Non-academic misconduct statistics published for 2018

Judicial Affairs Office processing 114 letters before St. Patrick's Day.

Building collapse during St. Patrick's Day 2018.
Credit: 
Journal File Photo
Between May 1, 2018 and Mar. 8, 2019, 26 of 100 Non-Academic Misconduct (NAM) cases were launched through the AMS’ Judicial Affairs Office.
 
“This is reflective of the decreasing cases being handled by the AMS annually that has been a trend since the 2015-2016 review,” Judicial Affairs Manager Susie Emerson said at the AMS General Meeting on Monday night.
 
In an email to The Journal subsequent to the meeting, Emerson wrote while the number of cases has decreased from the 30 they saw in the 2015-2016 review, they’ve actually increased since last year’s report.
 
She said cases may be decreasing because in 2016 the Student Conduct Office took over Category 2 cases—more serious acts of misconduct—leaving only Category 1 cases to the Judicial Affairs Office.
 
According to Emerson’s report, 11 of these cases have been closed and five have reached hearings and received sanctions. Two cases were dropped due to being found to have no violation of the Student Code of Conduct and four were referred to another NAM unit. Fifteen cases are still pending. 
 
Emerson noted the end of the academic year and annual turnover of AMS positions is a “hard deadline” the Office makes every effort to meet. 
 
“Provided there are no unforeseen circumstances that interfere with our ability to complete the cases, we should be able to close them by May,” she wrote.
 
The Judicial Affairs Office was also assigned 114 cases this year relating to the University District Safety Initiative and incidents that occurred during Orientation Week and Homecoming.
 
Of the cases that resulted in respondents being found responsible, three respondents were over the age of 19 on the date of the incident and two were under-age. All five of the cases involved alcohol and received educational sanctions in the form of impact reflection, while only one was required to meet with Health Promotion.
 
“This is reflective of our shift as an office away from punitive sanctions and towards more educational outcomes,” Emerson told Assembly.
 
The Office is “working hard” to process information letters for the 114 individuals cited during Orientation Week and Homecoming before St. Patrick’s Day, according to Emerson.
 
In past years, Assembly received annual non-academic misconduct statistics in the form of graphs. This year, however, Emerson cited privacy concerns as a reason for modifying the Office’s approach to presenting Assembly information. 
 
“In the past, there have been concerns that too much identifying information has been shared with Assembly, which compromises the confidentiality we ensure to the people going through the system,” her report said.
 
Emerson’s report also stated the Judicial Affairs Office statistics “may not be representative of NAM as a whole” because they only address a handful of NAM cases.
 
“Data from our office alone is not statistically significant in terms of trends, therefore further statistical information may be misleading.” 
 
Emerson told Assembly the Office is also currently working to revise its judicial policy and procedures “which have aspects that are outdated and may be confusing” for students going through the system.
 
She wrote to The Journal that the 2016 version of the Student Code of Conduct is cited throughout the judicial policy and procedures rather than the 2018 version.
 
“In updating policy to reflect the updated Student Code of Conduct and our current scope of jurisdiction in an accessible and readable way, we can assure we’re giving the least adversarial process to people going through the NAM system,” she wrote.

When commenting, be considerate and respectful of writers and fellow commenters. Try to stay on topic. Spam and comments that are hateful or discriminatory will be deleted. Our full commenting policy can be read here.