The federal and state legal system have determined that the University disciplinary process is not a legal, or criminal procedure. The University's disciplinary process is an educational, administrative review. This review may use an administrator, a panel of faculty, staff, and students, or a panel of students. If an institution is public, it is required to grant due process. Because the institution is private, constitutional due process is not required. In all judicial proceedings regarding a student's behavior, the student should be treated with fundamental fairness.
If a charged student does not accept responsibility for the policy violation fundamental fairness procedures include:
- a written charge statement made available before the hearing;
- a hearing for the charged student before those with power to suspend or expel;
- an opportunity for the charged student to review the information to be submitted at the hearing in advance;
- the right of the charged student to bring counsel to furnish advice but not to question witnesses;
- the right of the charged student to present a version of the facts through personal and written statements, including the statements of witnesses;
- ;an opportunity for the charged student to hear all information presented against him/her and to question witnesses and victims or through the use of written questions asked by the board members at the request of the victim (if applicable);
- if there is a victim in the disciplinary case, the victim has the right to request not to be questioned directly by the charged student. In these cases, the charged student will present written questions prior to the hearing, or clarifying questions during the proceedings to the board, who will then question the victim;
- a determination of the facts of the case by the authority that holds the hearing based solely on what is presented at the hearing; and
- a written statement of the findings of fact.
Also included as fundamentally fair procedures are: confidentiality of the proceedings, opportunity to challenge the objectivity of reviewers, and a timely decision.