Proposed Changes to the Student Handbook for 2025-26

Where Does the Code Apply (p. 27)

Updated Language:

Where and How Does the Code Apply?

This Code applies to conduct that occurs on university property, at university-sponsored activities, in study abroad programs, and on university-sponsored virtual platforms. The university can apply the Code to off-campus conduct when the conduct adversely affects the university community and the pursuit of its objectives, including when the behavior:

• Causes substantial disruption to the university community, areas surrounding university property, its living/learning community, or any of its members;
• Involves academic work in the classroom or in any academic setting such as a lab or field site;
• Involves any university records, documents, or university-issued identifications;
• Occurs within the context of an educational program or activity;
• Indicates the student or student organization may present a threat to health or safety or the university’s orderly operation;
• Involves fraudulent or illegal behavior that represents a risk to the integrity of the university’s academic environment; or
• Results in a conviction for violation of local, state, or federal law, particularly when the violation of law involves a threat to member(s) of its community or the integrity of the university’s academic processes.

The Director of Student Accountability & Restorative Practices (SARP)/designee will decide whether the Code of Conduct will be applied to conduct occurring off campus, on a case-by-case basis, in their sole discretion.

Rationale: The edits to this section provide additional clarity by separating existing content into additional bullet points. The final bullet point proposes adjusting language from "Constitutes a violation of local, state, or federal law..." to "Results in a conviction for violation of local, state, or federal law..."

Violations of the Student Code of Conduct (p. 30)

Updated Language:

Violations of Local, State, or Federal Law

The university has an interest in respecting the safety and welfare of members of the university community and protecting its institutional integrity and resources.

The Student Code of Conduct and its processes reflect its educational objectives and therefore differ from those of criminal courts. Therefore, it is not double jeopardy for the university to sanction conduct that also may be addressed by the criminal justice system.

When criminal charges are pending, the university may not be able to conduct its own investigation and/or hold a proceeding to resolve the Student Conduct allegations. In such cases, the university can delay its proceedings until it can obtain sufficient information upon which to proceed. The university reserves the option to impose interim measures, including interim suspension, in such circumstances.

Proceedings under this Code can be carried out prior to, concurrently with, or following the resolution of criminal or civil proceedings. Determinations made or sanctions imposed under this Code will not be subject to change because criminal charges arising out of the same set of facts were dismissed, reduced, or resolved in favor of or against the Respondent.

Rationale: In reviewing this section of the Code, the Committee recommends that additional clarity is needed. The previous phrase, “conduct leading to arrest...” was determined to be overly vague; the Committee therefore recommends its removal from the policy.

Disruptive Behavior (p. 31)

Updated Language:

Engaging in disorderly or disruptive action that interferes with the normal living and work environments of other members of the university community or the university’s activities, including teaching, research, studying, business operations, and university-sponsored events. Disruptive behavior includes, but is not limited to, acts that interfere with the living/learning environment in the classroom and residence halls spaces.

(Added the following to bulleted list of violations on p. 32):

• Using or presenting false identification
• Public indecency, including nudity and public urination

Rationale: The two specific acts listed above were considered "Violation of Laws" and were not enumerated as "disruptive behaviors" in the Code. The SCCAC recommends including these disruptive behaviors in the Code to reduce the application of the Violation of Laws policy.

Voluntary Withdrawal with Pending Criminal or Civil Charges (p. 41-42)

Updated Language:

What Happens When a Student Withdraws During the Conduct Process?

Outlined below are the policies for instances in which the student withdraws prior to the conclusion of the university’s accountability process. Students prepared to accept these conditions may submit a petition to withdraw.

• The university will place a hold on the student’s record that will prevent registration, graduation, or receipt of a transcript.
• The university will place a “Conduct Code case pending” notation on the student’s transcript until the student completes the university’s resolution process.
• During the student’s withdrawal from the university, the student may not be present on university premises or attend university-sponsored activities, including activities sponsored by recognized student organizations whether on or off-campus.
• The student may not register for or attend any classes, including course offerings through remote learning.
• In order to be eligible to re-enroll at the university, the student must agree to be subject to and fully cooperative with any campus investigation and resolution proceeding. The student must complete any assigned sanctions/measures arising from a proceeding.

Rationale:  These revisions take the place of the current section, “Voluntary Withdrawal with Pending Criminal or Civil Charges.” The revised language indicates policies and conditions for withdrawing while in the midst of a SARP conduct process.

Aggravating / Mitigating Factor Analysis (AMFA) - NEW

Recommend inserting language under "General Resolution Guidelines & Procedures" (p. 46) about ways in which students involved in a conduct process may present mitigating factors they think should be considered. The analysis also provides ways that panels will consider both aggravating and mitigating factors. Steps of the analysis include:

• Student identifies what they think the panel should consider as mitigating factors that would impact sanctioning. 
• SARP will consult with appropriate resources to fully understand the student’s mitigating factor submission as well as any potential aggravating factor(s). Results are then reported to both the panel and the student. 
• Student has an opportunity to respond to SARP’s review of any mitigating or aggravating factors that will be considered as part of the sanctioning process.
• Panel determines sanction (with potential recommendation from SARP), documenting any mitigating/aggravating factors based on the AMFA report. 

Rationale: These changes update the process for students to submit claims of factors they believe should be considered as mitigating factors for sanctions determination. This will standardize the process for all students involved in a conduct case, thus ensuring consistency.

Factors for Student Organization Accountability (p. 67)

Updated Language:

As a condition of recognition by the university, all student organizations must abide by the rules and regulations of the university and the terms of contracts and agreements into which they enter with the university. Recognized Student Organizations lack the authority to adjudicate alleged violations of university policy, including, but not limited to violations of the W&M Student Code of Conduct, W&M’s Policy Prohibiting Discrimination, Discriminatory Harassment, Retaliation & Sexual Misconduct, and W&M’s Policy Prohibiting Title IX Sexual & Gender-Based Harassment. Suspected violations of those policies should be reported to appropriate university officials.

Recognized organizations and sponsored activities are subject to the same rules and regulations as individual students, and the university may hold them accountable for their actions even when the university pursues charges of misconduct for the same incident against individual members of the group. Evidence of the following factors will be considered to determine whether an organization should be held accountable for conduct:   

• The organization, either in whole or in part, planned and/or implemented the activity.
• The organization knew or should have known that the conduct was likely to occur and failed to take reasonable action to intervene or prevent it. 
• The activity involved a significant number of members of the organization. 
• The organization advertised or promoted the activity through communications associated with the organization.
• The activity occurred on property used by the organization for organization activities.
• The activity was related to initiation, admission into, affiliation with, or as a condition for continued membership in the organization.  

Rationale: These revisions are designed to create more clarity regarding when the university may deem an act to be the rightful responsibility of a recognized group or organization. The revisions also clarify that RSO's lack authority to adjudicate alleged violations of university policy.