BCA Guide to the Penalty Code (1997 Charter)

Responding students are strongly urged to discuss sanction precedents and their sanction statements with the Judicial Advisor well before a hearing. If students are uncomfortable talking with the Judicial Advisor, or would like a second opinion, they should take the opportunity to consult with a Judicial Counselor. Judicial Counselors are current or former panelists who can give responding students substantive feedback on both position and sanction statements.

Judicial Panels may issue one or more of the following sanctions listed in the Penalty Code. Judicial Panels commonly issue a combination.

The Judicial Panel may give a student a formal warning. Should the student later be found guilty of any other offense the Judicial Advisor shall inform the panel during the penalty phase of deliberations that the student received a formal warning for a prior offense.

Judicial Panels may issue a formal warning if panelists characterize the nature of the offense as extremely minor.

• Note: In all cases, when a student is found responsible for a second violation, the later Judicial Panel will be informed of the prior violation and sanction only during the sanctioning phase of the subsequent hearing.

The panel may place a student on probation for a specific period of time, during which time a penalty or some part of a penalty is postponed. The time period, terms or conditions, and the reasons for granting probation must be communicated in writing by the Judicial Panel hearing the case.

Probationary status will be automatically revoked and the postponed penalties automatically reinstated, effective immediately, if the probationer is found guilty by a Judicial Panel of committing another act of student misconduct while on probation, unless that panel specifically deems the subsequent violation as trivial or irrelevant to the offense for which the probation was granted. Successful completion of probation cancels the postponed penalties.

The Judicial Panel determining penalties for a subsequent violation may allow the reinstated penalty to suffice for both violations, or impose additional penalties to the original penalties, or impose independent penalties.

Judicial Panels sometimes issue  probation—a period of observation and review—until conferral the terminal degree  and a suspended sanction (most commonly a one-quarter suspension held in abeyance) in lieu of immediate sanction if the offense has been found to be relatively minor in nature. This combination also may occur when either the impact of a quarter of suspension is deemed unduly harsh or because of significant mitigating circumstance. When this accommodation is made, Judicial Panels often increase another penalty, usually community service hours.

When students violate the terms of their probation, the suspended sanction usually goes into immediate effect. For instance, a suspended sanction would go into effect if a student were found responsible for another violation if that violation occurred while the student was on disciplinary probation (even if the second hearing took place after the probationary period ended). In this example, the suspended sanction would be activated and effective as of the date of the second Judicial Panel’s finding. Note, however, that the second panel would have the option to recommend that the suspended sanction become effective at the beginning of the next academic quarter. If the violation of probation does not entail a second Honor Code or Fundamental Standard violation but, rather, another condition of probation, a second Judicial Panel will be convened to determine the effective date of the suspended sanction, unless the offending student agrees with the timing recommendation of the Office of Community Standards.

Loss of particular student rights and privileges for a specified time, including but not limited to: taking part in intercollegiate activities, including athletic events; serving in positions of trust and responsibility; using university facilities, such as libraries and gymnasiums.

In general, the deprivation of a right or privilege correlates to the student’s misconduct. Note that a student’s transcript or diploma may be withheld to ensure completion of all sanctions.

A specific amount of money to be paid by a specific date. A student may be assessed a reasonable monetary penalty to defray actual financial losses to the university, individuals, or student organizations attributable to and caused by the offense for which the student was found guilty.

The student will be provided documentation of actual financial losses, and the money collected will be used only to reimburse those individuals and/or organizations incurring the loss. No monetary penalties will be assessed to defray costs associated with the investigation and adjudication of the offense by the university.

A student who fails to pay as ordered shall be treated as though suspended from the University until full payment is made.

The Office of Community Standards, the reporting party and the responding student have the opportunity to present evidence to a Judicial Panel regarding possible monies owed by the responding student. Judicial Panels generally authorize the Judicial Advisor to verify and document the actual loss due for restitution, if the precise amount is unknown at the time of the hearing.

The Office of Community Standards places an enrollment and/or a degree conferral hold on students who have not made timely restitution. Such holds prevent students from registering or having their degree conferred until they have paid their debt in full.

A specific number of hours to be worked in unpaid university or public service within a specific period of time.

Ordinarily, community service should be limited to on-campus facilities or organizations. Off-campus community service may be appropriate in some cases, but must be related to educational, charitable or public service organizations. Written confirmation by the person responsible for supervising the student that he or she worked satisfactorily for the specified number of hours will conclusively establish successful completion. The Judicial Advisor shall be responsible for monitoring the student’s progress.

A student who fails to meet a community service deadline shall be treated as though suspended from the university.

The community service generally is performed within the Stanford community, unless the Judicial Panel believes that it would cause undue hardship or the student persuades the Judicial Panel that another venue for service is more fitting.

Community service is not typically assigned while a student is on disciplinary suspension, although a Judicial Panel may authorize such an exception. The student may nominate specific community service project(s) but the Office of Community Standards must pre-approve it. Please note that community service engaged in by a student prior to his/her hearing, and/or community service for which the student otherwise might receive any type of credit or compensation shall not satisfy a community service sanction unless specifically pre-approved by the Judicial Panel issuing the sanction.

Judicial Panels wanting to direct a student toward a particular type of service, or to encourage a student to seek (or continue to seek) academic or other counseling not permitted by Penalty Code item #K may stipulate that hours spent in such a manner may be credited toward the total number of community service hours assigned. Note, however, that these are intended as incentives or suggestions, and are not mandatory. In short, students may meet their community service obligation with any pre-approved service project(s).

The Office of Community Standards places an enrollment and/or degree conferral hold on students failing to timely complete their community service sanction. Such holds prevent students from registering or having their degrees conferred until documentation verifying completion has been provided to the Office of Community Standards.

The panel may delay the conferral of a Stanford degree for a specific period of time.

Delaying conferral of a degree is a standard sanction when students found to have violated the Honor Code or Fundamental Standard (or other student-related institutional policies) have already graduated, or are in their final quarter and therefore would not be enrolling in a future quarter. A long-established conversion is that a two-quarter delay in conferring a degree is as equivalent to the impact of a one-quarter suspension as reasonably possible.

Delaying conferral of a degree means that students do not receive a diploma, nor does the university consider them graduates. Students in this category may not transfer to Stanford academic units earned elsewhere, nor may graduate students enroll TGR or work on their thesis or dissertation. Please note that all Stanford students are now required to be enrolled in a “graduation quarter” in the quarter they apply to graduate (see the Stanford Bulletin or contact the Registrar’s Office for details).

International students are strongly encouraged to discuss with staff at the Bechtel International Center before a judicial hearing the possible negative impact that a delayed conferral (as opposed to an actual suspension) might have on their immigration status. Because of university academic process and procedures, visa/SEVIS issues, as well as post-graduation requirements by graduate schools and possible employers, international students facing a likely delayed degree conferral are strongly encouraged to present to their respective Judicial Panels verifiable documentation outlining the impact of this sanction as opposed to other possible sanctions.

Loss of student status for specified period of time. All rights and privileges of student status are suspended during this time, including but not limited to: the right to attend classes; use library facilities; use any other facilities of the university except those open to the general public; obtain credit for any academic work; engage in any activities, or hold any position on any University committee or student organization, whether appointive or elective; live in student housing; participate in intercollegiate athletics.

A student under suspension or who has been suspended in a future term continues to be subject to university rules governing student conduct and shall be treated as a student for all disciplinary purposes.

For first-time violations of the Honor Code, the standard sanctions are a one-quarter suspension and 40 hours of community service. Judicial Panels will specify which quarter is to serve as the term of suspension; generally, that term is the next quarter in which students had intended to enroll. Students may request a different term, but Judicial Panels are not obligated to agree (for instance, they have no obligation to help ensure offending students graduate “on time”). Only in limited circumstances have Judicial Panels granted requests to move a quarter of suspension (Sanctioning Factors).

Judicial Panels also may impose an immediate suspension, even if the student already has enrolled in that particular quarter. This scenario is most likely to occur when students are seen as a danger to themselves or others, when it is early on in the student’s final quarter of enrollment, or in extremely egregious cases. (Students in this situation should contact the Registrar’s Office and Housing Assignment Services to inquire about financial consequences.)

Judicial Panels have consistently agreed that there is no sanction or set of sanctions comparable to actual suspension. Thus, if the facts justify suspension, and actual suspension is possible, it would be extremely unusual for a panel to consider alternate sanctions.

Two commonly overlooked implications of a judicial suspension are that students may not transfer credits earned elsewhere during a suspension to meet Stanford degree requirements, nor may a student participate in any university-sponsored activity during a suspension, whether the activity is academic or extra-curricular. A suspension does not prevent someone from working on campus if the position does not require the employee to be an enrolled student.

Suspension for a specified period of time followed by a suspension for an indefinite period of time during which the student may petition for reinstatement according to criteria established by the original Judicial Panel. The petition shall be decided by a Judicial Panel.

Students must submit a petition of reinstatement to the Judicial Advisor with sufficient notice to permit the Office of Judicial Affairs to timely convene a Judicial Panel prior to the time students propose to return. Sufficient notice would be no later than the end of the first week of classes of the prior quarter. Later petitions will be accepted and processed as quickly as the set hearing calendar allows.

Expulsion from the university is the permanent termination of an individual’s status as a student, with the loss of all rights and privileges appurtenant thereto.

If a Judicial Panel recommends expulsion from the university, the case will be automatically reviewed by the provost. The provost has the option of supporting the recommendation of expulsion or imposing lesser sanctions.

An expelled student’s transcript will denote his/her Stanford status as either “dismissed” or “discontinued.” Requests for release of transcripts will require the student’s personal signature and, generally speaking, transcripts will be sent directly to potential schools or employers.

When the panel has determined that a violation has occurred, only the instructor may apply an academic penalty, consisting of the whole or partial denial of credit for a course or an examination, the determination of a grade for a course or an examination, or the rejection of a thesis or other program requirement. No academic penalty may be imposed in a course or project unrelated to the violation.

A student may retake a course within the guidelines set by the Registrar’s Office (see Stanford Bulletin or the Registrar’s Office website). When a student drops or withdraws from a course after submitting work that is later found, by a Judicial Panel, to be in violation of the Honor Code, the instructor is allowed to override the drop or withdraw and post a grade.

The panel may require a student to complete a specified education course, seminar, workshop or program.

Examples could include, but are not limited to: a course on ethics; a seminar on alcohol or drug education; or a workshop on proper citation practice when writing papers; or on stress management. The panel must specify with particularity what is to be completed. Ordinarily, the student will be limited to on-campus courses, seminars, workshops or programs. However, should hardship or extenuating circumstances be present, the student may request permission from the Judicial Advisor to substitute a substantively equal off-campus offering.

Written confirmation by the person responsible for the offering that the student satisfactorily finished it will conclusively establish successful completion. The Judicial Advisor shall be responsible for monitoring the student’s progress.

The panel will specify the educational activity and the required date of completion. The Office of Community Standards places an enrollment and/or degree conferral hold on students failing to timely complete their education sanction. Such holds prevent students from registering or having their degrees conferred until documentation verifying completion has been provided to the Office of Community Standards.

To retain the respect of the Stanford community and to get community buy-in, the student judicial process must be in fact and in appearance a reasonable, fair and transparent one. Judicial Panels play a major role in the process. While recognizing their obligation to craft solutions tailored as much as possible to each individual case, panels also recognize that while cases may have different details, many are similar both factually and circumstantially.

In an effort to ensure equity across the board, panels have developed and consistently apply standard sanctions for many types of misconduct occurring with some regularity. Standard sanctions are essential to the integrity of the judicial process, serving as guides for future panels and giving students assurance that they will not be treated arbitrarily in the system. Standard sanctions also help responding students prepare their sanction statements by giving them the opportunity to consider contingencies, to realistically assess the impact of possible sanctions on their Stanford career—something they could not do if sanctions depended on the whim of a panel. Precedent-based sanctions are also valuable to the university community, providing it with clear expectations for behavior and established consequences for certain misbehaviors (such as plagiarism or theft), and acting as a deterrent to other students.

This is not to say that standard sanctions must be adhered to blindly, without regard for the particular facts or circumstances of a case. Panels are empowered and encouraged to use the full range of options listed in the Penalty Code to resolve a case. While consistency in imposing sanctions is desirable (recognizing they cannot ensure consistency in impact), panels may depart from issuing a standard solution—but when that happens, panels should detail the aggravating/mitigating facts and circumstances that guided their decision for the benefit of the particular participants and for the benefit of future panels and responding students.

• First-time Violation - Since at least the 1970s, the standard sanctions for a first-time violation of the Honor Code have been a one-quarter suspension and 40 hours of community service. (A “No Pass” is often issued in Honor Code cases, but that is a decision that only the instructor may determine.)
• Multiple Violations
  • In the same course: unless students were notified of a possible violation before allegations of repeat violations in the same course occurred, panels typically consider this as an aggravating circumstance (not as a repeat offense), and increase community service hours and/or add a quarter of suspension to the standard penalties. In egregious cases, with multiple aggravating circumstances, panels have imposed two quarters of actual suspension.
  • In different courses, same quarter: Typically, panels finding a student violated the Honor Code in different classes during the same time frame (without having been notified of the first alleged offense) treat this as two “first time” offenses and double the standard sanctions.
  • Standard sanctions for repeat violations (e.g., a violation in fall quarter and another in spring quarter) typically result in a three-quarter suspension and one or more educational components. This sanction was also imposed when a student had been notified (by a faculty member or the Judicial Officer) about a possible violation even though the student had not yet been sanctioned by a Judicial Panel.

There is no standard or ordinary sanction for many Fundamental Standard violations because of the great range of behaviors covered by this university policy. However, during the sanctioning phase of a hearing, the Judicial Advisor provides panelists with outcomes of any previous case(s) involving similar facts and circumstances (information provided to responding students prior to the hearing itself).

Judicial Panels considering expulsion are strongly encouraged to discuss specific case precedent during the sanctioning phase of the hearing with the responding student, to allow the latter to comment on past “case law” on this issue, as well as to be available to answer questions posed by panelists.

Expulsion permanently severs students from the university. This ultimate sanction should be reserved only for the most egregious misconduct, such as repeat violators whose refusal “to abide by acceptable community standards of behavior adversely affects the ability of others here to pursue their legitimate academic goals.” (Quotation from then-President Donald Kennedy, approving a Stanford Judicial Council recommendation for expulsion.) Cases resulting in expulsion have included multiple violations of either or both the Honor Code and Fundamental Standard, and a single Honor Code act (submitting a wholly, or substantially, plagiarized thesis/dissertation).

Per the Judicial Charter, recommendations for expulsion must be acted upon by the provost. Panels recommending expulsion should carefully document all the relevant facts and all aggravating circumstances, and articulate their rationale for concluding that the only reasonable sanction was permanent removal from Stanford University.

Judicial Panels take many factors into account when they consider what sanctions would be the most appropriate, given the facts and circumstances of the violation.

Panelists will ask themselves such questions as:

• What actually occurred?
• What was the nature and extent of the harm/damages?
• Does the student understand that his/her actions constituted a violation?
• Has the student taken responsibility for the violation?

Because consistency and evenhandedness are essential to upholding the integrity of the judicial process, Panels rely on precedent ("case law") as a measuring guide for assessing sanctions. While many violations are factually basically the same, and would reasonably call for similar sanctions, Panels also may consider whether circumstances particular to that case, aggravating or mitigating in nature, would justify a different outcome.

Panels may consider the evidence of aggravating and/or mitigating circumstances presented in the evidentiary session and in the responding student’s sanction statement when they deliberate sanctions. At this stage of the proceedings, Panels will ask the Judicial Officer to disclose other aggravating or mitigating circumstances of which the Panel may not already be aware—such as whether the student has been found responsible for prior violations.

• Does the evidence show the violation was premeditated?
• Did the behavior continue throughout multiple assignments?
• Was there an active attempt to conceal or hide the violation?
• Was there physical, emotional or financial damage done to the university community or to another student?
• Were there prior warnings for similar misconduct through university departments other than Judicial Affairs?
• Was this a repeat violation?
• Did the violation present a legitimate threat to the reputation and/or integrity of another student, individual, group, department, faculty or staff member?
• Did this student implicate or try to implicate an innocent student or other individual in order to avoid detection or to deflect blame?
• Did this student fabricate evidence to avoid detection or deflect blame?
• Did this student intentionally cause unreasonable delays or exhibit a lack of respect for the judicial process or demonstrate a pattern of non-cooperation with the process?
• Did the student threaten the reporting party, witnesses or others involved in the judicial process, or contact potential panelists?

• s there convincing evidence that the student’s ability to think rationally at the time of the violation was impaired by serious personal circumstances?
• Is there convincing evidence that the student was provoked or pressured into the situation, even though he/she made the conscious choice to participate?
• Is there convincing evidence that the student was experiencing undue financial hardship at the time of the violation? Did the violation occur on an ungraded assignment or one considered insignificant by the teaching staff?
  • Note: Per the Basis of Grading Interpretation of the Honor Code, academic dishonesty on ungraded assignments is a violation of the Honor Code.
• Is there convincing evidence of a lack of intent to deceive and/or harm?
• Is there clear and convincing evidence that the student has demonstrated sincere remorse for the violation?
• Has the student clearly accepted responsibility for the violation?
• Did the student take immediate steps to remedy and/or address relevant underlying personal issues that may have contributed to the violation?
• Did the student cooperate fully and respectfully in the judicial process?

When they are deciding sanctions, Judicial Panels must consider the facts in each case as well as precedent/“case law.” Panels do, however, have discretion to consider aggravating and mitigating circumstances, the impact of outside proceedings, and/or the impact of particular sanctions on a particular student. Panels may deviate from imposing a standard sanction in cases where responding students have presented convincing evidence that it would have an unduly or unreasonably harsh impact. However, multiple aggravating circumstances or a particularly egregious violation may be considered sufficient cause to apply a standard sanction even if the impact is harsher than normal.

In every case, responding students are responsible for providing convincing evidence regarding the specific impact or consequences of potential sanctions. Panels should not give serious consideration to speculative or unsubstantiated claims, nor alter sanctions to help a student “hide” a violation.

The Judicial Charter’s assurance of confidentiality to responding students restricts the university from providing information identifying a student or identifying the circumstances of the alleged violation. It does not mean that such information cannot be shared internally with those with a need to know.

Some students claim that a suspension during a specific quarter, or any quarter, will result in a loss of their confidentiality. That is not the kind of confidentiality contemplated by the Charter. While the Office of Community Standards, Judicial Panels and others involved in a judicial case will not identify a student or the circumstances of the matter, the university cannot ensure that no one will find out that Student X is not enrolled, whether that be friends, roommates, parents, academic advisers or the media. What responding students tell others about their enrollment status is their choice.

Responding students are responsible for providing convincing evidence that a suspension would have an unduly harsh impact—for instance, intense and unavoidable public attention—for the panel’s consideration. In rare instances, a quarter of suspension may be postponed for a quarter, or at the most, two quarters.

It should be noted that panels have concluded that there is no sanction or set of sanctions comparable to a quarter of suspension. Thus, if the facts of a case merit a quarter of suspension, it is rare for them to impose alternate sanctions.

Judicial Panels have no jurisdiction to determine what grade, if any, is to be assigned in an Honor Code case. Grading is strictly a faculty prerogative. While most faculty issue a “No Pass” for the course, some assign a zero for the work at issue and factor that into a final grade; in any event, panels may not consider as an unduly harsh consequence the possibility that a student may have to repeat a class.

Judicial Panels are not obligated to ensure that international students can remain in the U.S. if they are suspended, nor are they obligated to ensure that international students remain eligible for “Optional Practical Training.” Furthermore, Judicial Panels may not assume that a given sanction, such as a suspension, would impact international students and domestic students differently. In order for panels to consider substituting another sanction, international students, like domestic students, must show, with supporting documentation, that a given sanction would have an unduly harsh impact on them compared to the impact that the sanction would have on the average Stanford student. In the case of international students though, the supporting documentation should come primarily from Bechtel International Center.

International students are strongly encouraged to discuss their sanction statements with the Judicial Advisor and to obtain from Bechtel International Center corroborating information about the impact of particular sanctions—such as suspension or a delayed degree conferral—on their student status.

Students may lose a scholarship if they are found responsible for violating the Honor Code or the Fundamental Standard, but that is not a decision over which Judicial Panels have jurisdiction. Panels may not assume, absent convincing evidence, that the loss of a scholarship will in fact result if a student is suspended (or as a result of another particular sanction). Nor may panels assume that the loss of a scholarship will affect the responding student’s ability to remain in school.

Athletes on scholarship are strongly encouraged to consult early on in the judicial process with the Judicial Advisor, the Athletic Department, and with their coach(es) to ensure that they understand what the impact or ramifications of certain sanctions would be on their eligibility to compete or their eligibility to retain the scholarship.

In most cases, the loss of a student-related Stanford job (for instance, as a Research Assistant, or a residential staff position) does not affect the responding student’s ability to remain in school. However, if that job is the student’s sole means of support, it is the student’s responsibility to provide corroborative and conclusive documentation for the panel’s consideration.

Panels are not obligated to ensure that responding students who have a documented job offer or have been admitted to graduate school graduate as planned, even if the job offer or offer of admission is based on a particular graduation date. Responding students are responsible for providing documentation confirming the job offer or offer of admission for the panel’s consideration. Students are also encouraged to provide possible options for deferring acceptance of the offer.

Responding students who are requesting that a Panel consider outside penalties as a factor in mitigation must provide substantiated evidence documenting the impact of those penalties; unsubstantiated claims will not be given serious consideration. If outside proceedings have not yet concluded, a Panel should not speculate as to what the possible outcomes or punishments might be in determining appropriate sanctions in the case before it.