Responding Students

A student found responsible by a Panel for violating the Honor Code, Fundamental Standard, or other university policy may file an appeal under one or more of the following five limited bases of appeal:

1. Compelling new evidence;
2. Bias or conflict of interest on the part of a member of a Hearing Panel;
3. Significant error on the part of the Conduct Investigator or the Conduct Advisor;
4. Other significant procedural error, including inappropriately high level of review; or
5. Violation of any rights of the Responding Student enumerated in this Charter.

1. An appeal must be filed within 20 business days following the formal written notice of the Hearing (i.e., the notice that is sent to the Responding Student following the Dean of Students Review.
2. If there are extenuating circumstances, the Responding Student may, within this deadline, request that the Director provide additional time for filing an appeal.
3. The appeal is to be submitted by email to the OCS inbox at community_standards@stanford.edu, copying both the Conduct Advisor and Conduct Investigator from the Hearing.
4. All documentation in support of an appeal must be submitted with the appeal by the deadline. An appeal must be no more than thirty pages. Exhibits from the Hearing are to be submitted as supplemental documents and do not count against the 30-page limit.
5. Within 10 business days, the OCS may issue an official response to the Responding Student's appeal.
6. If desired, a responding student may submit a counter-response—addressing only points raised in the official OCS response—within five business days of the official OCS response.
7. The OCS will endeavor to schedule an Appeal Panel within 20 business days of a Responding Student filing an appeal but, given logistical challenges in securing panelists for an appeal, there is no guarantee an appeal panel can necessarily be scheduled within this time.

Once the appeal has been submitted, the Office of Community Standards will respond in writing. The appellant will receive a copy of the written response and have the opportunity to submit a written counter-response. The staff member facilitating the appeal will schedule an Appeal Panel. The same bias check practices and procedures as used in the original hearing will be followed for the Appeal 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 conflict of interest of bias, they must withdraw and be replaced. OCS will provide the Parties with the names of the Panelists 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. A Panelist who has served on a Hearing Panel for a concern must not serve on the Appeal Panel for that concern.

The staff member facilitating the appeal will submit to the Appeal Panel all documentation relevant to the claim, including the appeal and supporting materials, the OCS response to the appeal, and the student’s counter-response. Documentation from the original hearing and other materials as appropriate and relevant to the ground(s) for the appeal will also be available.

At its discretion, the Appeals Panel may choose to decide the matter on the submitted materials only or elect to include live testimony from the appellant and/or other witnesses. Deliberations of the Appeal Panel are confidential. The appellant will be notified of the Appeal Panel decision following the conclusion of deliberations.

• Deny the appeal;
• Reduce the sanctions;
• Dismiss the original charges;
• Return the case to the original Hearing Panel; or
• Convene a new Hearing Panel to rehear the charges. 

If the Appeal Panel fails to reach a majority on any of the above actions, the result of the original Hearing Panel stands.

If a sanction includes expulsion from the University, the concern must be reviewed by the Provost, who may either approve the expulsion or impose lesser sanctions. This review occurs subsequent to any appeal under this Charter.