Contents
Catalog Links
Share

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.

 

The Respondent should receive no less than three (3) business days of meeting notification. This timeframe may be altered during academic periods close to campus closures, graduation, a waiver of the timeframe by the responding party, or other areas deemed necessary by the Dean of Student Affairs or their designee. This notice will be sent to the responding party’s Olin College email address. 

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

After the meeting and review of any subsequent information provided by the responding party and/or their Witness(es), the college administrator will determine the responding party’s responsibility in the matter based on the use of Preponderance and provide written notice which includes the Student Accountability Administrator’s decision, including any Sanctions, and rationale. If the student is found responsible/accepts responsibility for a violation of the policy, this notice will also outline the appeal procedures.

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.