Why gather data?
Student Judicial Affairs (SJA) recognizes the nature of our work can lead to a lot of misconceptions about what we do and the services we provide. It is completely understandable that many people hear the word "judicial" and think of concepts like law, justice, punishment, rules and enforcement.
While some of those concepts describe a portion of our work, often many students overlook the primary focus of our department: fairness, accountability, student rights, education, and most importantly, development.
Have you ever heard about our office and wondered what is the most common violation of the Student Code of Conduct or if a lot of students violate the code? Do you wonder: Am I going to be kicked out of school?
We hear these comments and questions all the time and are committed to clearing up the many misconceptions that students have regarding our department and the student conduct process.
To demonstrate our educational approach we've gathered several statistics over the years to share that may address some questions and provide an overview of the typical type of case loads we see and how we handle them over the course of the year.
Violations of the Student Code of Conduct
In 2008-2009 our department received 481 referrals, which included 681 violations. With a student population of nearly 26,000, that means only about 1.85% of the student body engaged in behavior that required our attention. The closer that number gets to zero, the better we are getting at promoting awareness before misconduct occurs.
Three Year Comparison of All Violations
Referrals by Class Rank 2008-2009
While misconduct isn't exclusive to our first-year students, we do recognize that they are the most vulnerable, as many of these students are away from home for the first time with the opportunity to make decisions on their own, and at times, make mistakes on their own.
We also recognize that the older we get, the less impulsive our decisions are, and the more likely we are to think through our actions to understand all available alternatives and consequences.
Three Year Comparison of Referrals by Class Rank
Type of Hearing 2008-2009
As you'll see here, almost 92% of the time we are able to resolve behavioral issues through educational means. We reserve the University Hearing Board for situations where students haven't fully grasped the gravity of their actions or if we are unable to reach an agreement in the fact-finding setting.
Three Year Comparison of Hearing Type
Hearing Outcomes 2008-2009
As you can see, "kicking" students out is a rare event. While not exclusive to the following behaviors, we do tend to reserve suspension and dismissals for students who can have a seriously negative impact on the community at large. This includes, but is not limited to, charges of drug distribution, weapons or crimes of violence.
Recidivism Rate 2008-2009
It is our belief that our educational approach is successful in communicating with our students about better decision-making and appropriate behavior as evidenced by the very few individuals we see for violating the Student Code of Conduct on more than one occasion.
Awareness and Advocacy of the Student Code of Conduct
Over the course of the academic year we gave more than 120 presentations to students, faculty members and parents to inform them of their rights and responsibilities as a member of the UA community. In the end, we spoke to 7,413 students and 352 faculty members.