Student involvement in disciplinary processes

“Finally, we turn our attention to the involvement of students and students’ unions in university disciplinary processes.

This is an extract from Chapter 17, How to involve students in work on gender-based violence, in Stopping Gender-based Violence in Higher Education: Policy, Practice, and Partnerships, edited By Clarissa Humphreys and Graham Towl.

In its Good Practice Framework – the defacto sector standard on complaints handling in higher education in England and Wales – the Office of the Independent Adjudicator (OIAHE) sets out multiple suggested roles:

Providers should direct students to the support services available, for example the students’ union, which can provide independent support and advice. This applies to students who are going through student disciplinary procedures and to students who are providing information about someone else’s conduct that is being considered under those procedures. It is good practice to give students access to support and advice and, where it is not practicable to do so internally, providers should consider arranging for students to access support services at neighbouring institutions, partner providers or other local community services.

From OIAHE, Good Practice Framework: Disciplinary procedures, revised October 2018

In our experience most providers have well-established support available (usually through the students’ union advice function) in this “support” space, although there have been two common issues in recent years.

The first surrounds small(er) providers where there may not be an active students union, or where it may lack the resource to provide professional staff support, which we believe essential in cases surrounding gender-based violence. We generally take the view that all providers should take steps to work with their local student representative body(ies) to ensure that all students are able to access independent support in the event of complaints of this nature, collaborating with other providers where necessary.

The second surrounds the provision of support for all students involved in a case. In a number of incidents the local students’ union has acted as the representative, advisor or advocate for the student(s) that first approach them, which in some cases has left students on the other “side” of an allegation unable to access support locally. Again, we take the view that collaborating with other providers and their SUs should be able to address the issue.

As well as the issue of supporting students making complaints or those accused of misconduct, there is the issue of student involvement in disciplinary panels. Here, OIAHE advises:

It is good practice to include trained student representatives on disciplinary panels where possible, although there must be appropriate separation between the representative on the panel, and those providing advice and support to students.

From OIAHE, Good Practice Framework: Disciplinary procedures, revised October 2018

Notwithstanding the sensible advice on separation, the simplicity of the recommendation does not give justice to the range of practice in this area and concerns raised about the issue of involvement in panels in recent years by both universities and students unions.

Much of the student unrest in the UK in the 1960s and 70s concerned the struggle for fair disciplinary codes. One of the basic principles – that on non academic matters, university officials/academics have no (more) special perspective than students’ peers – was hard won and is now long established. A National Union of Students pamphlet in 1966 had argued that British justice allowed trial by one’s peers, and on these grounds NUS suggested that students be included on any discipline panel or committee.

This slowly became the norm throughout the late 1970s and 80s, with universities tending to invite the students’ union to supply (full time) student officers for any panels that were convened.

However when carrying out reviews, in recent years universities and students’ unions have tended to become concerned about the practice:

Reports of some student representatives misunderstanding their role, who may have thought they were there to support the student being accused;
Concerns about the “profile” and surrounding “bias” of a student officer, particularly where they may have campaigned on issues surrounding gender-based violence and resultant concerns about bias or perceived bias;
As standards and expectations on panel members have increased, questions surrounding the capacity of an otherwise busy elected student representative to make effective contributions and judgements;
The problem of student panel members not turning up despite having confirmed attendance, insofar as that represents something outside of a university’s control;
The need to progress cases during the summer when some student panel members may not be available around;
The emotional and time burden on student members of panels involved and concern at insufficient support for students engaged in these processes;
The risks when a student panel member may have used phrases or engaged in conduct which not only placed that particular panel at risk but risked legal proceedings against the university;
Ambiguity around the extent to which a student would be covered by any insurances in place, and questions over the liability of student members where employees would be able to shelter under vicarious liability in an employment contract;
Where an unpaid student representative is deployed, a version of the “unpaid person in the room” problem highlighted earlier in the chapters.

We do not take the view that these concerns should automatically involve the removal of student members of disciplinary committees, however complex and onerous the duties where cases involve gender-based violence. We do take the view that an important point of principle, and a way of strengthening confidence in processes amongst the student body is to retain student involvement in them, and that appropriate safeguards can be put in place to address all of the above concerns.

For example – at one university we have encountered, there is a pooled disciplinary panel volunteers scheme, and all of the volunteers are current students. The students’ union advice centre recruits and manages the volunteers. They undertake training at the beginning of the year with external and university staff, including on the issues surrounding “burden of proof” and gender-based violence, as well as effective and appropriate panel conduct.

At another university, a scheme involving the recruitment by the students’ union and university of recent graduates into a pool operates effectively, with recruited students paid on a sessional basis to undertake the duties involved.

In any event, we take the view that any review of disciplinary procedures should take into account the issues identified, seeking to retain the principle of student involvement while ensuring effectiveness, fairness (and the perception of fairness) and a reasonable burden on participants.

Stopping Gender-based Violence in Higher Education: Policy, Practice, and Partnerships, edited By Clarissa Humphreys and Graham Towl.