The Director may refer allegations of violations of the Code to one of the following options for resolution. The Director may reassign a matter after referral if the information or circumstances change in such a way as to warrant a different response:

Non-Disciplinary

1. Reminder Letter. Students will receive an official written notice that specifies that a particular behavior(s) may have violated the Code and, if repeated, such behavior may be subject to the disciplinary process.

2. University Directive Letter. Students alleged to have participated in prohibited behavior may be sent a University Directive Letter with assigned terms. Failure to complete these terms could result in disciplinary action.

3. Expectation Meeting. Students will meet with a University administrator to discuss the behavior that is of concern. During the meeting, students will be informed about particular provisions in the Code that may have been or may be violated should the behavior of concern continue. As a result of an Expectation Meeting, students may be assigned terms. If terms are assigned, the student(s) will be notified, in writing, within five (5) business days of the conclusion of the meeting(s). The administrator may also suggest additional resources for the student. Failure to attend an Expectation Meeting or to complete any terms could result in disciplinary action. An Expectation Meeting is not a prerequisite for referral to a Disciplinary Response Option.

4. Mediation. Mediation is a voluntary, private means of resolving conflict. It brings the parties together with a trained mediator in an informal, neutral setting to discuss their dispute and to find a lasting solution to it. If a matter is referred to mediation, the timing/deadline requirements outlined in these procedures are suspended. If any party to a conflict is unwilling to engage in mediation or if the parties are unable to resolve the conflict through mediation, the matter may be referred to a disciplinary proceeding for resolution if it involves allegations of prohibited conduct. When parties successfully resolve their dispute through mediation, the mediator will notify the Director that the matter has been resolved.

5. Restorative Dialogue. Students will meet with trained facilitators for a mediated dialogue aimed at resolving conflict and addressing behaviors that may not rise to the level of a Code violation but have caused individual or community harm. Participation in a restorative dialogue is voluntary and may or may not result in a formal agreement between students or groups of students. 

Disciplinary (lower-level resolutions)

A determination about what constitutes “minor” or “serious” prohibited conduct or harm will be made by the Director of Student Conduct & Community Standards or their designee.

1. Letter Resolution. Students charged with minor prohibited conduct may, at the discretion of the Director, have the option of either accepting responsibility and a proposed outcome or going to an Administrative Review Meeting. A determination about what constitutes “minor” or “serious” prohibited conduct or harm will be made by the Director of Student Conduct & Community Standards or their designee. Factors considered in making this assessment include, but are not limited to, impact to the campus community, harm caused to individuals, and the magnitude of the response necessary to address the issue.

2. Restorative Conference. Students who take responsibility for engaging in prohibited conduct that has caused minor harm (e.g., minor theft, property damage, community disruptions) may be offered the opportunity to participate in a restorative conference. These proceedings bring students who have caused harm together with harmed parties, community members, and co-facilitators to explore ways that the harm can be redressed and mitigated. This process is voluntary for all parties. If the harmed party decides not to participate, the case may be referred to an Administrative Review Meeting, depending on the particular circumstances. If the responsible party decides not to participate, the case will be referred to an Administrative Review Meeting. More information about Restorative Conferences.

3. Document Adjudication. Students charged with prohibited conduct may, at the discretion of the Director, have their cases heard through Document Adjudication. In cases where it is determined that Document Adjudication is appropriate, a University administrator will review documents submitted by all parties to address matters involving prohibited conduct that do not involve possible separation from the University. Repeated offenses of any kind, however, may result in a determination that the matter should be resolved through higher-level disciplinary proceedings, for which separation from the University is a possible outcome.

4. Administrative Review Meeting. A University administrator will meet one-on-one with respondents (and sometimes complainants and witnesses) to review matters involving prohibited conduct that do not involve possible separation from the University. Repeated offenses of any kind, however, may result in a determination that the matter should be resolved through higher-level disciplinary proceedings, for which separation from the University is a possible outcome. In general, matters involving undergraduates will be handled by designated Administrative Reviewers within Campus Life; matters involving graduate students will be handled by Administrative Reviewers from the Graduate School; and matters involving medical students will be handled by Administrative Reviewers from the Medical School. More information about Administrative Review Meetings. 

5. Student Group Administrative Review Meeting. Allegations of prohibited conduct by student groups will be resolved through Student Group Administrative Review Meetings conducted by administrators of the University. These meetings will be between one University administrator and the leader of the student group under review.  More information about Student Group Meetings. 

Disciplinary (higher-level resolutions) 

1. Higher-Level Restorative Conference. Students who take responsibility for engaging in prohibited conduct that has caused serious harm (e.g., physical assault, serious and/or bias-related harassment, major theft or property damage) may be offered the opportunity to participate in a Higher-Level Restorative Conference if deemed appropriate by the Director. Such proceedings will focus on the harm that was caused and ways that the student(s) who caused it can address and repair that harm. More information about Restorative Conferences. 

2. Student Conduct Board Hearing. The Student Conduct Board, composed of students, faculty, and administrators, will hear matters involving prohibited conduct that may result in separation from the University and/or a transcript remark. Cases before the Student Conduct Board may involve serious prohibited conduct in a single incident or a persistent pattern of less severe prohibited conduct. More information about Student Conduct Board Hearings. 

3. Administrative Hearing. An Administrative Hearing will be conducted by a single dean or administrator of the University for matters involving prohibited conduct that may result in separation from the University and/or a transcript remark. Cases resolved through an Administrative Hearing may involve serious prohibited conduct in a single incident or a persistent pattern of less severe prohibited conduct. In general, matters involving undergraduates will be heard by Hearing Officers from Campus Life and/or The College; matters involving graduate students will be heard by administrators from the Graduate School; matters involving medical students will be heard by administrators from the Medical School. More information about Administrative Hearings. 

For matters serious enough to warrant a higher-level hearing, the Director will determine whether the charged student will be given the option to have the matter resolved through an Administrative Hearing or a Student Conduct Board Hearing. For charges involving 3.4.10 Harassment or 3.4.11 Harm to Person(s) of the Code of Student Conduct, students will not be offered a choice and will have their cases resolved through a Student Conduct Board Hearing, except as provided for below. In determining whether a student will be offered a choice, the Director may take into consideration factors which include without limitation the complexity, severity, and community impact of the case. In some cases, including those involving charges of 3.4.10 Harassment or 3.4.11 Harm to Person(s), the Director may refer a case directly to an Administrative Hearing if convening a Student Conduct Board Hearing would result in a significant delay in the resolution of the matter (e.g., during academic recesses).

General Provisions for Disciplinary Procedures

All non-restorative disciplinary proceedings will be conducted in accordance with the following:

1. Closed Proceedings. All hearings and Administrative Review Meetings will be closed to the public.

2. Privacy. Except as permitted or required by law (for example, in response to a lawfully issued subpoena or court order), information disclosed during these proceedings will remain private unless there is a need to disclose it to others within the University (e.g., Residential Life in the case of a housing relocation).

3. Qualification and Responsibilities of Hearing Officers. Student members of hearing bodies must be currently enrolled and in good standing, that is, not on academic warning or currently on any community status. All administrative and faculty members will be employees of the University. All Hearing Officers will be required to maintain privacy related to all aspects of the proceedings. The Director is responsible for removing any Student Conduct Board member who violates privacy and may refer the matter for disciplinary action. If the specific member(s) of a Student Conduct Board panel cannot be identified, the Director may recommend to the Dean of Students3 that the panel in question be disbanded.

4. Qualification and Responsibilities of Administrative and Document Reviewers. All Administrative and Document Reviewers will be employees of the University and will be required to maintain privacy related to all aspects of their proceedings. The Director is responsible for handling any violations of privacy by Administrative and Document Reviewers.

5. Disqualification and Exclusion. Any member of a hearing body who believes that they are prejudiced by association with the case, the participants, or by information or belief will disqualify themselves from hearing the case. A respondent or complainant may request, in writing, that a member of a hearing body be disqualified from hearing a case. The request will be made to the Case Administrator by 9:00 AM no more than two (2) days after receiving the charge letter and will include an explanation as to why the member is unable to render an impartial decision in the case. The Case Administrator will determine whether to grant or deny the request for disqualification.

6. Standard of Evidence. In determining whether or not an offense has been committed, the Administrative Reviewer or Hearing Officer(s) will base determinations on the standard of preponderance of the evidence (more likely than not).

7. Multiple Students. Cases in which more than one student is charged with violating the Code and which depend on common facts or set of evidence may either be considered jointly in a single proceeding with the consent of all parties or be assigned to separate, individual proceedings as determined by the Director.

8. Case Administrator. A Case Administrator is a University official designated by the Director to manage these procedures. Additionally, the Case Administrator will respond to requests from respondents and complainants during the pre-hearing phases of the student conduct procedures.

9. Chair. A Student Conduct Administrator will serve as the hearing Chair for any higher level hearings.

10. Investigator. For most cases in which allegations could result in a separation from the University, as determined by the Office of Student Conduct & Community Standards, the University will use an investigator model to conduct an Investigative Review of allegations. This will include interviews with the complainant(s), respondent(s), and any relevant witnesses. These interviews may be conducted by Student Conduct & Community Standards Deans or an appointed internal or external investigator if deemed appropriate by the Dean of Students. Complainant(s) and respondent(s) will have an opportunity to provide information to the investigator. If the complaint is not complex in nature, it may be reviewed by collecting written statements and/or any relevant documents from complainant(s), respondent(s), and any relevant witnesses. The Director will decide, based on the severity of the behavior, relevant circumstances of the case, and resources available, how a case will be investigated.

11. Respondent. The respondent is the charged student(s) and is entitled to be present during the course of any disciplinary proceeding. The respondent will not be present during other meetings designed to gather information from complainants or witnesses. The Administrative Reviewer or Hearing Officer(s) may decide to hold a proceeding even if a respondent fails to appear despite proper notification. In restorative proceedings, the respondent will be referred to as the responsible party.

12. Complainant. The complainant is often the person who has filed a complaint. For incidents in which the reporting party is not a Brown University student, staff, or faculty member, a University official may serve as the complainant. The complainant is entitled to be present during the course of the hearing concerning their complaint for higher-level hearings. The complainant will not be present during other meetings designed to gather information from the respondent(s) or witnesses. For matters heard by the Student Conduct Board or by an Administrative Hearing Officer in which there is no complainant, a University official other than the Case Administrator may serve in that capacity. For lower-level proceedings, the complainant will not be present during a respondent’s Administrative Review Meeting but may have a separate meeting with the Administrative Reviewer. In restorative proceedings, the complainant will be referred to as the harmed party.

13. University Representative. In cases for which there is no complainant, a University official may participate in the hearing process as the complainant at the discretion of the Case Administrator.

14. Attorneys. Students may retain legal counsel for advice outside of these procedures, however attorneys may not participate in any aspect of these procedures. Attorneys may not serve as a student’s advisor under these procedures.

15. Witnesses. Members of the University community, including respondents, are expected to appear at a hearing or participate in an investigative review if they have knowledge or information regarding the incident in question and they have been notified to appear. Individuals who are not members of the University community will generally be permitted to appear at a hearing only if they have direct knowledge or information regarding an incident that is not otherwise available. Members of the University community who may have knowledge of information regarding an incident or complaint may be asked to meet with a University official to share information or with the Administrative Reviewer or Hearing Officer(s) to inform the outcome of a disciplinary proceeding.

16. Amnesty for Personal Ingestion of Alcohol or Other Drugs. Brown University generally will offer amnesty to a reporting student, whether as a complainant or a witness, for the personal ingestion of alcohol or other drugs in violation of the Code. Please refer to the Student Alcohol and Other Drug Policy for more information.

17. Appeals. See Appeal Process.

18. Timing and Deadlines. “Days” in these procedures refer to business days, not weekends or

    University holidays. Any requirement in these procedures must be completed by 3:00 PM on the day specified, unless otherwise noted in writing. A hearing or deliberations may be conducted on a Saturday, Sunday, or University holiday, if necessary.

19. Advisors. Students or student groups are entitled to have an advisor during Investigative Reviews and higher-level hearings. Advisors must be faculty or staff members of the University but may not be attorneys. Advisors may accompany students to any meeting or proceeding outlined in the Student Conduct Procedures.

20. Graduate Labor Organization. Graduate students who are members of the graduate student union bargaining unit may request that a union representative be present as an advisor at an Administrative Review Meeting. Requests may be made by completing this Request for Union Representative at Conduct Meeting form and must be submitted 1 business day before the meeting. Requests will be approved if they meet the following requirements:

    1. Status

       1. ​The student is in a semester-length appointment as a Research Assistant, Teaching Assistant, or Proctor; AND

       2. The meeting is related to the employment relationship between the University and the graduate student employee for said position. AND

    2. Timing

       1. The alleged incident occurred during a semester when the student was a member of the union; OR

       2. The meeting takes place during a semester when the student is a member of the union.

21. Statements of Impact and Mitigation. A person making a complaint shall have the right to submit an impact statement to the Administrative Reviewer or Hearing Officer(s) to be considered after a finding of responsibility but prior to a determination of outcome(s). A respondent in a higher-level proceeding may submit a statement of mitigation. Impact and mitigation statements shall not be considered as evidence that the incident in question was in fact committed, and shall not be the basis for examination in any proceeding. However, the Administrative Reviewer or Hearing Officer(s) may consider the impact and mitigation statements in making a determination as to the appropriate outcome to be imposed upon a finding that the Code has been violated.

22. Emergency Separation. Emergency separation may be used for matters in which a student poses a risk to the immediate safety or well-being of themselves or the University community, or participates in actions that create a substantial disruption of University functions. The President, the Vice President for Campus Life, and the Dean of Students or their designees have the authority to impose an emergency separation including any additional conditions deemed necessary.

23. Interim Measures. The University may authorize interim measures, prior to and following the resolution of a matter under these Procedures. Such measures may include, but are not limited to, no contact orders, housing relocation, change in housing permissions, as well as restrictions on campus, including participation in activities. Interim measures may be modified as deemed appropriate as a matter proceeds to resolution.

24. Criminal/Civil Charges. University disciplinary proceedings may be initiated and proceed in cases involving conduct that potentially violates both criminal and/or civil laws and the Code, even though a legal investigation or court proceeding might be pending. University proceedings may occur before, during, or after the criminal/civil court process.