All Student Conduct Adjudications begin with documentation of a suspected violation.  The origin of this document can be any member of the Concordia University Chicago community.  In the case of an alleged violation of the University’s Policy Against Discrimination, Harassment, and Retaliation, the Student Conduct Code Procedure will begin at the conclusion of the University’s investigation conducted pursuant to that policy. 

All cases involving allegations of sexual assault or sexual violence are subject to the additional procedural requirements set forth below Formal Resolution Process, detailed below. These additional procedural requirements will also be used when a party to a complaint alleging any other violation of the University’s Policy Against Discrimination, Harassment, and Retaliation so requests, or in any other instance that the University deems appropriate. In the situation that all students in a particular university club or organization are being documented for a violation of the Student Code, the organization must choose a representative student member to proceed through the process representing that particular organization.

1. Documentation of a suspected violation is submitted to the Office of the Assistant Dean of Students for Residential Life and Student Conduct or the office of one of our Resident Directors, who serve as Conduct Meeting Officers (CMO) for violations occurring within their respective residential community.  Any violation that occurred outside of a residential community is reviewed by the Assistant Dean of Students for Residential Life and Student Conduct who serves as the CMO for those violations.  If it is determined, based on the suspected violation, that a student could face sanctioning that includes University or Residential Hall suspension or expulsion, revocation of admission or degree, and/or the withholding of a degree, then the Assistant Dean of Students for Residential Life and Student Conduct will be automatically deemed the CMO for that particular student’s violation regardless of the location of the violation.

2. A review of the documentation is made to determine whether enough factual information is available to deem support for potential responsibility of a violation by the student(s) named within.

3. If support for potential responsibility is within the documentation, the student(s) named within will be contacted by the appropriate CMO via their Concordia email account and in writing. The email or letter will state the following:

   a. The Student Conduct Code provisions that the student is being accused of violating,

   b. The Conduct Meeting process including:  the declaration of responsibility, review of documentation and facts, and rights to appeal, and

   c. The student will be asked to contact the appropriate CMO, within three (3) business days to schedule a meeting that must take place within seven (7) business days of the incident unless the University determines in its discretion that more than 7 business days is required.

4. If necessary, a conduct meeting time is established between the accused student and the appropriate CMO.  The purpose of this meeting is to allow the accused student an opportunity to review all the documentation and to share with the CMO his or her side of the situation and to make a declaration regarding his or her involvement.  In all cases involving an alleged violation of the University’s Policy Against Discrimination, Harassment, and Retaliation, the complaining party will also be entitled to a similar meeting at which the same information will be shared with the complaining party.  The meeting will follow these guidelines:

   a. The conduct review process will be explained to a student and he or she will be asked to sign documentation to verify that he or she understands the conduct review process as well as his or her rights within the conduct review process including his or her right to appeal.

   b. A student shall be given the right of a conduct review before a Hearing Committee instead of the CMO.  The exercise of this option by the student must be in writing.  The Hearing Committee consists of two faculty members, one staff member, three students, and one CMO. No member of the Hearing Committee who is otherwise interested in the particular case may serve on the committee during these proceedings.

   c. If a student chooses to have his or her adjudication meeting conducted by a committee, the current meeting will end and a new meeting will be established with the student within (5) five business days to be held with the hearing committee (or as soon thereafter as is possible in the University’s judgment and discretion.

   d. If the student agrees to an adjudication meeting with the CMO, the student will be asked to make a declaration of responsibility relating to his or her involvement in the incident.  The student will declare himself or herself:  Responsible or Not Responsible

   e. After the declaration of responsibility, the meeting will take one of two directions based upon the declaration, whether with the initial CMO or another CMO assigned:

   i. A student declaring himself or herself “responsible” for the violation will have a discussion with the CMO regarding the violation and their involvement.  The discussion will likely be followed immediately by sanctioning unless the CMO feels additional fact gathering is necessary to determine the sanctions.

   f. The student declaring them self “not responsible” for the violation will have a discussion with the CMO regarding the violation and his or her involvement.  At this time, if applicable, the student has an opportunity to present supporting evidence and discuss additional witnesses that would support his or her “not responsible” declaration.  It is likely that, in such situations additional fact gathering will be necessary and therefore the CMO will conclude the meeting with the student and follow-up with a decision regarding responsibility and any sanctioning via university email within two (2) business days after any additional fact finding has been completed unless the University determines in its judgment and discretion that more time is required.

   g. Sanctioning will occur within two (2) business days of a finding of “responsibility” unless the University determines in its judgment and discretion that more time is required.  A student will be asked, whether receiving sanctioning immediately or via email to return to the CMO and sign the necessary adjudication paperwork, thus signifying the conclusion of the initial conduct meeting.

   1. The accused student may have a non-attorney advisor throughout the conduct review process, whether with a CMO, or with the Conduct Hearing Committee.  The advisor may only counsel the student and may not actively participate in the hearing, unless clarification is needed as determined by the CMO.  Notification of any advisor present must be made within 72 hours of a scheduled adjudication conference.  The student must declare who will be present and the advisor’s relationship to the student during that time.  If a declaration is not made within the appropriate time period regarding the inclusion of an advisor the University reserves the right to deny such involvement. 

    

   Hearing Committee Process

   1. The University Hearing Committee will consist of three students, two faculty, one staff, and one CMO which are chosen and trained by the Dean of Students office.  The Hearing Committee members will be chosen and trained as necessary when a student requests such form of adjudication hearing.

   2. The University Hearing Committee (UHC) will be given a copy of the conduct violation report for review three days prior to the scheduled adjudication hearing. 

   3. A student going before the UHC will be asked to make a declaration of responsibility relating to their involvement in the incident.  The student will declare himself or herself:  Responsible or Not Responsible.

   4. After the declaration of responsibility, the hearing will take one of two directions based upon the declaration:

      1. A student declaring himself or herself “responsible” for the violation will have a discussion with the UHC regarding the violation and his or her involvement. The discussion will likely be followed immediately by sanctioning unless the UHC feels additional fact gathering is necessary to determine the sanctions.

      2. The student declaring himself or herself “not responsible” for the violation will have a discussion with the UHC regarding the violation and his or her involvement.  During this discussion the student has the right to present supporting factual evidence and witnesses that would support their declaration.  Additionally, the Assistant Dean of Students will represent the university in the matter.  It is likely that, in such situations additional fact gathering is necessary and therefore the UHC will conclude the meeting with the student and follow-up with a decision regarding responsibility and any sanctioning via university email within two (2) business days after any additional fact finding has been completed unless the University determines in its judgment and discretion that more time is required.

      3. In matters involving alleged violations of the University’s Policy Against Discrimination, Harassment, and Retaliation, the complaining party will be afforded all of the same rights and access to information as the accused student.  In matters involving alleged violations of the University’s Policy Against Sex Discrimination, the complaining party will be notified of the outcome of the proceeding contemporaneously with the notice provided to the accused student.

   Appeal Process

   To be considered, appeals must allege facts supporting at least one of the following criteria:

   1. 1. Procedural error sufficient to have altered the outcome of the hearing

      2. New, previously unavailable facts

      3. Evidence exists that would support a claim you were discriminated against; and/or

      4. Excessive or inappropriate sanctions.

   Note: When a student declares them self “responsible" to a Student Code of Conduct violation, appeals can be based solely on the grounds of excessive or inappropriate sanctions.  In matters involving alleged violations of the University’s Policy Against Discrimination, Harassment, and Retaliation, both the complaining party and the accused student will be afforded the right to appeal as provided in this section.

   Appeals that are deemed by the reviewer as failing to cite one or more criteria, or allege facts supporting at least one of the above criteria, shall be dismissed without further action.

   1. Before initiating an appeal, the decision of the CMO must be presented to the student in writing, after which the student has the right to appeal the decision and/or sanctioning.   A finding of individual responsibility resulting in sanctions less than expulsion may be appealed to the Assistant Dean of Students. In cases when the Assistant Dean of Students rendered the original decision, appeals are directed to the Dean of Students. The decisions available for the outcome of an appeal are:

      1. Uphold the original decision;

      2. Overturn the original decision;

      3. Modify the sanction(s); or

      4. Remand for a new hearing. In all remanded cases, the conduct officer may elect to dismiss the case rather than re-hear  it.  After this stage, there is no further option of appeal.

      6. 2. Sanctions of individual students in cases involving expulsion or greater may be appealed  to the Dean of Students who may take any of the actions listed above. Decisions made by the Dean of Students may then be appealed to the Vice President of Student Life and Development. The decision of the Vice President of Student Life and Development in matters of appeal are final.

   2. The Dean of Students will review the statement of appeal to determine whether it alleges facts supporting one or more of the following grounds for appeals:
      i. Procedural error sufficient to have altered the outcome of the hearing;
      1. ii. New, previously unavailable evidence;
      iii.             evidence exists that would support a claim you were discriminated against; and/or
      2. iv.            excessive or inappropriate sanctions.
      3. 4. An appeal that does not cite one or more of the criteria shall be dismissed without further action.  An appeal that alleges the facts supporting one or more of the criteria is reviewed for merit. The appeal may be
         1. Uphold the original decision;
         2. Overturn the original decision;
         3. Modify the sanction(s); or
         4. Remand for a new hearing. In all remanded cases, the conduct officer may elect to dismiss the case rather than re-hear  it.  Pass this stage there is no further option of appeal.
      4. If the Dean of Students does not modify the decision or sanctions, the sanctions will be imposed as directed if previously held in abeyance.

Group/Organization Appeal

A student group/organization aggrieved by a decision covered by this section of the Code may only appeal to the Dean of Students giving written notice within five (5) business days after the decision is announced. The decision of the Dean of Students shall be final, and conclusive, and the sanction(s) will be imposed as directed if previously held in abeyance.

Additional Procedural Requirements in Matters Involving Alleged Violations of the University’s Policy Against, Discrimination, Harassment, and Retaliation

In accordance with the University’s Policy Against Discrimination, Harassment, and Retaliation, the following procedures apply to matters involving alleged violations of that policy.  In addition, allegations of sexual assault or sexual violence may not be resolved using any informal resolution process (i.e., mediation).  The additional procedural protections outlined below will also be used when a party to a complaint of discrimination, harassment, or retaliation so requests, or in any other instance that the University deems appropriate.

• Standard for Determining Responsibility.  The standard used to determine whether the policy has been violated is whether it is more likely than not that the accused violated this policy.  This is often referred to as a “preponderance of the evidence” standard.

• Rights of Complainants and Accused Parties; Timing of Resolution.  The University shall provide any individual suspected or accused of violating this policy with a written explanation of the suspected or alleged violations of this policy.  Complainants and accused parties shall both be provided with the following in connection with the resolution of suspected or alleged violations of this policy. 

  • The opportunity to speak on their own behalf.

  • The opportunity to identify witnesses who can provide information about the alleged conduct at issue.

  • The opportunity to submit other evidence on their behalf.

  • The opportunity to review any information that will be offered by the other party in support of the other party’s position (to the greatest extent possible and consistent with FERPA or other applicable law).

  • The right to be informed of the outcome of the process (to the greatest extent possible and consistent with FERPA or other applicable law).

  • The opportunity to appeal the outcome of the process.

• Notification of Outcome.  After the conclusion of the process, the University will provide written notification to the complainant and the accused of the outcome (i.e., whether a violation of this policy has occurred) within seven (7) calendar days after the conclusion of any hearing or proceeding unless the school determines that additional time is required.  This notice shall be issued contemporaneously to both parties to the extent practicable.  The school may also disclose to the complainant information about any sanctions or corrective actions taken that relate directly to the complainant (e.g., a “no contact” order).  The school will maintain documentation of all hearings or other proceedings, which can take various forms (e.g., notes, written findings of fact, transcripts, or audio recordings, etc.).  In no event will the complainant in matters involving an alleged violation of the Policy Against Sex Discrimination be required to abide by a nondisclosure agreement that would prevent disclosure of the outcome. 

• Right to Appeal.  Both the accused student and the complainant may appeal the outcome of the process. Complainant appeals will be considered for the same grounds, and handled pursuant to the same procedures, as appeals by the accused student.

• Appropriate Corrective Action.  The University reserves the right to take any corrective action it deems necessary to prevent the recurrence of any violations of the University’s Policy Against Discrimination, Harassment, and Retaliation and to correct any discriminatory effects on the complaining party, regardless of whether there is a finding of a violation as a result of the process and regardless of what, if any, sanctions are imposed.