

VI.

l7h

.Most.universities have defined official actions that are used to limit, restrict
or penalize a student because his or her conduct is not acceptable to the
‘university. This section is aimed at identifying those official disciplinary
actions and provisions of each of these actions.

A.

MALE.

1.

Name of action and provisions.

a.

b. What Official or Committee makes the final official decision
regarding students in respect to this action?

Name of action and provisions.

a.

b. What Official or Committee makes the final official decision
regarding students in reapect to this action?

Name of action and provisions.

a.

b. what Official or Committee makes the final official decision
regarding students in resPect to this action?

-20-

7.

175

Name of action and provisions.

a.

b. What Official or Cemmittee makes the final official decision
regarding students in respect to this action?

Name of action and provisions.

a.

b. that Official or Committee makes the final official decision
regarding students in respect to this action?

Name of action and provisions.

a.

b. What Official or'Committee makes the final official decisions

regarding students in respect to this action?

How are these actions terminated?

-21-

176
B. FEMALES.
1. Which of the above official actions do not apply to girls?

a.

2. what actions are taken against girls that are not mentioned above?

a.
b.

C.

3. How are these actions terminated?

a.

4. On the scale below, please circle the number that in your opinion
indicates the percentage of effectiveness of the official disciplinary
actions used at your school.

0 10 20 30 1.0 50 60 70 go 90 100

177

C. FOLLOW;UP.
1. Does your school make a follow-up of persons while they are still
attending school that are or have been under some restrictions due
to disciplinary action taken against them? Yes.......No..........

a. If answer is yes, how is this follow-up study made?

2. Does your school make followsup studies of students after they leave
school who were under restriction while in school? Yes......No......

a. If answer is yes, how is this follow-up study made?

3. Do you make a separate annual report of student disciplinary
problemS? YCSOIOIIOI NOOOCOIOOOO.

a. If answer is yes, to what Official do you make this report?

 

4. 0n the scale below, please circle the number that in your opinion
indicates the percentage of effectiveness with respect to followeup
in the student disciplinary functions?

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 so 90 igg

-23-

178
SECTION II.

I. Classified Offenses

See attached.

SECTION III.

I. A. What changes would you.make in your student disciplinary program.if you
had the complete freedom to do so?

1.

B. What steps could be taken by the schools of the western Conference to
mutually aid in raising the level of effectiveness of the student
discipline programs?

1.

C. What further comments would help clarify your student disciplinary
functions?

1.

-24,

APPEEDIX B

INSTRUCTIONS:

CLASSIFIED DISCIPLINARI OFFENSES

Please check the space at the right that gives the

seriousness that your sch061 attaches to the usual disciplinary situation
involving first offenders.
please list and check those in the space provided near the and of the

questionnaire.

ions or clarifications.

1.

3.

b,

4L9

Under-age persons
drinking off campus

mm...“

‘ NOt very

WW

If’you are confronted with offenses not Ihted,

A space is also provided at the and to make any suggest-

 

Under-age persons
drinking on campus

 

Co

Off campus drinking-
all persons

5
3!3_;
1

 

d.

On campus drinking-
all persons

 

CWhers

 

Organized group

nm-nno fl:

col--0

“ -u-Oo‘ “a?

 

 

K.
H;

.«n‘

Providing alcohol
to minors

 

thing in student
quarters

 

HUI-IN

 

 

 

 

 

 

' CARS - Illegal use of

 

Driving on campus
(withoutpermit)

 

b.

Driving on campus
vggith_permdt)

u..- .-h‘

 

c.

Driving off campus

 

do

Drunk driving

ta ta n: n:

 

,Ckhers

 

'Traffic viola-
tions

Ho

 

f.

amour-co

g.

Violations of

 

Parking’lots

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CREATING

 

as

Academic

 

Others

 

b.

0n

no. norm

“WM collusion_

 

Cheating plus group

 

 

 

Plagari'smw

-oov ~- n—o-«. .nn .«chn

IM-ul-I Inc-n- OJ‘a-vol n

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4.

5.

7.

CITIZENSHIP - Poor

Quite

Suspension+8erious

 

a. In living units

8

ct very
Serious rious

181

Action _

 

b. In classrooms

7

 

c. In other campus areas

8

 

 

Others

 

 

 

 

 

CONDUCT - Disorderly

 

a. On campus non-living 1
unit areas

 

b. On‘campus living
unit are;

 

c. Off campus non-living
unit area

 

d. Off campus living
unit area

NNNN

muesm

 

Others

 

e. Disturbing the .
peace

 

f. Water fights .
inflame

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CONDUCT - Minor Misgondngt

 

a. On campus non-living
unit area

 

b. On campus living
unit area

 

0. Off campus non-living ‘
t

 

d. Off caznpus living
a...“

C’s-40‘!

 

Others

 

 

 

 

 

 

@quct

 

a. Sex offenses
off campus

 

 

' b. Sex offenses
.4211...

 

gamma
0 . Homosexuality

 

(1. Window peeping. etc.

N‘B’ch

 

Others

 

e. Contributing to de-
linquency of minor

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_ : Quite Not very
8. W WWW
a. On campus 1 h 2 1

 

b. In living units 1

 

c. Other campus

 

Others

 

d. Off campus

 

 

 

 

 

 

9. .EALfiE.lDEEIIEIQEIIQHe

 

 

a. _ Under-age persons

IF
05
is

 

b. To enter school

 

._._§nsn§2:edlaanteai 1 h
c. Misuse of meal
tickets in living

.__nnits

PM

 

d. Falsification of
.___§zizin£_aszmit 1

 

Others

 

e. Falsification of ‘
Schedule Cards 1

 

f. Falsifications of
Word 1

 

g. Falsification of any
University record 1

 

h. Possession (not use)
of false 1.1). 1

 

 

M

1. Lending I.D. to per-
sons to buy alcohol 1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

lo. FINANCIAL IRREGULARITIfl

 

a. Bad checks

 

b. Delinquent on S

 

‘ coll; ge accounts

c . Delinquent on off - 5 1
cggpus accounts

 

Others

 

d. Forgery 1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ll._ FIRE EQUIPMENT - yisugg 9

 

a. Discharging fire 1
extinguishers 5

 

b. Taking hose from a
wall 5 ’- 1

 

c. Turning in false

 

Wfimms 5 2
. Others

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

12.

 

a. Illegal possession

of firearms

183

Not very

No

 

b. Misuse of firearms
W

 

Others

 

c. Possession in resi-

dgngg halls

 

 

d. Misuse of firearms
.msiiisma

 

 

 

 

 

 

13..EIBE§

 

a. Accidental fires

 

b. Malicious fires

.0... I“

 

c. Fires caused by
material not allowed

in buildings
”JaneniQalletcel

nn .-....

 

Others

 

d. Arson

 

 

 

 

 

 

11+. W

a... "—4 u..-

 

a. On campus in

 

M
b. Off campus

 

Others

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

15. .GR. WOMQLENSE
a'. Panty raids (raids

on women' s resi-
“We;

 

b. Other crowd dis-
turbances (pep

 

......--._rallies.,..et0e ,1
Others

 

c. Men entering Women's

residence halls at

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

._..._.time.nf_raid
1&W

 

a. Registered at hotel
or motel with fe-
males (unmarried)

 

Gfoss indecency

U1

 

Indecent exposure

 

Others

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I.
i

17.

PROPERTY - Destruction of

-5-

Suspension

Quite
Serious

No

Action

 

""8:

 

Co

Malicious destruct- 1

 

Malicious destruct-

 

W
Public signs in

 

Ckhers

 

 

 

 

 

 

l8.

SOALPING TICKETS

 

a.__.anntaste

13.

Home college

 

QOI~~-i

 

Contest away
from.campus

 

Others

I O
‘ 5
‘ ‘
anQ- ~- 4-. n .e-u-ooooLv-uon-w

 

cs

19.
3e

Musrepresentation of

status in order to

Obtain additional or
tt t ts

 

 

 

 

 

 

SOCIAL RULES - Infractions of

 

unregistered party

 

b.

Unchaperoned party

 

co

Party where alcohol

is served 1

 

Others

 

d.

9'
o

M.
20. Tm AND 13ml

3.

 

b.

Unchaperoned women
in men's Quarters

 

‘Misrepresentation
of request or of

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9-004

Off campus non-
Wm

 

Off campus
livinaanimss

 

 

co

On campus living
@t’w

 

 

d.

On campus non-living
unit area

 

Breaking and

entering 3

 

 

f.

Petty larceny

 

Thefts (not petty) 1

I? :r’ um -o -o -: -e

 

Others

 

h.

Fraud

3.:

 

1.

 

Embezzling

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

185

 

 

 

 

 

.. 6 ..
s 1 Quite ‘ Not very Ne
21. OI‘HER DEFENSES SusRension §eriou S rious Serious Action
a. NROTC Violations 1 1
b. Sgcidal attempts ‘ 1 F. | 1
c . Inter-personal 1
conflict; l

d. Tmnpering with
__ Ballots w .-
e. Changing official 4 1

“fireman: _

 

 

 

O ~-'~c‘ s”-- I- ‘0.“-

 

 

 

 

 

o-In. .o-o.. ...~ -.._

moss Dec 3 58 FME} 1

   
  
 

‘ Mary?
I a! 1 (I a _. . _ , “a
L «a W W 1
NOV 3 n fitflm “ed
M 'r
’ ‘3 News ‘55
AprS‘S‘
”aylzso MAY ”Meme
Aug 1 '56 I“ %
NOV: 1‘
Nov 26 '56,
~44
Doc use

M 12 '57
Aug 23 ’57

Dec 3 51 MflwmllsvzsrfEQSfl

 

 

"lillfliflillll