CHOOSE YOUR OWN PATHWAY: HOW LETTING STUDENTS CHOOSE THEIR SANCTIONS REVOLUTIONIZED THE STUDENT CONDUCT PROCESS

Oct 15, 2026

Students at Southern Methodist University (SMU) held an unfavorable view of the Office of Student Conduct & Community Standards. To shift perceptions, staff designed an innovative sanctioning model enabling students to select educational sanctions, drawing on restorative justice and student development theory. After the first year, students reporting they felt respected rose 24% and those feeling listened to rose 20%, and results were echoed at another university. The article explains the impact and guidance for conduct offices.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages12

Reading Time30 min

AccessFree to download

Background and Motivation

Student Development Theories

The Pathway Plan Sanctioning Model

CHOOSE YOUR OWN PATHWAY: HOW LETTING STUDENTS CHOOSE THEIR SANCTIONS REVOLUTIONIZED THE STUDENT CONDUCT PROCESS Evelyn L. Ashley University of Massachusetts Amherst Tony Miller Jr. University of Montevallo Abstract The students at Southern Methodist University (SMU) did not have a favorable view of the Office of Student Conduct & Community Standards. To change this connotation, the staff members developed a new innovative sanctioning model to allow students to select their educational sanctions. The model is inspired by restorative justice and isin line with student development theory. After the first year of implementation, the office saw an immediate change in perception. Students feeling respected and listened to in the process increased by 24% and 20%, respectively. The model worked so well that a colleague implemented it at another university and experienced similar positive results. This article details the impact and shows how other student conduct offices can revolutionize their process and serve students in an impactful way. Keywords: student conduct, process, restorative, model code, change Please direct inquires about this manuscript to: Evelyn L. Ashley, [eashley@umass.edu](eashley@umass.edu) College Student Affairs Journal, Volume 40(2), pp. 62-73 ISSN 2381-2338 Copyright 2022 Southern Association for College Student Affairs All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. 63 College Student Affairs Journal Vol. 40, No. 2, 2022 Gehring (2001) stated, “the disciplinary process on campuses have been too procedural and mirrors an adversarial proceeding that precludes student development”(p. 466) . Often sanctions are viewed as punishments for violating policies within the student code of conduct. Many students believe conduct officers have predetermined the case’s outcome before the student walks into the office. In 2015, the Office of Student Conduct & Community Standards (SCCS) at Southern Methodist University (SMU), a private, mid-sized, urban institution, chose to focus on the perception students held of the office. The staff chose to pursue intentional student outreach and engagement to change the connotation of their office and control the narrative. The staff found it was rare fora student to acknowledge the sanctions assigned to them were helpful in any way, especially from an educational standpoint. Students did not seethe office as a place where they could be connected to resources. In a survey conducted by the staff, one student, when asked to comment on their overall experience of the process, responded,“The sanctions that I was given did less to educate meand only made me resentful toward the process”(SCCS, 2015) . King (2012) conducted a study of 1,884 students from three large western 4-year public universities to learn about their perception of educational value and fairness of the student conduct process. Approximately half of the participants reported that either their hearing was not fair or their hearing had no educational value (King, 2012) . Howell (2005) also conducted a study with 10 participants from three doctoral research universities in the southeast to capture students’ perceived learning experience and impact on future behaviors by participating in the student conduct process. Howell discovered some ~~students felt they did not learn anything by par~~ticipating in the student conduct process. The results King (2012) discovered were indeed similar results to those found by Howell (2005) because some students reported no perceived education- Choose Your Own Pathway al value due to their participation in the student conduct process. The data from these studies can be disheartening to a student conduct professional because the conduct process is designed to be fair and encompass student development and learning (Baladizan, 1998; Gehring, 2001) . However, King (2012) also found that more educational value was placed on the experience if the student found the proc

FAQs

What problem did SMU’s Office of Student Conduct & Community Standards want to address?

Students did not view the office favorably, and many perceived sanctions as punitive rather than educational. The staff sought to change the connotation and influence the student narrative.

How does the Pathway Plan model work?

The model allows students to choose educational sanctions and frames the process in a restorative, development-focused way. It emphasizes collaboration between the conduct officer and the student to identify solutions and impacts.

What outcomes were observed after the first year of implementation?

Students reported increased feelings of respect and being listened to, with increases of 24% and 20% respectively. A colleague implemented the model at another university and observed similar positive results.

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by WPS_1790064749