Georgetown University modified its Code of Student Conduct, a document that details the university’s regulations and the adjudication process for student violations, for the Fall 2024 semester, changing the standard of proof for student involvement in certain incidents and the methodology of adjudication.
The new code promotes optional educational conferences, meetings between students accused of conduct violations and a staff member, in place of hearing boards; it also lowers the standard of proof needed to charge incidents with on-campus code violations. The changes come after the Office of Student Conduct (OSC), which oversees the code, hired Kernysha Rowe as its new director at the beginning of the semester.
Rowe said the changes reflect a greater focus on restorative justice, fitting with the university’s Jesuit tradition.
“Both the Code and our community standards processes have been updated recently to incorporate principles of restorative practices, a process that includes students in the decision making process and engages those most directly impacted by the incident in pursuing a resolution to matters of alleged prohibited conduct,” Rowe wrote to The Hoya.
The Code of Student Conduct applies to all undergraduate and graduate students, except law and medical students; students are responsible for knowing and abiding by the code of conduct.
The update is intended to ensure that the standard of proof is the same for on- and off-campus incidents, reducing confusion and lowering the administration’s standard of proof. Prior to the change, OSC did not prove it was “more likely than not” that a student violated the code of conduct in off-campus incidents, but required “clear and convincing” proof of a violation in an on-campus incident.
The new code requires a “preponderance of evidence,” a lower burden of proof, for both on- and off-campus incidents — meaning that OSC must find that a student was more likely than not to have committed a violation for the charge to stand.
Rowe said this change in the standard of proof is an attempt to match other universities.
“The updated standard of proof promotes equity in how we respond to addressing behaviors on- and off-campus for students, moving us toward a more educational community standards process and a less punitive approach when determining responsibility,” Rowe wrote. “It also aligns Georgetown to our peer institutions, and is common practice in universities across the country as well as the standard for other uses like civil lawsuits and Title IX cases.”
Sydney Blackston (SON ’25), one of two directors of the Student Advocacy Office (SAO), an organization that provides confidential counseling services to students navigating the disciplinary process, said the change in the standard of proof changes how they advise students to collect evidence for their cases.
“It didn’t feel like a loss, but I definitely was a little bit more concerned,” Blackston told The Hoya. “We just need to make sure we’re advising our students on having all the evidence from their perspective to present that to the educational conference or whatever hearing they’re going through.”
Matthew Wong (SFS ’25), the other director of SAO, said because the standard is new, he and SAO have not assisted many cases with the standard of evidence; Wong said he is interested to see how the change will impact student charges.
“It is curious to just to see how that will play out,” Wong told The Hoya. “It’s just the single, uniform standard there, and I can’t really say in the past we’ve seen any differences in off-campus and on-campus cases.”
Another primary change to the Code of Student Conduct is the shift from hearing boards to educational conferences, which aim to encourage reflection on how their conduct impacted other community members and make students aware of their rights.
In this conversation, students learn their rights in the student conduct process and can agree to create a plan to work with the university staff member to resolve the incident, meaning they lose the right to appeal the plan.
Blackston said she believes the educational conferences are beneficial because of the focus on reflection and not punishment, but is concerned about students being unaware of losing their chance to appeal the decision.
“As a student rights organization, we just felt like that could be concerning,” Blackston said. “Somebody makes an agreement to something and that they didn’t really know all the facts. They didn’t really know what they were getting into, and now they’ve lost the chance to potentially overturn it.”
Alternatively, students may go through an administrative hearing process, in which the administration and OSC staff determine the student’s responsibility. Students can appeal the results of an administrative hearing for a procedural error, the addition of new information or for an inappropriate sanction against the student.
Wong said SAO will continue its work to educate and advocate for students.
“Students are generally still going to us the same way,” Wong said. “We’re just students trying to help students.”