Judicial Report and Case Summary, 2000-2001
August, 2001
To: The University Community
From: Student Judicial Board
Re: 2000-2001 Judicial Report and Case Summary
This report provides summary information pertaining to cases adjudicated by the Student Judicial Board (SJB) during the 2000-2001 academic year. A listing of the summaries of all the cases adjudicated by the SJB may be found at the end of this report.
Judicial Violation Data
During this period, there were a total of 223 cases/incidents, involving 340 people and 453 violations of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. This data represents a 52% increase in the number of cases adjudicated compared to the 1999-2000 academic year. During the reporting period, 13% of our student population was processed through the judicial system as a result of alleged policy violations. 23% of the individuals involved in violations of policy during the reporting period are "repeat offenders" -- having at least one prior reported violation, or at least two separate violations of policy during the reporting period.
Of the violations that occurred during this reporting period, 39% were for alcohol/drug policy violations, 15% were for property violations, and 13% were for privacy and tranquility violations (largely occurring at In-Town and the senior wood-frame houses). The most common violations during the 2000-2001 reporting period are indicated below:
| Most Common Violations (Summary) 2000-2001 |
|
|---|---|
| Violation | # of Violations |
| Alcohol/Drug | 177 |
| Property | 69 |
| Privacy & Tranquility | 61 |
| Departmental Regulations | 57 |
| False Information | 35 |
| Harassment/Abuse | 25 |
This data indicates that the number of alcohol/drug violations has increased by 7% compared to last year. This increase is much less than the 129% increase last year. The effect of the change in the alcohol policy during the current reporting period seems minimal. During this reporting period, there were a total of 156 alcohol policy violations (94% of these were underage possession/consumption violations), and 21 drug violations. Male students committed 64% of the AOD policy violations. The following table provides information regarding the classification of those students involved in AOD violations:
| AOD Violations By Student Classification |
||
|---|---|---|
| Classification | # of Violations | % |
| First Year Students | 92 | 52 |
| Sophomores | 49 | 28 |
| Juniors | 23 | 13 |
| Seniors | 13 | 7 |
This data is not surprising given the increasingly independent nature of Wesleyan's housing as students move toward their senior year. Violations are probably just as prevalent within the sophomore and junior residential areas, but are documented less frequently. Most seniors are at least 21 years old, so underage drinking is not an issue in this population.
While the increase in the number of alcohol/drug violations during the current reporting period was small, there were significant increases in the numbers of many other types of violations. The incidence of vandalism on campus was similar to levels prior to this reporting period, but the increase in the number of property violations may be attributed to an increase in unauthorized access to University buildings after hours, and theft of University property. The increase in privacy and tranquillity violations was the result of the newly-established noise standards for wood frame houses - many of these violations involved seniors or those living in the In-Town complex. The increased number of violations associated with departmental regulations were primarily violations of the University's social event/party policy. Finally, the Office of Public Safety filed many more charges against students who used false identification to purchase alcohol.
| Comparative Violation Data 1999-2000, 2000-2001 |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Violation Type | 1999-2000 | 2000-2001 | % Change |
| Alcohol/Drug | 165 | 177 | +7 |
| Property | 16 | 69 | +331 |
| Privacy & Tranquility | 5 | 61 | +1120 |
| Departmental Regulations | 20 | 57 | +185 |
| False Information | 8 | 35 | +338 |
| Total Violations | 244 | 453 | +86 |
Judicial Sanction Data
In response to these violations, the SJB has continued to employ a combination of punitive and educational sanctions. Sanctioning tends to be progressive in nature. That is, a minor violation by a first-time offender will typically result in a disciplinary warning; a second violation results in disciplinary probation; and so on. The distribution of sanctions given during the reporting period is as follows:
| Sanctions Issued 2000-2001 | |
|---|---|
| Sanction Type | # of Sanctions |
| Disciplinary Warning | 143 (49%) |
| Disciplinary Probation | 55 (19%) |
| Educational Assignments | 8 (3%) |
| Community Service | 28 (10%) |
| Suspension/Expulsion | 2 (1%) |
| Referral to Health Center | 38 (13%) |
This distribution of sanctions is consistent with that observed during the previous reporting period with one exception - the Board has not issued as many educational assignments during the current reporting period as was done previously. The Board believes that educational assignments are not frequently taken seriously by students and have limited benefit in terms of educating the student about their actions. The two suspensions issues during the current reporting period were issued to students involved in physical assaults.
With respect to alcohol and drug violations, the Board has continued the utilize the following general sanctioning guidelines for AOD violations:
- First Offense
- For minor violations, the student may receive a disciplinary warning. For serious violations, the student may receive sanctions as outlined under "Second Offense".
- Second Offense
- The student may receive a period of disciplinary probation, an educational assignment, and parental notification.
- Third Offense
- If such an offense occurs during the probationary period, the student may be suspended for at least one semester. If the offense occurs after the probationary period, the student may receive an extended period of disciplinary probation, an educational assignment and community service.
The following table summarizes the sanctions issued for AOD violations during this period:
| AOD Sanctions Issued 2000-2001 |
|
|---|---|
| Sanction Type | # of Sanctions |
| Disciplinary Warning | 77 (46%) |
| Disciplinary Probation | 32 (19%) |
| Referral to Health Services/OBH | 38 (22%) |
| Parental Conference | 4 (2%) |
| Community Service | 16 (10%) |
| Other | 2 (1%) |
A summary of each of the cases adjudicated by the Board during the 2000-2001 academic year follows this portion of the report. These summaries are presented in an effort to share information about the types of cases, violations, findings, and sanctions issued by the SJB during the reporting period. If you have any questions regarding this report, please contact the Office of the Dean of Student Services in North College.
2000-2001 Case Summaries (listed by regulation)
Regulation 1 - Privacy and Tranquility The intentional infringement upon the right to privacy of any member of the community is prohibited. The persistent interruption of a reasonable level of peace and quiet is also a violation.
In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation of a group of students that had been playing loud music on four occasions. The students were cooperative with PS and complainants. As a sanction, the Board recommended a disciplinary warning for the students.
In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that 5 students had been playing loud music and having loud parties. The Board found that the students had not violated the code.
In a simplified hearing the Board considered an allegation that a six person household had been in violation of Regulation 1 pertaining to peace and tranquility. The Board found that the students were not in violation, because the 2nd and 3rd incidents did not rise to the level of the violation.
In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a group of students violated Regulation 1 of the Code by playing loud music in their house. The Board found that the students had indeed violated Regulation 1 as Public Safety was called to their house repeatedly on noise complaints. As a sanction, the Board recommended a letter of warning.
In a simplified hearing the Board considered an allegation that two students had violated Regulation 1 and 2 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that students A and B had published a mock interview with a student that many readers would construe as being a real interview. The Board found Students A and B not in violation and recommended that the next issue clarify that the interview was not real. Although the Board believed the article to be in poor taste, they believed that freedom of speech protected the satirized article.
In a simplified hearing the Board considered an allegation that four students had violated Regulations 1 and 16 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that Public Safety had responded to noise complaints on three separate occasions. It was also alleged that the four students did not comply with Public Safety on the third incident. The Board found the students not in violation of regulation 1 because two of the three noise complaints occurred within hours of each other. The students were found in violation of Regulation 16 for not complying with Public Safety on the third night. As a sanction, the Board recommended that the students receive a disciplinary warning.
Regulation 2 - Harassment and Abuse Harassment and abuse, directed toward individuals or groups, may include at least the following terms: the use or threat of physical violence, coercion, intimidation, and verbal harassment and abuse. Harassment and abuse may be discriminatory, or may be nondiscriminatory. Although all forms of harassment and abuse-both discriminatory and nondiscriminatory-are equally prohibited. Wesleyan University's commitment to nondiscrimination means that discriminatory may be punished more severely than nondiscriminatory forms of harassment.
In a simplified hearing the Board considered an allegation that Student A violated Regulation 2 of the Code. It was alleged that, during an argument with Student B, Student A was verbally abusive towards and threatened to harm Student B. The Board did not find Student A in violation.
In a simplified hearing the Board considered an allegation that Student A violated Regulation 2 of the Code. It was alleged that Student A ran down the street naked. The Board found Student A in violation of the code, viewing public nudity as offensive to the Wesleyan Community standards. As a sanction the Board recommended that student A be issued a letter of disciplinary warning.
In a full hearing the Board considered an allegation that a student violated Regulation 2 of the Code. It was alleged that the student used harassing, abusive and racist language at an intramural game. The Board found the student in violation of this allegation. As a sanction the Board recommended that the student complete 120 hours of community service, that the student be placed on disciplinary probation until graduation, that the student be barred from intramural athletics and write a letter of apology.
In a full hearing the Board considered an allegation that 2 students violated Regulation 2 of the Code of Non-Academic conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that student A punched student B's brother in the back of the head. Student B then punched Student A, injuring his eye. The Board found that Student A and Student B were in violation of the code. The Board recommended that Student A be placed on probation until the end of the 2001-2002 academic school year. It was recommended that Student B be suspended for the second semester of the 2000-2001 academic year and be placed on disciplinary probation until the end of the school year. Both students were also warned that unwanted contact with one another would be a violation of their probation. It was also recommended that student B complete 50 hours of community service before returning to campus.
In a simplified hearing the Board considered an allegation that a group of four students had violated Regulations 2, 4, and 5 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that the students were shooting paintballs at another student and were uncooperative with Public Safety. The Board found there was not enough evidence to tie the students to the firing of the paintball gun. Therefore, they were found not in violation.
In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student violated Regulations 2 and 16 of the Code. It was alleged that the student was involved in a food fight, and in chanting: "Fxxx Public Safety!" The Board found the student in violation of the Regulations because Public Safety clearly identified the student. As sanctions, the Board recommended that the student receive 5 hours of community service and disciplinary probation until the end of the 2001-2002 academic year.
Regulation 3 - Sexual Abuse Sexual abuse, including but not limited to sexual harassment, coercion, and threats or use of force, is prohibited (see "University Policy on Sexual Harassment" section on page 114 of handbook).
In a simplified hearing the Board considered an allegation that two students had violated Regulation 3 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. It was alleged that Students A and B disrespected Student C with sexually abusive language. The Board found that both A and B were not in violation of Regulation 3. While the Board believes the actions were inappropriate, the behavior was not clearly defined as a violation under the code of sexual harassment.
Regulation 4 - Property The unauthorized use, or the abuse, destruction, or theft of property of the University or any of its members, guests, or neighbors is prohibited. This regulation covers the unauthorized appropriation or "borrowing" of common property for personal use. It also covers unauthorized use, abuse, destruction, or theft of property in Wesleyan's care or custody, such as materials covered by copyright or by specific agreements between the owner and Wesleyan.
In a simplified hearing the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section IV, Regulation 4 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically it was alleged that the student had thrown food during a food fight in Mocon. The Board found that the student had violated the code and recommended disciplinary warning and 5 hours of community service.
In a simplified hearing the Board considered an allegation that Student A violated Regulation 4 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that Student A had broken a window in Clark Hall. Student A admitted to breaking the window as he was knocking on it and said it was an accident. The Board recommended that Student A be not found in violation of regulation 4 pending payment of $40 for the damages caused by the window breaking.
In a simplified hearing the Board considered an allegation that a student violated Regulation 4 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Public Safety responded to a report of a broken window in the breezeway of Foss 6 and 7. The student came forward to Public Safety and admitted that he broke the window. As a sanction, the Board recommended that the student be placed on Probation for the remainder of the semester FA 2000 and the board recommended that restitution of $454.98 to be paid for the broken window.
In a simplified hearing the Board considered an allegation that a group of students violated Regulation 4 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that the students had personal belongings blocking the hallway leading to the storage room and electrical panel for the entire building. The Board did not find the students in violation as they removed the objects once the problem was noted. The students were unaware that they were creating a fire hazard by placing the objects there.
In a simplified hearing the Board considered an allegation that a student violated Regulation 4 of the Code. It was alleged that the student threw items off the roof of a building. The Board found that the student had been throwing the items, endangering those below. As a sanction the Board recommended a disciplinary warning.
In a simplified hearing the Board considered an allegation that a student violated Regulation 4 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that Student A had stolen property from the campus center. The Board found that Student A had not violated the Code because the incident was a result of a simple misunderstanding.
In a simplified hearing the Board considered an allegation that a group violated Regulation 4 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. It was alleged that 2 students broke a window when a ball was thrown at it. Because of lack of evidence the Board found the group not in violation.
In a simplified hearing the Board considered an allegation that Student A violated Regulation 4 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that the student had broken a pane on a window at 343 High St. The Board found that indeed, the student had violated section 4 as he admitted to breaking the pane. As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A pay restitution for the broken glass.
In a simplified hearing the Board considered an allegation that Student A had violated Regulation 4 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that Student A had lived in a room at 356 Washington St. The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code as Student A confessed to moving into the room while the original resident's application for off-campus status was still up in the air. As a sanction the Board recommended Student A be given a letter of warning.
In a simplified hearing the Board considered an allegation that Student A had violated Regulations 4(property), 13A (alcohol) and 16 (departmental regulations) of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Student A had people in his room, a few of whom brought alcohol with them. During the course of the night, some bottles and cans were thrown out a window. When Public Safety knocked the student did not answer right away. It was found that the student had violated both Regulation 4 property and 16 departmental regulations, but not 13A alcohol. As a sanction, it was recommended that Student A was put on probation through Fall '01 and given 15 hours community service.
In a simplified hearing the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Regulation 4 and 7 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that a student had improperly entered a locked and alarmed building. The student was alleged to have entered the tunnels and propped doors open there. The Board found the student in violation. As a sanction the Board recommended a disciplinary warning.
In a full hearing the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated three counts of Regulation 4, two counts of Regulation 5, and three counts of Regulation 16 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that Student A had removed three boots that public safety put on the student's car and told them falsely that the car had never been booted. The Board found Student A in violation of all counts. As a sanction, the Board recommended that the student pay for the replacement of the lost property. It was also recommended that the student be placed on probation until the end of the academic year and be given 15 hours of community service.
In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that Students A-G violated Regulations 4 and 16 of the Code. It was alleged that the students were in a room from which beer cans and bottles were thrown out the window, and that the students failed to comply with Public Safety's request to open the door. The Board found the students not in violation.
In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student violated Regulations 4, 5 and 16 of the Code. It was alleged that the student was involved in throwing bottles out of a residence hall window, and that the student gave a Public Safety officer false information. The Board found the student not in violation because it was unclear who had thrown the bottles out of the window, and because the false information furnished was so close to the truth that it could be attributed to an honest mistake.
Regulation 5 - False Information Knowingly furnishing false information to a University officer or member of any hearing board acting in performance of his/her duties is prohibited, as is the failure to provide University personnel with adequate identification upon request.
In a simplified hearing the Board considered an allegation that Student A had violated Regulations 5 and 6 and Student B had violated Regulation 2 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. The Board found the students in violation and recommended that Student A be placed on probation until the end of the Spring '02 semester and that Student B be on probation until the end of the Fall '01 semester.
Regulation 7- Tampering With Locks and Duplication of Keys- Tampering with locks in University buildings, unauthorized possession or use of University keys, and alteration or unauthorized duplication of University keys are prohibited.
In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Regulation 7 of the code by tampering with locks and duplicating keys. The Board determined that while the student was in possession of a master key, they did not believe that he knew it was a master key. The Board did not find him in violation of the charge.
Regulation 8 - Fire Protection Systems Tampering with fire extinguishers, fire alarm boxes, or smoke or heat detectors anywhere on University property is prohibited.
In a simplified hearing the Board considered an allegation that Student A had hung her robe on a smoke detector violating Section I, Regulation 8 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was found that Student A had caused a fire hazard by putting the robe on the fire detector. The Board found that Student A had indeed violated Section 8, as Public Safety stated it had found the robe there. As a sanction, the board recommended a disciplinary warning.
In a simplified hearing the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Regulation 8 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that Student A had tampered with a fire protection system in a residence hall and resulted in damage to the alarm. The Board found that Student A had violated the Code after the student accepted responsibility. The Board recommended that the student be issued a disciplinary warning.
Regulation 13 - Drugs and Alcohol The University prohibits the unlawful possession, use, or distribution of illicit drugs and alcohol.
In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student organization violated Section I, Regulations 13 and 16 of the Code. It was alleged that the organization hosted a party without a permit. The Board believed that no more than 75 people had been present at the party, and that the organization had, therefore, not violated the Code.
In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student violated Regulation 13 of the Code. It was alleged that Student A was a minor in possession of alcohol. The Board found the student in violation, after the student admitted responsibility. Because the student was a repeat offender, the Board recommended that the student be placed on probation through the fall '01 semester, and that the student complete 5 hours of community service
In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that 5 students violated Section I, Regulation 13 of the Code. It was alleged that the students were illegally drinking alcohol in a residence hall. The Board found 3 of the 5 students in violation, and recommended that they be issued a letter of disciplinary warning.
In a simplified hearing the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Regulations 13 and 16 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Student A was found in violation of both 13 and 16. Student A had possession of alcohol in a hallway with a cup in his hand. Public Safety asked him to stop and he walked away into a room and closed the door on Public Safety. The officer finally got the cup and it smelled of alcohol. As a sanction the Board recommended that Student A be placed on disciplinary probation until 5/30/01, the entire 2000-2001 academic year.
In a simplified hearing the Board considered an allegation that an organization had violated Regulations 13 and 16 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that Organization A had a party where at least 75 people were present and alcohol was served. The Board found Organization A in violation of Regulation 16 because the organization had not followed the party policy. Organization A was found not in violation of Regulation 13 because of a lack of evidence to support the charge. The Board recommended that the organization receive a warning.
In a simplified hearing the Board considered an allegation that Student A had violated Regulations 5 and 13 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. The Board found the student in violation because the student was purposely misleading to Public Safety. The Board views this as a serious offense and, as a result, they recommended that the student be place on probation for one semester and complete 25 hours of community service.
In a simplified hearing the Board considered an allegation that Student A had violated Regulations 13 and 5 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that an underage student was drinking and did not cooperate with Public Safety as he supplied a false ID. The Board found Student A in violation and recommended that the student be placed on Probation and complete 5 hours of community service.
In a simplified hearing the Board considered an allegation that Student A had violated Regulations 13 and 5 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that Student A was in possession of alcohol underage and failed to provide proper information regarding age. The student pleaded responsibility. As a sanction the Board recommended a disciplinary warning and five hours of community service.
In a simplified hearing the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Regulations 13, 1, and 5 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that Student A was in possession of a 30-pack of beer. Student A allegedly lied to Public Safety regarding the contents of his bag. The Board found Student A had violated the Code on two counts, and as a sanction the student receive disciplinary probation for one semester.
In a simplified hearing the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Regulations 5, 13, and 16 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that Student A was illegally in possession of alcohol, was uncooperative to Public Safety, and initially provided false information. The Board found Student A in violation of Regulation 13 and not in violation of 5 and 16 and recommended that the student be issued a disciplinary warning.
In a simplified hearing the Board considered an allegation that Student A had violated Regulations 4 and 13 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, Student A had been under the influence of alcohol and vandalized the bathroom of a residence hall. The Board found that Student A had violated the code because the student admitted to the vandalism and they recommended one semester of probation.
In a simplified hearing the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Regulation 13 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that the student had marijuana in a bag that belonged to her. The bag had been found by Public Safety. The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the code after the Student admitted the marijuana was hers. As a sanction, the Board recommended that the student be place on disciplinary warning for the remainder of the semester.
In a simplified hearing the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Regulation 13 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that the underage student was holding a can of beer. The Board found the student in violation of Regulation 13 and recommended that the student receive a disciplinary warning.
In a simplified hearing the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Regulation 13 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that Student A and his organization had provided alcohol to a pledge during a pledging event. The student was under 21 years of age and was taken to Middlesex Hospital. The Board found that Student A had not violated the code, as it was unclear as to whether he or his organization had provided the pledge with alcohol, and the pledge and his friends admitted to drinking before and after they were at the house of Student A.
In a simplified hearing the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Regulation 13 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that Student A was responsible for possession of alcohol. The Board found Student A not in violation because there was not enough evidence to prove that the student had been in possession of alcohol.
In a simplified hearing the Board considered an allegation that Student A had violated Regulation 13 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that Student A had been found in the hallway of a residence hall with a beer in his hand. It was recommended that student A be given a letter of warning.
In a simplified hearing the Board considered an allegation that three students had violated Regulation 13 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that three students had purchased a large amount of alcohol and had attempted to bring the alcohol into their residence hall. The Board found that indeed the students had violated Regulation 13 of the Code. As a sanction the Board recommended that the three students be placed on disciplinary probation for one semester and be given 10 hours of community service each.
In a simplified hearing the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Regulation 13 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that Student A was found in possession of alcohol. The student was not 21 years old. The Board found the student in violation and recommended that the student be issued a letter of warning.
In a simplified hearing the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Regulation 13 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that Student A had been in possession of alcohol and was under the legal age. The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the code as Student A stipulated that he/she was in possession under the legal age. As a sanction, noting that Student A had cooperated with Public Safety, the Board recommended that Student A be placed on disciplinary warning.
In a simplified hearing the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Regulation 13 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that the student was drinking in a residence hall. The student accepted responsibility for the violation and the Board found the student in violation and recommended a letter of warning as a sanction.
In a simplified hearing the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Regulation 13 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that Student A was in possession of alcohol and was underage. The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code and recommended that a disciplinary warning be issued.
In a simplified hearing the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Regulation 13 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that Student A was in possession of a pipe with marijuana residue. Student A accepted responsibility and the Board recommended one semester of disciplinary probation.
In a simplified hearing the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Regulation 13 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that Student A was carrying an open container. The student admitted to possession and as a sanction the Board recommended a disciplinary warning.
In a simplified hearing the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Regulation 13 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that Student A was caught with alcohol. The Board found Student A in violation. As a sanction the Board recommended that Student A be given a letter of warning.
In a simplified hearing the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Regulation 13 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that Student A was in possession of a keg and that the student was underage. The Board found the student in violation and recommended probation until the end of the Fall 2001 semester.
In a simplified hearing the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Regulation 13 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that Student A was in possession of alcohol as a minor. The Board found Student A in violation of the Code because Public Safety had caught him carrying beer into his residence hall. As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be issued a letter of warning.
In a simplified hearing the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Regulation 13 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, the student who was not 21 years of age, was found in possession of a beer. The Board found that the student had violated Regulation 13. Since it was the student's 2nd alcohol offense in the semester, the Board recommended the student be placed on disciplinary probation for one semester and be sanctioned to five hours of community service.
In a simplified hearing the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Regulation 13 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that the student had a can of beer and is not 21. The Board found the student in violation. The student was already on disciplinary probation for alcohol possession. As a sanction the Board recommended 15 hours of community service and an extension of probation an additional semester.
In a simplified hearing the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Regulation 13 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that an underage student was drinking a beer. The Board found the student in violation and recommended two semesters of disciplinary probation.
In a simplified hearing the Board considered an allegation that Student A had violated Regulation 13 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that Student A had been found in possession of alcohol. The Board found Student A in violation and as a sanction recommended disciplinary warning.
In a simplified hearing the Board considered an allegation that Student A had violated Regulation 13 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that Student A had been seen by a Public Safety Officer with a 12-pack of beer and had not originally disclosed that the beer had been purchased with a fake ID. As a sanction, the Board recommended that the student be placed on disciplinary warning.
In a simplified hearing the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Regulation 13 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that a student had provided alcohol to a person who was under the age of 21. The Board found the student in violation of Regulation 13. As a sanction, the Board recommended a disciplinary warning.
In a simplified hearing the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Regulation 13 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that the student was in possession of a 12-pack of beer. The Board found the student in violation and recommended that a disciplinary warning be issued.
In a simplified hearing the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Regulation 13 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that an underage student was drinking a beer. The Board found that the student had violated Regulation 13. As a sanction, the Board recommended a disciplinary warning.
In a simplified hearing the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Regulation 13 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that Student A was in possession of alcohol underage. The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code after admitting to possession. As a sanction the Board recommended a letter of disciplinary warning and 5 hours of community service.
In a simplified hearing the Board considered an allegation that Student A had violated Regulation 13 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that Student A had been seen holding a beer at a party. The Board found that Student A was indeed in violation as he was under 21 and was clearly seen holding a beer. As a sanction, the Board recommended a letter of warning.
In a simplified hearing the Board considered an allegation that an organization had violated Regulation 13 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that Organization A had violated the Code because it had distributed alcohol at a small gathering. The Board did not find the organization in violation because it was unclear whether the organization distributed alcohol and because everyone in the organization was over 21 years of age.
In a simplified hearing the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Regulation 13 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that the student had been seen holding a can of beer by Public Safety. The Board found that the student was not in violation, as he was merely holding a beer for his friend who was over 21, who was lighting a cigarette at the time.
In a simplified hearing the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Regulation 13 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that an underage student had consumed alcohol. As a sanction the Board recommended that Student A be issued a letter of disciplinary warning.
In a simplified hearing the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Regulation 13 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that the student had provided a pre-frosh who she was hosting with beer. The Board found that the student had violated the Code after she had admitted to providing the beer. As a sanction the Board recommended that the student be given a letter of warning.
In a simplified hearing the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Regulation 13 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that a student had a marijuana water pipe in his room. The Board found the student not in violation because the student's room had been broken into and it was uncertain that the pipe belonged to the student.
In a simplified hearing the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Regulation 13 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that the underage student had a beer. The Board found the student in violation of Regulation 13 and recommended that a disciplinary warning be issued.
Regulation 15 - Lethal Weapons Personal possession or personal storage of operable firearms, air guns, or other lethal weapons is prohibited anywhere on the Wesleyan campus or while one is engaged in University activities. Students wishing to maintain firearms for hunting or target shooting in the Middletown area must notify the Public Safety Office prior to bringing the weapon to Middletown, and must immediately upon their arrival deposit the weapon at the Public Safety Office for storage. A student may check out a weapon for sporting activity immediately prior to his/her departure for the activity, and must return it to the office immediately upon his/her return from the activity.
In a simplified hearing the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Regulation 15 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that the student was in possession of a BB gun. The Board found the student had violated the Code. As a sanction, the Board recommended that the student be issued a letter of warning.
Regulation 16 - Department Regulations Members of the community are expected to abide by duly established and promulgated nonacademic regulations. This is intended to cover the operating regulations of academic or nonacademic offices, laboratories, and departments. Members of the community are also expected to comply with requests made by University personnel acting within the capacity of their responsibilities.
In a simplified hearing the Board considered an allegation that two students had violated Regulation 16 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that Students A and B had failed to comply with a University official's request to move personal belongings from a residence hall corridor because it violated the fire code. The Board found the students in violation of the Code. As a sanction, the Board recommended a letter of warning.
In a simplified hearing the Board considered an allegation that Student A on behalf of his organization had violated Regulation 16 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that Student A had failed to collect Ids from non-Wesleyan students at a party at Mocon that his organization was hosting. The Board found that the student had indeed violated the Code. While the Board acknowledged that it was exceedingly difficult for Student A to collect several hundred IDs from the non-Wesleyan students attending the party, the code dictates that IDs must be collected for phase 3 parties. As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A and his organization be given a letter of disciplinary warning.