Student Accountability Process (2023 Charter)

The process begins when someone files a concern with the Office of Community Standards (OCS).

Each matter is assigned a Conduct Advisor (CA). The CA contacts the student involved to share information about the concern and request that the student schedule appointments with the CA. 

Responding Student (RS) meets with the CA to learn about the process and their rights. 

The RS is also given the opportunity to provide a statement to the Reporting Party (RP) to request that the concern be withdrawn. The position statement may include their rationale for withdrawal and any additional information they would like to communicate to the RP. The position statement would be sent to the CA who will then provide the RS with a response from the RP. 

If the RP withdraws the concern, the case is closed. If the RP does not withdraw the concern, the Responding Student may accept responsibility for the violation or continue to contest and be assigned a Conduct Investigator (CI). 

A RS who wishes to contest the allegations against them will be assigned a CI to discuss the next steps in the investigation, including potential witnesses and the gathering of relevant evidence.

Unless the concern is withdrawn by the RP or referred by the CI for a different resolution, the CI determines if there is sufficient evidence for charges to be filed. If there is sufficient evidence, a charge is filed. The RS can then choose to accept responsibility or have a hearing scheduled if contesting. The applicable standard of proof for a charging decision is dependent on the level of review. The standard of proof in a Mid-Level Review for bringing charges is clear and convincing evidence. The standard of proof in a High-Level Review for bringing charges is beyond a reasonable doubt.

A panel of three members (Mid-Level Review) or five members (High-Level Review) may 1) dismiss the case for insufficient evidence, 2) find that no violation occurred, or 3) find that a violation did occur. If the Panel finds that a violation did occur, they may also impose appropriate sanctions.

The Dean of Students reviews the Hearing Panel’s sanction for general conformance with precedent and the Student Conduct Penalty Code.

The RS is notified of the outcome of the sanction review.

A student about whom a concern has been submitted to the Office of Community Standards.

An individual who has submitted a concern to the Office of Community Standards.

OCS staff member who serves as a neutral party in the process; advises on conduct procedures to all involved parties.

OCS staff member who thoroughly reviews all evidence to determine whether charges should be filed; presents evidence at Conduct Panel hearings.

Trained Stanford students, faculty, and staff who serve on Hearing Panels and determine whether a violation occurred.If the Hearing Panel determines there has been a violation under the applicable standard of proof, the Hearing Panel also decides the sanctions.

Trained volunteers who provide confidential assistance to participants at any point in the process. They are usually Stanford faculty or staff.

An individual that any party (i.e., RP, RS, witness) chooses to have accompany them throughout the conduct process. May not speak on the behalf of the involved party. 

Individuals with information relevant to the facts and issues of the case.

Conduct procedures begin when a formal concern is filed with the Office of Community Standards (OCS) alleging that a Stanford student has violated the Honor Code, Fundamental Standard, or other applicable university student conduct policies.

The notification from OCS will include a formal letter with the level of review and next steps in the process. The three levels of review: 

• Alternative Resolution is generally only offered for first-time violations. It can result in educational and support sanctions, but does not include probation or suspension. A Responding Student (RS) must accept responsibility for the violation in order to use this option.
• Mid-Level Review is for subsequent violations of lesser severity, those for which Alternative Resolution is not offered, or when a RS contests allegations for which Alternative Resolution was offered. It can result in sanctions including probation or suspension of up to one quarter.
• High-Level Review is for violations of greater severity, and can result in sanctions up to expulsion from the University.

The RS will also have access to a Google drive with all information submitted by the Reporting Party (RP) regarding the nature of the concern and evidence submitted.

Begin by reviewing the concern and the Student Student Conduct Charter of 2023.

A Conduct Advisor (CA) will meet with the RS to explain to the RS their level of review and rights and responsibilities throughout the process. The RS will also have the opportunity to ask questions of the process during this meeting. This meeting is also when the CA offers to provide the RS with a Conduct Counselor (CC) and additional support resources as necessary.

Because memories can fade, a good first step is for the RS to write down everything they can recall about the incident described in the concern. 

For Honor Code concerns, the RS should keep all work from the class (e.g., notes, research, other work, exams, etc.).  Write down everything they can remember about how, when, where, and with whom they completed the work in question, if applicable. Include information about potential witnesses (e.g., if the concern is about an in-class exam, try to remember seating arrangements, who sat nearby, etc.).

Upon notification of the concern, the RS may choose to either:

1. accept responsibility for the alleged violation
2. write a statement to ask the RP for withdrawal
3. formally contest the concern. If the RS accepts responsibility, sanctions will be assigned and the case will be closed. 

If the RS writes a statement for withdrawal, the CA provides the statement to the RP who may choose to withdraw the concern. If the RP does not withdraw the concern, the RS can still choose to accept responsibility or formally contest the concern. If the RS contests the allegation, a Conduct Investigator (CI) is assigned to proceed with an investigation.

• Adviser(s) and Support Person(s) - All parties (RS, RP, and witnesses) have a right to have a person of their choice (e.g., friend, family member, attorney, etc.) accompany them throughout the OCS process (i.e., to join RSs at any meetings or hearings).
• Confidentiality - The OCS is committed to maintaining students' confidentiality in the conduct process. One of the rights of the RS is "to be assured that their identity and the circumstances of allegations against them will be kept confidential, except in specific circumstances identified in the Bylaws or required by law” (Section V(B)(A)(2)). Likewise and to the extent possible, OCS protects the privacy of individuals who have brought forward a concern. Students with specific questions about the policies regarding confidentiality should talk with a CA.

The first step in the investigation process will be a meeting with the Conduct Investigator (CI). At that time, the CI will review with the Responding Student (RS) the letter of concern and the available evidence. This is usually the RS’s first opportunity to explain their position regarding the allegations.

It is important to remember that if the case goes to a hearing, the CI is the person who presents all the evidence, incriminating and exculpatory, so it is in the RS’s best interest to speak frankly with the CI about the situation. The CI will ask questions, which the RS may choose not to answer as they have the right not to self-incriminate.

If the RS disagrees with the allegations or agrees with the allegations but disagree that they constitute a violation, the RS will be asked for their reasons and what evidence they have to support their contention(s). Please be assured that any disagreement with the allegations, or agreement with the allegations but denial they constitute a violation, will be discussed with the Reporting Party (RP) and carefully reviewed by the CI during the CI’s follow-up investigation.

The CI will keep the RS informed of the progress of the investigation and share all information or evidence gathered. In many cases students may receive copies of such information; if copies are not released the RS, the RP and their Personal Advisers, may review them, as many times as they wish, and may take liberal notes. Please note that the CI will act as mediator/facilitator/go-between if the RS has questions for the RP about the evidence or other related matters. It is requested that the RS not contact the RP directly to avoid potential misunderstandings.

The RS has the right to speak with the CA or to request a Conduct Counselor (CC) at any time during meeting(s) with the CI. Additionally, they also have the right to have a person of their choice accompany them throughout the investigative and adjudicative process.

Please note that an RS is not required to provide a written statement during the investigative phase, but it is often a helpful method to explain their position in their own words initially to the CI. Ultimately, if the case is charged and goes to a hearing, this statement may serve as a draft of the statement given to the Hearing Panel.

• Under Alternative Resolution, if the RS has formally accepted responsibility, the RS may submit a position statement for the RP’s general review and not for the purposes of a withdrawal request. This position statement should only be submitted to the Conduct Advisor for the CA to send to the RP. The purpose(s) of this statement can include sharing the events that led up to the violation, explaining mitigating factors and extenuating circumstances, and/or requests regarding the RP’s grading approach or final grade determination. The RP is not required nor expected to respond to a position statement. The statement cannot exceed 30 pages total, including any supporting documents.
• During an investigation (Mid-Level and High-Level), a position statement should only be submitted to the Conduct Investigator and the position statement will be added as evidence to the RS Investigative Folder.
• If a case is charged and proceeds to a Conduct Panel, the panelists will receive the position statement along with the charge letter, concern and other evidence in advance of the Conduct Panel.
• If a case is charged and proceeds to a Conduct Panel, a detailed position statement helps the panelists focus their questions during the Conduct Panel. All materials submitted by either an RP or RS during the course of the investigation (the position statement and any supporting documents) cannot exceed 30 pages total, including any supporting documents.
• If a case is charged and proceeds to a Conduct Panel, the RP and RS will be required to verify that all written and oral materials used in the conduct process are their own original work.

• Address the allegation(s) outlined in the RP's concern. Refer to the allegations in the Letter of Concern submitted by the RP or other allegations from evidence gathered during an investigation
• Provide a specific, detailed and account of what you believed occurred (e.g., in an Honor Code concern, how the work was completed).
• Include circumstances surrounding the event that may be relevant to the RP’s allegations.
• If you are contesting the allegations, please be as specific as possible. For example, if there is a disagreement with what the RP alleges happened, provide an understanding of what happened. If there is agreement with the facts but disagreement that those facts would constitute a violation of the Honor Code, Fundamental Standard, or other policies, explain your reasoning.
• If you are not contesting the allegations, explain what has been learned from the process or what might be done differently in similar circumstances.
• Offer any extenuating factors that should be considered while the CI makes a decision about charging the case formally and/or a Conduct Panel makes its decision on a case that goes to a Conduct Panel.
• Explain any aggravating factors present in the case.

• The withdrawal statement is a request to the Reporting Party to withdraw the concern against a Responding Student. The statement cannot exceed 30 pages total, including any supporting documents.
• A withdrawal statement is a formal contest of the concern and can only be submitted to dispute the allegations.
• A withdrawal statement should be confined to explaining why the concern is unwarranted.
• A withdrawal statement may not discuss extenuating circumstances.
• Effective Summer Quarter 2024 - 2025, submitting a withdrawal statement to the OCS commits all parties to proceed with an investigation unless the Reporting Party withdraws the concern.
• If a withdrawal statement is accepted, the Reporting Party will withdraw the concern, and the case against the Responding Student will be closed.
• If a Reporting Party does not respond to a withdrawal statement within four (4) calendar days, it is presumed that the withdrawal request was not accepted.
• A withdrawal statement may only be submitted once.
• A withdrawal statement can be used for an investigation.

• Address the allegation(s) outlined in the Reporting Party's concern.
• Provide specific, detailed and your understanding of what you believe occurred (e.g., in an Honor Code concern, how the work was completed).
• A withdrawal statement is not an opportunity to explain mitigating factors and extenuating circumstances.
• If the Responding Student accepts responsibility, a withdrawal statement is not needed.
• If you have any questions, please continue to speak with your Conduct Advisor.

• The purpose of a Witness Statement is to provide other parties, the panelists and OCS with notice of the specifics of the witness's proposed testimony. This is critical to allow participants to adequately prepare--particularly for the other parties to address the details of the testimony. It is not sufficient for a Witness Statement to identify general subject matters of the proposed testimony or to simply announce ultimate conclusions. Rather, the Witness Statement must spell out the bases for any such conclusions, including the facts upon which the witness has relied and the reasoning supporting the conclusion. A witness is not allowed during live testimony to introduce new facts and analysis that were not contained in the witness's written statement--as that would negate the function of requiring pre-hearing submission of Witness Statements.

If the CI determines there is insufficient evidence to support a formal charge (or sufficient evidence to support the allegations but falls short of rising to the level of a disciplinary matter), the CI will inform the RS in writing of the decision not to charge. Typical reasons for this decision may include:

• The explanation and/or the evidence the RS provided the CI persuaded the Reporting Party (RP) and/or CI that no violation occurred.
• There is insufficient obtainable or available evidence to warrant further investigation.
• In cases involving an alleged Fundamental Standard violation, the concern does not rise to the level of misconduct contemplated by the Charter in terms of past policy and practice.

If the CI determines there is sufficient evidence to warrant a charge, the RS will receive a formal letter outlining the alleged violation and the evidence on which the CI based the determination. The RS can either accept responsibility or contest the charge(s). If the RS accepts responsibility, sanctions will be assigned and the case will be closed. 

If the RS contests the charges, they will be asked to meet with the CI and the CA (at least once jointly for a pre-hearing session) to prepare for the hearing.

The number of panelists for a hearing is dependent on the level of review. Mid-Level Review Panels have two students and one faculty/staff; High-level Review Panels have three students and two faculty/staff. At least one faculty Panelist will be present for an alleged Honor Code violation. At least one student Panelist will match the status (undergraduate/graduate) of the Responding Student (RS). Panels make decisions by a vote of 2 out of 3 (Mid-Level Review) or 4 out of 5 (High-Level Review) on whether a student is responsible. If a Responding Student (RS) is found responsible, panels will make decisions by the same vote (2 out of 3 for Mid-Level Review or 4 out of 5 for High-Level Review) to determine appropriate sanctions. The Student Panel chair has the duty to ensure that participants in the hearing act with courtesy and civility and avoid any intimidation or harassment.

If the RS contest the charge, the Conduct Advisor (CA) will arrange a hearing date, after consultation with the RS and the Reporting Party (RP). The RS may choose to attend and participate actively in the hearing, participate via a telephone/video conference call, or simply rely on their written statement and written documentation.

If the RS has questions about forms of participation, the can speak with their Conduct Advisor or a Conduct Counselor. 

If witnesses are required or requested, the CA will also try to accommodate their schedules. 

Witnesses generally are limited to speaking to the facts and issues of the case, and may submit a pre-hearing statement to the Conduct Investigator (CI) about the general nature of their intended testimony before the hearing.

The CI has the responsibility to present evidence that supports the charges, evidence of an exculpatory nature and evidence of extenuating circumstances. This is why it is important for the RS to tell the CI about or bring to the CI’s attention any evidence that supports theiryour defense, as early as possible, so that the CI has time to verify or corroborate that evidence before the hearing. All evidence and written documentation must be submitted before the hearing.

Both the RP and RS will have the opportunity to make a brief oral report highlighting significant evidence and written documentation. The panel has the option to limit the presentations to 15 minutes. The RS should prepare for this possibility as they compose their oral statement.

All parties choose to have any support person with them at the hearing. If they intend to bring such a support person/Conduct Counselor/Personal Adviser, please let the Office of Community Standards know as soon as possible. Release of Information (ROI) forms must be completed for each support person and/or Conduct Counselor. 

Note: Advisers cannot serve as a witness. (See bylaw regarding Role of the Personal Adviser.)

Once a hearing date has been set, it is to the benefit of the RS to meet with both the CI and the CA at least once. They will talk the RS through the hearing, discuss what documentary evidence will be presented, the general nature of anticipated witness testimony and help prepare for the type of questions the Hearing Panel may ask. Together, information provided to the HearingPanel will be reviewed to ensure that the RS and the CI are aware of the materials being presented. If there are questions about what information will be provided to the Panel, the RS should speak with the CI. 

During the pre-hearing meeting, the CA will also review the outline of the hearing, and the RS will be given the names of the potential panelists (and informed of bias check practices and procedures) to make sure that they do not know any of them. The CA will discuss possible sanctions, should the RS be found responsible, and advise the RS about what information and documentation they should think about presenting to the Panel related to the impact of specific sanctions.

If the RS intends to ask the Hearing Panel to consider sanctions that deviate or depart from sanction(s) of precedent, the RS is strongly advised to submit a written sanction statement detailing the reasons why a deviation or departure should be granted. Panels are not likely to impose an alternative sanction without having very compelling reasons to do so.

• For help in writing a sanction statement:
  • Refer to Writing a Sanction Statement
  • Consult the CA for assistance

Note: Be sure to submit your statement to the CA at least ten business days before your hearing.

The Student Conduct Charter of 2023, states, in part, the following about the composition of a Hearing Panel: 

• "Panelists may not have an actual or reasonably perceived bias or conflict of interest, and OCS has the authority to remove such a Panelist. If a Panelist discovers that they have a bias or conflict of interest, they must withdraw and be replaced. OCS will provide the Parties with the names of the Panel members for identification of bias or conflicts of interest. The Conduct Advisor determines whether the bias or conflict of interest is reasonably based, and if so replaces the Panelist.”

The provisions about bias and conflict of interest described in the Charter must not be construed so widely as to eliminate broad categories of panelists. In accordance with the University's Nondiscrimination Policy panelists may not be excused solely on the basis of sex, race, age, color, disability, religion, sexual orientation, or national and ethnic origin. It is also not reasonable to claim, for example that all graduate students, or all students from a particular major would be unacceptable without giving reasonable cause for each individual in question. Such claims will be rejected by the Conduct Advisor (CA), who is responsible under the Charter for determining whether bias or conflicts of interest exist.

Requests for inclusion of a panelist with a specific area of expertise will be considered and accommodated whenever possible given the constraints of the Hearing Panel Pool.

Once a hearing date has been set, the CA will give the Responding Student (RS) the names of potential panelists. This usually happens during the student's hearing preparation meeting, which should take place at least ten days prior to the hearing. The Reporting Party (RP) is also entitled to see the list of potential panelists and to request that one or more of them be excused from that case, stating the reasons why.

A week or so before the hearing, the panelists receive a confidential communication listing by name the RP(s), RS(s), and any witnesses. Each panelist must affirmatively respond to the Office of Community Standards (OCS), stating there is no recognizable bias or conflict of interest, or give a brief explanation why there may be a perceived or actual bias or conflict of interest. A panelist may opt to excuse themself from that panel, or be excused by the CA. The CA may also consult with the RP and/or RS with respect to a panelist's response, and ask for their comment on the issue.

At the start of the hearing, after introducing the RP and the RS to the panelists, the CA will again request confirmation that no disqualifying concerns have been expressed following a visual identification of the parties and the panelists.

• Note: Should the RS elect to participate in the hearing via telephone conference call or by paper filings alone, then the student will, in effect, be waiving the opportunity for a visual bias check. The student must discuss any concerns with the CA and make any special arrangements at least seven days prior to the date of the hearing.

A hearing in a contested case can last from 15–45 minutes to several hours. Mid-Level Review Panels have two students and one faculty/staff; High-level Review Panels have three students and two faculty/staff. Note: Honor Code cases require at least one faculty member as a panelist.

• Hearings are audio recorded to preserve a record of the proceedings, and the RS is entitled to receive a copy of the audio file (hearings are not transcribed).

A bias check will be conducted prior to the hearing.  The parties will also have an opportunity to see all of the Panelists at the hearing and inform the CA if they recognize anyone and have a concern that there is a possible bias (grounds for excusing that Panelist, pursuant to applicable bias check practices and procedures).  In such an event, the objecting party and the CA will step out of the hearing room briefly to discuss the concern; it is the CA's responsibility to then decide, in their sole discretion, if there are persuasive grounds for excusing that individual for possible bias.  Once the parties have acknowledged the Panel is acceptable, the Panel Chair (always one of the  students) will begin the hearing with a reminder about the nature of the proceedings, including their confidentiality.

• The Panel Chair will go through the following steps:
  • The process for raising an evidentiary concern will explained.
  • The RS will be asked to confirm their position.
  • The RP will be asked to explain the nature of the concern, and the Panel will have the opportunity to ask questions of the RP.
  • The RS will have the opportunity to ask the RP questions.
  • The RS will have the opportunity to present their position (they may also rely on their written statement), and the Panel will have the opportunity to ask questions of the RS.
  • Witnesses will be called, as appropriate.  The RS will have the opportunity to ask questions of the witness(es), as will the Panel.
  • The Panel will ask the RP if they have any further comment.
  • The Panel will ask the RS if they have any further comment.
• Note: Per Section IV(C)(6) of the the Charter:
  • “Presentation of evidence, including testimony and questioning of Parties and witnesses, will be conducted in a courteous manner without intimidation or harassment.”
  • “Only relevant evidence will be permitted.”
  • “Evidence provided by a witness unwilling or unable to be cross-examined will be disregarded unless otherwise provided by the Bylaws.”

Once the evidentiary portion of the hearing is concluded, the Panel chairperson will adjourn for deliberations.  This may take anywhere from 15 minutes to several hours.  The RS, the RP, any advisers and witnesses, and the Conduct Investigator (CI) will leave the hearing room.

The CA will notify everyone when the Panel has made its decision and all participants will return to the hearing room. The chairperson will read the Panel’s findings.  If the RS is found not responsible, the Panel will adjourn and the process is concluded. If the RS is found responsible, the Panel will move forward to determining sanction(s).

• Note: The deliberations are not recorded.

If the RS is found responsible (by a minimum vote of 2 of 3 panelists for Mid-Level Review and 4 of 5 panelists for High-Level Review), the CA will outline sanction precedent. The determination for sanctions is the same vote (2 of 3 panelists for Mid-Level Review and 4 of 5 panelists for High-Level Review). The RP will be asked if they would like to offer any comments for consideration in the imposition of sanctions, and then will be excused from the hearing.  The RSt will then have an opportunity to speak to the Panel about the impact that sanctions would have on them. 

If a RS intends to ask for sanction(s) that deviate from precedent, they are strongly encouraged to tell or submit a statement to that effect to the CA at least ten business days before the hearing.  The CA will verify the information they are providing about why a different or more lenient sanction would be appropriate.

• Review the section on Writing Sanction Statements for information about what the Panel may want to know.  

The Hearing Panel may ask questions about the impact of potential sanctions.  It will also ask the CI if there are mitigating and/or aggravating factors in the case.  The Panel will then ask for any final comments. 

The Panel will then adjourn to deliberate in a closed-door session.   

Sanction deliberations usually last between 15–45 minutes, but may last for several hours. The RS, CI, and RP will be invited to return to hear the decision. The RS nor the RP are required to attend.  If either party chooses to leave once deliberations have begun, the CA will notify them of the outcome via email immediately after the hearing is concluded.

Please note that Panel deliberations are confidential; thus, the CA (who sits in and is available to answer process or procedure-related questions the Panelists might have) will not be able to provide information other than what is contained in the Hearing Report.

After the Hearing Panel has finished asking the Responding Student (RS) questions about the impact of potential sanctions, it will ask the Reporting Party (RP) if they have further comments. The Panel will also ask the Conduct Investigator (CI) if there are mitigating and/or aggravating factors in the case that have not yet been presented. And finally, the Panel will ask the (RS) for final comments. This will be the last opportunity for the RS to speak to the panelists about anything else relevant to their case that has not been presented before.

The Panel will then adjourn to deliberate in closed-door session, and the RS, the RP and the CI will again be excused.

Sanction deliberations usually last between 15–45 minutes, but some have lasted for several hours. The RS, the RP and the CI will be invited to return to hear the decision, although attendance of the RS and RP are not mandatory. If the RS and/or the RP choose to leave once deliberations have begun, the CA will notify the RS and the RP of the outcome via email immediately after the hearing is concluded.

Please note that Hearing Panel deliberations are confidential; thus, the CA (who sits in and is available to answer process or procedure-related questions the panelists might have) will not be able to provide information other than what is contained in the Hearing Report.

If a student is found responsible, the following records are kept:

1. Alternative Resolution concerns - No disciplinary record. Internal record kept for tracking purposes in case a student is considered in a subsequent case.
2. Mid-Level Review concerns - Disciplinary record until final degree conferral at time of sanctioning.
3. High-Level Review concerns - Disciplinary record indefinitely.

OCS will not disclose a student’s individual disciplinary record(s) unless required by law and/or in cases of student/community safety (per Confidentiality bylaw adopted Winter 2023). 

If any third parties are requesting a student’s disciplinary record, the student will be contacted from OCS to sign a Release of Information (ROI) form to the requesting body. OCS issues a Dean’s Certificate that would denote whether the student has a disciplinary record, details of the violation, and the length of time. More information about a Dean’s Certificate can be found here.