II. PROCEDURES – Self-Government Association

CONFRONTATION UNDER THE HONOR CODE

A. Academic Cases

1. 1. If a student or another member of the community (including members of the faculty) suspects that the actions of another student are not consistent with the policies agreed to under the Academic Resolutions of the Honor Code, they should talk in person with the student who committed the alleged violation to determine whether or not a potential violation has occurred. If the confronting party is satisfied that no violation has occurred, no further action is needed. If, after the conversation, the confronting party still believes that a violation may have occurred, the confronting party should ask the confronted student to report themself to the Honor Board (preferably, in writing). This process of confrontation should be conducted in a completely confidential manner.
The confronted student is obligated to contact the Head(s) of the Honor Board within 48 hours to report that an infraction may have occurred. At that point, the Head(s) of the Honor Board will make contact with both the confronted and confronting parties, soliciting them to submit statements. If the confronting party has not heard from the Head of the Honor Board within 72 hours, they should report the possible infraction and the student’s name to the Head. This should be done in writing, if possible.
Both the confronting and confronted parties, as directed by the Head(s) of the Honor Board must write separate statements explaining the circumstances as they perceive them. In ordinary circumstances, the statements should be submitted to the Honor Board within 72 hours after the confronted student and the Honor Board have made contact.
The Head(s) of the Honor Board and the Dean Co-Chair of the Honor Board, will read both statements to determine if an Honor Board resolution process is warranted. If it is unclear whether a matter should be addressed by the Academic or Social Honor Board, the Head(s) of the Honor Board in conjunction with the Dean Co-Chair of the Honor Board, shall decide to whom the matter will be referred.

B. Social Cases

If a student is offended by the actions of another student, either personally or because the student believes them to be detrimental to the community, the student must confront the student directly as the first step toward conflict resolution, in a process referred to as “positive confrontation”. This conversation must take place in person unless the option is not available (i.e. the student is abroad, or actions occur prior to the beginning of a semester or on a break). Confrontation is not a hostile action. The two students should engage in a constructive discussion to try and reach a common understanding. This does not imply an agreement but an “exchange of values” or “expression of concerns” which results in a viable solution for both parties. An Honor Board member may act on behalf of another student if this process would place the student involved in physical or emotional danger. In the case of an Honor Board member assisting in the confrontation, a clear line of communication must be maintained between the students involved in the confrontation.
In conflicts where a third party may be helpful, the following resources are available:
1. Hall Advisors: Hall Advisors’ role involves advising students in their building on how to live under the Honor Code. Hall Advisors may, if asked by one of the conflicting parties, help facilitate, but not mediate, the resolution of prolonged disputes. They are a part of the support network during repeated attempts at confrontation; they may give advice to both sides.
2. If the problem remains unsolved, a formal mediation may be desired. Mediation is a process by which a trained, neutral third party assists the parties in a conflict to arrive at a resolution through facilitating communication. The SGA Conflict Resolution Committee, along with the Office of Restorative Practices, are two resources that can be utilized to foster communication and help solve prolonged disputes with complete confidentiality. Contact information for both resources can be found in the student handbook and on the College’s Website.
3. Customs people, because it is necessary that they maintain good relations with both sides of a dispute, are asked not to participate in mediation or confrontation between first-year students in their halls. They may refer conflicting parties to the appropriate resources.
4. All undergraduate student Honor Board representatives are available to address concerns regarding the Honor Code and confrontation.
Confidentiality is vital to the success of the Social Honor Code; knowledge of the problem must be confined to as limited a group of people as possible (i.e.: the persons involved, HAs, conflict mediators, counselors, 1-2 confidants, etc.).
If the issue cannot be resolved, the Head of the Honor Board should be contacted, and upon hearing of the situation, they can either refer parties to a relevant conflict resolution process on campus or initiate a Social Honor Board process. A social Honor Board process cannot be called unless there has been a positive confrontation. Social Honor Board processes can only take place between two students. If multiple parties are involved in a social conflict, members of the conflict can serve as witnesses.
To move ahead with a Social Honor Board process, the Head(s) of the Honor Board will make contact with both the confronted and confronting parties via email, soliciting them to submit statements.
Both the confronting and confronted parties must write separate statements explaining the circumstances as they perceive them. In ordinary circumstances, the statements should be submitted to the Honor Board within 72 hours after the students and the Head(s) Honor Board have made contact.
The Head of the Honor Board, along with the Senior Counsel, will review all written statements and determine if a hearing is warranted and which witnesses will be heard.

2. HONOR BOARD RESOLUTION PROCEDURES

Academic Cases
1. Decisions on Honor Board Procedure Fitness
  1. It will be up to the discretion of the Head(s) of the Honor Board whether a case should proceed as an alternative resolution conversation or a Full Board Hearing, or be escalated to a Dean’s Panel, based on the statements submitted by all parties. Cases will typically be convened as an alternative resolution conversation if there is a clear understanding of the events that took place, the narrative is consistent from both perspectives, and there are few clarifying questions. Cases will typically be convened as a Full Board process if there are differing perspectives, an inconsistent narrative, or if bringing in several individuals from the Honor Board would be helpful in the deliberation process.
  2. The Head(s) of the Honor Board will solicit members of the Academic Honor Board to serve as representatives on the hearing based on the guidelines below for the makeup of each procedure by sharing the name(s) of all parties. The Head(s) shall not share the case documents with members of the Board until they have been confirmed to serve on a case. When choosing members of the Honor Board to take part in a resolution process, any members or representatives (including the Head(s) of the Honor Board who have a close interpersonal relationship history with either party will be asked to recuse themselves from service.
  3. The Head of the Honor Board will present via email to all parties the slate of Board members who will be present for the resolution process so that all members are able to give their consent. Should any party object, other members of the Academic Honor Board will be asked to serve as representatives.
2. Procedures for an Alternative Resolution Conversation
  1. The members of an alternative resolution conversation will be comprised of the confronted and confronting parties, the Head(s) of the Honor Board (or, in the case of necessary recusal, one undergraduate student representative to the Honor Board), the Dean Co-Chair of the Honor Board, the confronted party’s academic advising dean, and an additional support person for the confronted party. The Head(s) of the Honor Board or the undergraduate student representative proxy will serve as the conversation facilitator. With the exception of the additional support person, all members of the conversation have an equal say in the resolution creation process.
    1. If the confronting party is a student, they may be represented during the conversation by the professor involved. The confronting student, however, may be asked to write a statement for the conversation.
  2. The Senior Counsel and/or the Head of the Honor Board talk to the persons involved prior to each alternative resolution conversation. At the conversation, the statements previously submitted to the Honor Board will be read by conversation members. No new materials may be presented during an alternative resolution conversation without the express consent of all parties.
  3. In the alternative resolution conversation, all parties will be given the opportunity to elaborate on their statements and speak openly to each other in a conversational manner regarding the events or actions in question. Then, all parties and other conversation members work together to come to a formal resolution based around what each party feels would be fair, proportionate, and, and restorative. In an instance where parties cannot come to an agreement at the conclusion of the conversation, the Head(s) of the Honor Board can propose a fair and restorative resolution that they feel best represents the desired resolutions of all parties. If at this time, either party remains dissatisfied, the alternative resolution conversation will conclude and will be reconvened as a full Honor Board hearing, scheduled pursuant to the guidelines below for an academic Full Honor Board hearing. Once the resolution has been agreed upon, all parties are provided with a written record of the group’s decision by the Head of the Honor Board and/or the Dean Co-Chair of the Honor Board. Each record includes all written statements and the alternative resolution group’s final decision in the case.
3. Procedures for a Full Honor Board Hearing
  1. The members of a Full Board hearing will be comprised of the confronted and confronting parties, the Head(s) of the Honor Board (or, in the case of necessary recusal, one additional undergraduate student representative to the Honor Board), two undergraduate student class representatives, one Faculty Representative, and the Dean Co-Chair of the Honor Board.
    1. If the confronting party is a student, they may be represented during the conversation by the professor involved. The confronting student, however, may be asked to write a statement for the conversation.
    2. If the hearing involves a Postbaccalauraete Student, one of the student representatives will be replaced with a Postbaccalaureate Student Representative.
  2. The Senior Counsel and/or the Head of the Honor Board talk to the persons involved prior to each hearing. At the hearing, the statements previously submitted to the Honor Board will be read by Board members before the arrival of the confronting and confronted parties. Both parties (confronting and confronted) may read all written statements. No new materials may be presented during a hearing process without express consent of all parties.
  3. In the hearing, the confronted student has the option to be present for all testimony given. The student’s dean is present during the entire hearing, but does not have a vote in the final decision. The hearing is conducted in an informal manner. As soon as the hearing is over, the student is informed of the Board’s decision by the Head of the Honor Board and the Dean of the Undergraduate College or their designee from the Dean’s Office. The Dean of the Undergraduate College, or their designee from the Dean’s Office, informs the professor of the confronting party.
  4. When the Head of the Honor Board deems it necessary, the Honor Board may call expert witnesses to testify about the materials in question. To ensure impartiality, this witness may not currently be the student’s professor.
  5. Each record includes all written statements and the Honor Board’s final decision in the case.
  6. At the end of each semester, the Head of the Honor Board will release a final report of the hearings that took place to the Bryn Mawr Community. This report will include the number of academic hearings, the reason why they were brought to the Honor Board, and a broad description of the decision of each hearing. In addition, the Head of the Honor Board will present this information at the end of each semester to the SGA Assembly. Included in the published report, the Head of the Honor Board must also include five to six random abstracts from no earlier than two semesters ago and no older than six. This random selection should be representative of cases that are still relevant to campus life. All members of the Self-Government Association have the right to ask the Head of the Honor Board for as many abstracts from hearings that have happened from no earlier than two semesters ago and no older than six semesters.
4. Appeals – Appeals of decisions of the Academic Honor Board may be made to the President of the College within one week of the conclusion of the hearing. Appeals may only be made in cases where the procedure followed is questionable. The appeal must be presented in writing. The President will review all materials from the hearing, and the decision of the Honor Board in respect to the complaint of the confronted student. The President will not hear new evidence. The President may uphold any decision of the Honor Board, reverse that decision, or call for a new hearing. Decisions involving separation and exclusion are automatically appealed.

Social Cases
1. Decisions on Honor Board Procedure Fitness
  1. It will be up to the discretion of the Head(s) of the Honor Board whether a case should proceed as an alternative resolution conversation or a Full Board Hearing, or be escalated to a Dean’s Panel, based on the statements submitted by all parties. Cases will typically be convened as an alternative resolution conversation if there is a clear understanding of the events that took place, the narrative is consistent from both perspectives, and there are few clarifying questions. Cases will typically be convened as a Full Board process if there are differing perspectives, an inconsistent narrative, or if bringing in several individuals from the Honor Board would be helpful in the deliberation process.
  2. The Head(s) of the Honor Board will solicit members of the Academic Honor Board to serve as representatives on the hearing based on the guidelines below for the makeup of each procedure by sharing the name(s) of all parties. The Head(s) shall not share the case documents with members of the Board until they have been confirmed to serve on a case. When choosing members of the Honor Board to take part in a resolution process, any members or representatives (including the Head(s) of the Honor Board who have a close interpersonal relationship history with either party will be asked to recuse themselves from service.
  3. The Head of the Honor Board will present via email to all parties the slate of Board members who will be present for the resolution process so that all members are able to give their consent. Should any party object, other members of the Academic Honor Board will be asked to serve as representatives.
2. Procedures for an Alternative Resolution Conversation
  1. The members of an alternative resolution conversation will be comprised of the confronted and confronting parties, the Head(s) of the Honor Board (or, in the case of necessary recusal, one undergraduate student representative to the Honor Board), the Dean Co-Chair of the Honor Board, the confronted party’s academic advising dean, and an additional support person for the confronted party. The Head(s) of the Honor Board or the undergraduate student representative proxy will serve as the conversation facilitator. With the exception of the additional support person, all members of the conversation have an equal say in the resolution creation process.
    1. If the confronting party is a student, they may be represented during the conversation by the professor involved. The confronting student, however, may be asked to write a statement for the conversation.
  2. The Senior Counsel and/or the Head of the Honor Board talk to the persons involved prior to each alternative resolution conversation. At the conversation, the statements previously submitted to the Honor Board will be read by conversation members. No new materials may be presented during an alternative resolution conversation without the express consent of all parties.
  3. In the alternative resolution conversation, all parties will be given the opportunity to elaborate on their statements and speak openly to each other in a conversational manner regarding the events or actions in question. Then, all parties and other conversation members work together to come to a formal resolution based around what each party feels would be fair, proportionate, and, and restorative. In an instance where parties cannot come to an agreement at the conclusion of the conversation, the Head(s) of the Honor Board can propose a fair and restorative resolution that they feel best represents the desired resolutions of all parties. If at this time, either party remains dissatisfied, the alternative resolution conversation will conclude and will be reconvened as a full Honor Board hearing, scheduled pursuant to the guidelines below for an academic Full Honor Board hearing. Once the resolution has been agreed upon, all parties are provided with a written record of the group’s decision by the Head of the Honor Board and/or the Dean Co-Chair of the Honor Board. Each record includes all written statements and the alternative resolution group’s final decision in the case.
3. Procedures for a Full Social Honor Board Hearing
  1. The Head of the Honor Board informs the confronted student of their option to seek advice from the Senior Counsel.
  2. The Senior Counsel and/or the Head talk to the parties involved prior to each hearing. At the hearing, the statements previously submitted to the Honor Board will be read by Board members before the arrival of the confronting and confronted parties.
  3. In the hearing, the confronted student has the option to be present for all testimony given and, in the event that the confronted student decides to speak, speaks last. The hearing is conducted in an informal manner. As soon as the hearing is over, the student is informed of the decision of the Board by the Head of the Honor Board and Senior Counsel.
  4. Social hearings are confidential. Each record includes all written statements and the Honor Board’s final decision in the case.
  5. At the beginning of the spring semester, the Head of the Honor Board must release Social Honor Board Hearing abstracts from no earlier than two semesters ago and no older than ten. These abstracts should be presented to the SGA assembly and will be released to the Bryn Mawr community. The Head of the Honor Board should take into consideration issues of confidentiality while selecting these abstracts as there still may be collective memory over the incident. The Head of the Honor Board will consult the Dean of Undergraduate Students when doing so. If the Head of the Honor Board does not have any Social Honor Board abstracts to release, then she must state this to the SGA Assembly at the beginning of the spring semester.
4. Appeal
  1. Appeals of decisions of the Social Honor Board must be directed to the President of the Self-Government Association, in writing, within one week of the conclusion of the hearing unless the confronted student is a current member of the SGA assembly. Appeals may only be made in cases where the procedure followed is questionable; decisions involving separation and exclusion are automatically appealed. The President of the SGA will appoint two members of the SGA Assembly to an Appeal Committee. The student bringing the appeal selects one member of the SGA Assembly to serve on the Appeal Committee. Those three choose two more members from the SGA assembly; the five elect a chairperson. The Appeal Committee invites the Head of the Honor Board to respond in writing to the complaint and reviews this and all other written materials. It may interview the student bringing the appeal and the Head of the Honor Board. The Appeal Committee may uphold the Honor Board’s decision, reverse the decision, or order a new hearing. It reports in writing to the President of the SGA. The Appeal Committee must complete its work in one sitting.
  2. Final appeal may be directed in writing to the President of the College and the President of the SGA within three days of receipt of the decision of the Appeal Committee. The Presidents will review all materials from the hearing and the appeal. They may uphold the decision of the Appeal Committee, reverse it, or order a new hearing.
  3. If the confronted student is a current member of the SGA assembly, appeals must be directed to the President of the College, in writing, within one week of the conclusion of the hearing. Appeals may only be made in cases where the procedure followed is questionable. The President will review all materials from the hearing, and the decision of the Honor Board in respect to the complaint of the appealing student. The President will not hear new evidence. The President may uphold any decision of the Honor Board, reverse that decision, or call for a new hearing. Decisions involving separation and exclusion are automatically appealed.

Reporting to Other Higher Educational Institutions
1. During applications to other institutions of higher learning, including graduate and professional schools, students who have taken part in an Honor Board process as a confronted party must report having been involved in a “disciplinary hearing,” only if doing so has been specified as a formal resolution item during their resolution process. The Honor Board’s policy regarding specifying this resolution item is that all individuals taking part in an Honor Board process will not be asked to report their process to institutions of higher learning if the process is resolving a first-time violation of the Honor Code. On a second or other repeat violation, reporting involvement in a hearing process to other institutions of higher learning may be a part of a student’s resolution. This policy is made clear to all students taking part in resolution processes. Exceptions to this policy can be made on a case-by-case basis by the Head(s) of the Honor Board and the current Dean Co-Chair of the Honor Board.