Middlebury Handbook

The judicial system at the Institute consists of two judicial bodies: The Conduct Judicial Board and the Judicial Appeals Board. The judicial process is overseen by the ADSS.

1. Conduct Judicial Board

a. Jurisdiction

The Conduct Judicial Board normally adjudicates allegations of significant non-academic and academic conduct infractions.

If the Conduct Judicial Board cannot be convened because the Institute is in recess for the summer or J-term, a student responding to allegations of a disciplinary offense may choose to have the matter resolved through the Disposition without Hearing process, or to postpone a hearing until the Conduct Judicial Board can be convened in the fall or spring. A student who chooses to postpone a hearing under these circumstances and who is subsequently suspended for the fall or spring semester, or expelled, will receive a full reimbursement of tuition and all Institute fees for that semester.

Conduct issues that do not fall under our Anti-Harassment/Discrimination Policy or our Policy Against Sexual Misconduct, Domestic and Dating Violence and Misconduct or Stalking, and, that occur during our Summer Intensive Language Program (SILP), or one of our intensive English language programs, will be handled according to the conduct policies and procedures established for the relevant program.

b. Organization

Composition

For the purposes of a non-academic allegation hearing, the Conduct Judicial Board will consist of five members: one staff member, one faculty member, and three students. For the purposes of an academic allegation hearing, the composition of the Board will consist of two student members, two faculty members and the dean of enrollment, advising and student services, who normally serves as the chair. Each member has one vote. To accommodate conflicts of interest and scheduling, at least two staff members, four faculty members, and five to seven students will be selected or appointed each year to rotate service at Conduct Judicial Board hearings.

Selection

The Institute’s VPAA/DOI will appoint the staff representatives to the board on the recommendation of the Staff Advisory Committee. The Academic Policy, Standards, & Instruction Committee (APSIC) will appoint two faculty members, serving as APSIC reps, to the board for academic-related conduct issues. The Faculty Senate will appoint two faculty members for non-academic related conduct issues. The student members will be selected by the procedure described below.

A student must be a full-time, degree-seeking student in at least in their second-semester and in good academic standing, to serve on the Conduct Judicial Board. A student found responsible for a serious academic or non-academic infraction of Institute rules by any Institute judicial authority will be ineligible for membership.

The selection committee is encouraged to assemble a board of student members who reflect the diversity of the Institute’s student population in all areas. Whenever possible, at least one student member will have at least one semester of prior experience serving on the Conduct Judicial Board. The ADSS will review the continued eligibility of a student member of the Conduct Judicial Board who has been found to have committed a serious infraction of Institute rules, and has the authority to require the member to resign.

In the spring semester, a selection committee will be convened and led by the ADSS and will include, whenever possible, one staff member, one faculty member, and at least two members of Student Council. This selection committee will be responsible for advertising the availability of student positions on the Conduct Judicial Board; collecting nominations from the student body; confirming eligibility; interviewing nominees; and selecting the finalists.

Substitution of Members

If there is a need to convene the Conduct Judicial Board and regular members cannot attend a hearing, alternates to the Conduct Judicial Board will be contacted. If for any reason a member of the Conduct Judicial Board has a conflict of interest in a particular proceeding, a replacement will be sought from among the alternate members

Chairs and Co-chairs

Each hearing requires that one Conduct Judicial Board member serve as the hearing chair. The responsibilities of the hearing chair include facilitating the hearing and deliberations process, and making evidentiary and procedural decisions during the hearing as described below. The chair of the Conduct Judicial Board for academic allegation hearings will be the dean of enrollment, advising and student services. There is no co-chair for academic-related hearings.

A faculty member who believes a student has engaged in academic dishonesty shall submit a written statement of the facts supporting the allegations to the ADSS, for transmittal to the Conduct Judicial Board. The faculty member's statement should be sufficiently detailed to enable all parties to prepare for the hearing. Respondents will be provided with access to the professor’s statement, a letter from the ADSS identifying the alleged policy violations to be considered in the hearing, and all related materials that will be shared with the board in advance of the hearing. Normally, the hearing will be scheduled no more than two weeks after the ADSS’ official letter of allegations has been provided to the student. Shorter deadlines may apply in cases involving students at the end of their final term, or with the agreement of the respondent(s). The faculty member initiating allegations shall participate in the hearing to explain them and to ask and answer questions. The faculty member and the respondent may each be accompanied by an adviser of their choosing from the Institute community.

For non-academic allegation hearings, a staff or faculty co-chair is identified the ADSS on a per hearing basis. The student members of the Conduct Judicial Board may select one student to serve as the student co-chair, on a per-hearing basis. The ADSS will determine based on the composition of board members for each hearing who will serve as the chair for that hearing.

c. Accountability and Changes in Procedure

The Conduct Judicial Board is accountable to the VPAA/DOI who is responsible for considering and approving all recommended changes to the policy and procedures of the Conduct Judicial Board.

2. Judicial Appeals Board

a. Jurisdiction

The Judicial Appeals Board has jurisdiction, as specified in the Appeals Procedures to hear appeals of decisions of the Conduct Judicial Board under certain circumstances.

b. Organization

Composition

The Judicial Appeals Board consists of five members: a member of the academic administration, appointed by VPAA/DOI, who serves as co-chair; two faculty board members who did not participate in the original hearing; and two student board members who did not participate in the original hearing. Each member has one vote.

Selection of Members

An attempt will be made to select student and faculty members who did not hear the original case; however, issues of conflict of interest or availability may dictate selecting members at the discretion of the VPAA/DOI. A student member may co-chair the appeal as appropriate.

Substitution of Members

If there is a need to convene the Judicial Appeals Board when both regular and alternate members are unavailable, the administrative co-chair and/or the VPOI/DOI may appoint substitute members. Priority will be given to students and faculty with judicial experience. If for any reason a member of the Judicial Appeals Board has a conflict of interest in a particular proceeding, a replacement will be appointed.