Developmental Complexity in Student Conduct: An Extended Case Analysis of Student Board Members

College students frequently serve on boards that hear cases of alleged student misconduct. These students contribute to decisions that can affect their peers' lives and make their colleges vulnerable to litigation and negative media coverage. It is critical that student board members carefully interpret all information presented in disciplinary proceedings and consistently apply institutional procedures and relevant laws in order to both protect their institutions and ensure fair outcomes for students involved in the conduct process. Existing literature provides an inadequate evidentiary base from which to conclude that student board members can maintain these crucial standards of care and consistency. Most empirical literature examining the developmental outcomes of the conduct process has focused on the responding student (e.g., Dannells, 1997; Stimpson & Stimpson, 2008). The limited empirical literature on conduct boards has focused almost exclusively on administrators, but even this literature calls into question how consistently decisions can be made (Stimpson & Janosik, 2015; Waller, 2013). For student board members, varied levels of cognitive and moral reasoning and development may further shape students' decision-making and challenge them as they organize, interpret, and evaluate voluminous, often contradictory information before rendering a judgment.

For this qualitative study of the cognitive and moral development of students who adjudicate disciplinary cases, we aimed to determine these students' ability to perform their duties adequately. We utilized the extended case method to explore how well theories of cognitive development (Baxter Magolda, 1992) and moral development (Rest, Narvaez, Thoma, & Bebeau, 2000) reflected the experiences of student hearing board members. The participants in this study were drawn from an academic course intended to help train student hearing board members at a large public university (LPU). Our data analysis included observation of class activities and review of student assignments. Our findings indicated that using undergraduate students to determine the responsibility of their peers who have been accused of violating student conduct codes may be problematic.

BAXTER MAGOLDA'S WAYS OF KNOWING

We selected Baxter Magolda's (1992) ways of knowing as the theoretical lens by which to understand cognitive development because of its focus on context in the reasoning process. Baxter Magolda suggested that there are four ways of knowing: absolute, transitional, independent, and contextual. Absolute knowers view knowledge as certain and held by authorities, such as course instructors or text-books. Transitional knowers often still rely on authorities for information, but they also seek to actively engage information and recognize the possibility of differing interpretations of what is true. In contrast, independent knowers do not believe in the certainty of knowledge and find value in many different sources of information. Finally, contextual knowers view knowledge as individually constructed in a setting established by authorities, peers, and significant others of influence.

NEO-KOHLBERGIAN MORAL DEVELOPMENT

We utilized the neo-Kohlbergian model of Rest et al. (2000) as the theoretical lens through which to understand moral development. These moral development theorists suggested that there are three moral reasoning schemas: personal interest, maintaining norms, and postconventional. Under the personal interest schema, individuals make decisions based on the outcomes that directly relate to themselves or their loved ones. As individuals move into the maintaining norms schema, they recognize the importance of making decisions that create and ensure social order. For those reaching the postconventional schema, decisions are viewed based on their contribution to social values and ideals.

THE ROLE OF HEARING BOARDS

Relevant case law has established requirements for how disciplinary panels operate. Conduct boards cannot sanction a student for violating a policy unless the student has been notified of charges concerning that policy (Fellheimer v. Middlebury College, 1994). Additionally, conduct boards are obligated to follow institutional disciplinary procedures, including providing students with safeguards listed in institutional codes of conduct (Holert v. U. of Chicago, 1990; Schaer v. Brandeis U., 2000). Legal precedent shows that courts may intervene when conduct boards act in ways that are arbitrary and capricious (Anderson v. Mass. Inst. of Tech., 1995). The case law clearly establishes that board members must operate consistently within the established parameters to protect the...