Student Accountability Process

Submitting a Report

When a community member believes they have witnessed or been the victim of a violation of the Community Expectations Policy, they reserve the right to submit a Report. The Report may be submitted via email to the Dean of Student Affairs or through the Honor Board Report Form for review. The Dean of Student Affairs, or their designee, and the student Honor Board Leadership will collaborate to review the complaint and determine the Merit of the complaint and path to resolution. If it is determined that the reported allegations align with a violation(s) of the Community Expectations Policy, the Dean of Student Affairs, or their designee, will determine whether the alleged violation warrants the activation of one of the accountability processes, and which path, Honor Board or Direct Adjudication, is appropriate).

The format and desired content of the reporting form utilized to report allegations of Community Expectations Policy violation(s) will be determined by the Dean of Student Affairs, or their designee, and the Honor Board, and is subject to change as necessary. At a minimum, the form will require those reporting allegations to cite a minimum of one violation of Community Expectations Policy, inclusive of Honor Code Values and/or Olin policies or procedures.

Interim Measures

There are times when the allegation(s) of misconduct by a student, student group, or student organization are deemed to be a threat to the health, safety, or well-being of the college or neighboring community, threatens the function of the college and/or college property. When this occurs, the Dean of Student Affairs, or their designee, will carefully review the allegation(s) and decide, in their sole discretion, if immediate short-term restrictions are necessary. The immediate short-term restrictions can be, but are not limited to, removal from campus, removal from the residence hall, and/or removal from the classroom to an online/asynchronous learning experience, when this is an available option, to account for campus safety.

When Interim Measures are put in place, the student or student group will receive written notification of the Interim Measures and they must immediately comply. Students and student groups reserve the right to appeal the Interim Measure(s) to the Provost, or their designee, within two (2) business days of the notification. To appeal Interim Measures, the student or student group must submit in writing a petition with supporting information detailing why the measures should be removed or modified. A decision on the Interim Measure(s) will be made no later than five (5) business days after the receipt of the petition submission.

Interim Measures, unless altered or removed, will remain in place until the conclusion of the accountability process and supported by written notification of the removal of the measures.

Stay Away/No Contact Orders

On occasion, a matter or conflict occurs which may not require disciplinary action but intervention in the form of creating space (physical, verbal, and virtual) between individuals or individuals and a location(s). At the sole discretion of the Dean of Student Affairs, these behavioral intervention tools may be utilized for students or student groups. To learn more about these directives you can review here.

Honor Board Reporting and Hearing Procedures

Report

The Chair and Vice Chair have the ability to dismiss a Report that has been determined to be under Honor Board jurisdiction if it has an obvious lack of Merit. In the case of the Chair or Vice Chair being the Reported party in an Honor Board report, Merit determination will fall to the Advisor. If the Report is not dismissed, typical procedures are followed. If a Report is not dismissed for obvious lack of Merit or jurisdiction, the Reporter should be contacted within two (2) business days to further determine Merit or to assign the Report to a Facilitation Team.

Facilitation Team

Upon receiving a Report, which is under the jurisdiction of the Honor Board and has merit, the Honor Board Leadership will assign a Facilitation Team to the Report. Based on the case, the Facilitation Team will contact the Reporter for the purposes of organizing a Hearing or pursuing a Restorative Solution using Restorative Practices. The Reported will also typically be contacted within two (2) business days of assignment of a Facilitation Team. The Facilitation Team may reserve the right to gather information from the Reporter prior to contacting the Reported.

Determining Merit

If either the Honor Board Leadership or the Facilitation Team feels they are not able to clearly determine Merit from the content of the Report, the Facilitation team should conduct an Investigative Procedure. The purpose of this procedure is not to determine Responsibility, but merely whether or not a Report is has Merit.

Investigative Procedure

If an Investigative Procedure is deemed necessary by either the Honor Board Leadership or the Facilitation Team, the Facilitation Team shall interview the Reported and the Reporter about the alleged violation and shall gather from both parties names of any Witnesses able to substantially contribute to the Facilitation Team’s understanding of the alleged violation. Members of the Facilitation Team may interview Witnesses with substantive knowledge of the alleged violation. In absence of obvious lack of Merit after an efficient Investigative Procedure, all Reports should be assumed to have Merit and be continued to a Case. The Reported, Reporter, and Witnesses should be contacted within two (2) business days of a report being filed. After this contact, the Investigate Procedure should be completed within a week. In the absence of obvious lack of Merit after an efficient Investigative Procedure, all Reports should be assumed to have Merit and be continued to a Case. 

Restorative Solution

If, in a Case that does not involve a potential academic or residential violation of the Honor Code Values, and all members of the Facilitation Team, as well as all Reporters, Reported, and involved Aggrieved Parties, agree that a Restorative Process may resolve the issue presented by the Report, then the Facilitation Team may recommend that Restorative Practices should be used to attempt to resolve the Case. In almost all cases, the Reported must accept responsibility for the reported actions and address the harm done to the Reporter for a Restorative Solution to be appropriate. This does not prevent the Facilitation Team from holding a Discussion or Responsibility Hearing if they deem necessary.  

Initial Discussion 

An Initial Discussion between the Reported and the Facilitation Team is held with the goal of hearing the perspective of the Reported and learning whether they will take Responsibility for the reported actions. In this meeting the Facilitation Team briefly shares the allegations detailed in the Report and relevant additional details or context found through any Investigative Procedure. The Reported is invited to recount their perspective or experience. If major discrepancies or conflicts in experiences or viewpoints are present, they will be clarified if possible. The Reported will then be given the opportunity to accept or not accept Responsibility. If Responsibility is not accepted, the Case will proceed to a Responsibility Hearing. 

Absent extraordinary circumstances, an Initial Discussion shall be held within ten (10) business days of a report being submitted. All Discussions will be closed to all persons other than the Facilitation Team, the Reported, and (optionally) their Supporter. Notice of the Discussion to the Reported shall include the Community Expectations Policy, Honor Code Values, and/or Student Handbook Policies that were reported to have been violated. If the Honor Board is unable to meet its obligations in a timely fashion due to scheduling conflicts, disqualifications, or other reasons that the Adviser determines may compromise its effectiveness, the Adviser may appoint an ad hoc Facilitation Team.

Follow-up Discussion(s)

If responsibility is accepted, the Facilitation Team has the discretion to organize additional Follow-up Discussions and/or develop Sanctions. The goals of Follow-up Discussions are to use the framework of Restorative Justice to address and repair the harm or impact caused by the incident in the Report, for the Reported to take accountability, and for the Reported to foster personal and/or community development. Follow-up Discussions are led by the Facilitation Team and may include facilitated discussion with the Reported, the Reporter (if they agree), Supporters, and/or other impacted community members, as well as facilitated discussion of potential Restorative Solutions and/or Sanctions.

The Facilitation Team may request and/or review recommendations for Sanction(s) from the Reported, the Aggrieved Parties, and the Reporter if they are present at Follow-up Discussions. The Reported may respond to the Facilitation Team’s recommended Sanction(s) prior to the close of the Discussion. The Facilitation Team shall include in the materials it submits to the Adviser to the Honor Board a brief written summary of the Reported’s response. The Adviser reviews the recommended Sanctions and may approve or modify the Sanctions. Modifying the recommended Sanctions should be done rarely, and prior to modifying the Sanctions, the Adviser consults the Facilitation Team and the Honor Board Leadership. The Sanctions are then delivered to Reported by the Facilitation Team or the Adviser.

Responsibility Hearing

In the case that Responsibility is not accepted in the Initial Discussion, a Responsibility Hearing will be organized by the Facilitation Team and approved by the Chair and Vice Chair of the Honor Board. The Facilitation Team will choose an unbiased Hearing Panel. The Reported, Reporter, Supporters, and any Witnesses called should attend this hearing. The Reporter has the option not to attend the Responsibility Hearing. In this case, the Reporter must submit a written testimony which will be read out in place of the Reporter’s speaking time. The Reporter does not need to disclose their identity in the written testimony and thus has an option to remain anonymous from the Reported. 

The Reporter and Reported are allowed to request any additional Witnesses relevant to the case. The list of Witnesses requested can be approved or be denied at the discretion of the Facilitation Team, but should only be denied in case of irrelevance of their anticipated testimony. Both the Reporter and the Reported are allowed to review the list of Witnesses prior to the hearing. The Reporter can further submit evidence to the Chair and Vice Chair of the Honor Board to be used during the Responsibility Hearing. Written testimony and evidence should be provided by the latest 24 hours before the hearing.

Immediately prior to the hearing, the Hearing Panel will receive the Report submitted by the Reported and will be briefed by the Facilitation Team on the details of the Case and any pertinent findings during the Investigative Procedure. During the Responsibility Hearing, the Reported and the Reporter will both be given the opportunity to speak, or have a statement read, and the Hearing Panel will have the opportunity to ask questions of each. 

After the presentation of all evidence, the Reported, Reporter, Supporters, and Witnesses will leave the room to allow the Hearing Panel to deliberate. The Facilitation Team will remain in the room, but do not have any final deciding power on Responsibility or recommended Sanctions, and should not interfere with the deliberation in any way. The Hearing Panel shall make one of the following decisions: (a) a finding of Not Responsible, (b) a finding of Responsible (based on preponderance of the evidence), to be followed up by a delivery of Sanctions, or (c) continuance of the Case to obtain additional information or for further consideration. All decisions shall be made by consensus.

If there are recommendations for Sanctions from either the Reporter, the Aggrieved Parties, the Reported, or a combination of the above thereof, the Hearing Panel must take those recommendations into consideration. 

In the case that the Hearing Panel finds the Reported responsible, recommended Sanctions will be sent to the Facilitation Team and the Adviser to the Honor Board, and the Facilitation Team will notify the Reported and Reporter of whether Responsibility was found and, if applicable, the Sanctions once they have been approved by the Adviser to the Honor Board.

The Reported may respond to the Hearing Panel’s recommended Sanction(s) prior to the close of the Hearing. The Adviser shall review sanctions recommended by the Hearing Panel. Decisions shall be based solely upon evidence and testimony introduced at the hearing(s) conducted and shall be made by consensus (i.e., the unanimous vote of the voting members of the Hearing Panel who do not abstain from voting). The Hearing Panel shall include in the materials it submits to the Adviser a brief written summary of the Reported’ s response, if given. The Adviser then may approve, modify, or waive the recommended Sanctions. Modifying or waiving the recommended Sanctions should be done rarely, and prior to modifying or waiving the Sanctions, the Adviser consults the Facilitation Team, Hearing Panel, and the Honor Board Leadership. The Sanctions are then delivered to Reported by the Adviser.

Honor Board Appeals

Upon conclusion of an Honor Board procedure and delivery of the Sanctions to the parties involved, the Reported and/or Reporter may appeal a finding of Responsibility or Sanctions by writing via email to the Adviser within two (2) business days following the delivery of the outcome of the hearing. The appeal letter must clearly state the grounds and rationale for the appeal. Once received, the Adviser will convene an Appeals Board. The members of the Appeals Board will be the Faculty Representative to the Honor Board, the Staff Representative to the Honor Board, and a student member of the Honor Board determined by the Honor Board Leadership. None of the Appeals Board members will have been involved in the adjudication of the Case being appealed. The Adviser may appoint new members to the panel in the event of a conflict or add members as needed. In the latter case, this may result in more than three voting members on the Appeals Board.

The purpose of the Appeals Board is to review all information available pertaining to proceedings that led to the appeal to ensure that these were conducted according to the established judicial procedures. The Appeals Board will not substitute its own judgment for a finding of Responsibility or Sanctions. Requests for appeal may be made to the Adviser on the following grounds:

1. Procedural error;
2. New evidence that was not reasonably available at the time of a Hearing that could change the outcome of the Hearing;
3. Belief that the severity of the Sanction is inappropriate given the details of the Case.

Disagreement with the finding(s) or Sanction(s) are not, by themselves, grounds for appeal.

The Appeals Board may rule in one of three ways:

1. They may recommend a new Hearing or new Discussions before a new Facilitation Team;
2. They may recommend the Case go back to the original Facilitation Team for further review for reasons such as new evidence that was not available during the original Hearing or Discussions; or
3. They may recommend that the appeal be denied.

If the appeal is denied, the Sanction(s) will be imposed, and Olin will consider the Case closed. The Appeals Board will inform the Adviser about the outcome of the appeal deliberations within five (5) business days of the written appeal being received. The Adviser will notify, in writing, the Reporter and the Reported of the outcome of the appeal within two (2) business days of receiving the outcome from the Appeals Board.

Barring any extraordinary circumstances, if a request for Appeal is filed, Sanction(s) resulting from the Case will typically be put on hiatus and not implemented until after the appeal is resolved. If an emergency suspension or dismissal has been administered, the student must leave campus and remain off campus during the appeal process.

Failure to Comply with Sanctions

If the student fails to comply with sanctions, the Honor Board Chair and Vice Chair will determine if a noncompliance hearing (which is handled by the Adviser) is needed or if the Adviser is granted authority to setup a separate process.

Streamlined Academic Report

In the event that a faculty or staff member identifies a violation of academic integrity, the faculty or staff member and the Reported have the option to work independently to develop an appropriate Sanction. A summary of the violation and resolution is submitted to the Honor Board Leadership for reviewing and recording.

Streamlined Residential Reports

In the event that a member of the Residential Life team identifies a violation of student handbook policies or the Honor Code Values, the Residential Life member and the Reported have the option to work independently to develop an appropriate Sanction. A summary of the violation and resolution is submitted to the Honor Board Leadership for reviewing and recording.

Honor Board Amendments

Within a month of the start of every academic year, a town hall must be called to ratify and/or amend the Honor Code for that academic year. 

Any member of the Olin student body may submit a proposal for an amendment to the Honor Code to the Honor Board Chair or Vice Chair. The proposal must include the reasons for the amendment and the proposed wording of the amendment, along with signatures of at least 10% of the student body.

Once the proposal has been brought to the Honor Board, a Town Hall Meeting must be called within the semester to discuss and vote on the proposed amendment. Multiple amendments may be considered at one Town Hall Meeting. The Town Hall Meeting is open to all of the Olin community, and all students are expected to make an effort to attend. Quorum (half of the student body) must be met to vote on any amendments.

At the close of the meeting, all present students will vote by secret ballot, once per amendment, with the option to vote for each proposed amendment or the unchanged Honor Code. If no choice receives the votes of more than 50% of the student body or 75% of the students voting at the meeting, whichever is smaller, or if quorum is not reached, the Code remains unchanged.

After all proposed amendments are voted upon, all present students will vote by secret ballot on whether or not to abolish the Honor Code. If neither choice receives the vote of more than 50% of the student body the Honor Code remains in effect.

If the Honor Code is abolished, policies drafted by the Student Affairs Office will take effect immediately. In order to reinstate the Honor Code, a proposal must be submitted to the Student Affairs Office, which will put the issue to a student vote, as per the policies of the Student Affairs Office.

Direct Adjudication Procedures

If a case is determined to be appropriate for Direct Adjudication, the following procedures are followed. The Direct Adjudication path involves a one-on-one meeting between a Student Accountability Administrator and a responding student or student group representative (referred to herein as Respondent). The Dean of Student Affairs determines which college administrator will be assigned the role of Student Accountability Administrator to review each matter.

Notice of Meeting

Responding parties are entitled to understand which area(s) of the Community Expectations they have been alleged to have violated. To inform the student and begin the accountability process, the Student Accountability Administrator will send the Respondent a letter to meet which contains the meeting date, time, and location, a brief synopsis of the alleged misconduct, the Community Expectations violation(s) with their definition(s) that the Respondent is said to have violated, and the contact information of the college administrator managing the case.

Direct Adjudication Meeting

The purpose of this meeting is to provide an opportunity for the responding party to review the alleged Community Expectations violation(s) and any information / evidence presented to support the alleged allegations, provide the Respondent with the ability to present information and evidence which counters the allegation(s), and give the college administrator the opportunity to engage the student in developmental dialogue. At the College Accountability Administrator’s discretion, there may be times that follow-up meetings with the reporting and/or impacted parties will occur to provide a full scope of the matter.

In this meeting, the Respondent can accept or deny responsibility for allegation(s) and outlined violations of the Community Expectations Policy. This may also present an opportunity for the Respondent to discuss potential Sanctions with the Student Accountability Administrator.

Notice of Outcome

Direct Adjudication Appeals Process

If a student or student group has been found responsible for a violation of Community Expectations Policy , they have the right to appeal. Upon conclusion of the Direct Adjudication Meeting and delivery of the Sanction(s) to the Respondent(s) involved, the Respondent may appeal a finding of Responsibility or Sanction(s) by writing via email to the Dean of Student Affairs within three (3) business days following the delivery of the outcome of the hearing. The letter must clearly state the grounds and rationale for the appeal. Once received, the Dean of Student Affairs will determine the college administrator who will be named to hear the appeal and who is not the original Student Accountability Administrator. In the event, the Dean of Student Affairs was the initial Student Accountability Administrator, the Provost, or their designee, will hear the appeal to remove biases from the process.

Requests for appeal may be made to the Dean of Student Affairs on the following grounds:

1. Procedural error;
2. New evidence that was not reasonably available at the time of the Direct Adjudication Meeting; and/or
3. Belief that the severity of the Sanction is inappropriate given the details of the Case.

Disagreement with the finding(s) or Sanction(s) are not, by themselves, grounds for appeal.