Throughout the Community Standards, as well as in certain other University policies, you will notice references to Categories A, B, and/or C, indicated in parentheses after the name of policy violations (e.g., “Breaking the Plane (B)”). These categories classify the severity of the incident and indicate the types of outcomes typically assigned by the University in response to such a violation. Category A violations, for example, are considered less severe than Category B or C violations and thus usually result in fewer and/or lower-level assigned outcomes.

To provide students a general sense of what types of assigned outcomes to expect, the following guidance is provided. However, outcomes are always assigned on a case-by-case basis while considering the student’s conduct record at the University and may deviate from this chart when reasonable.

Category A violations are considered the least severe and tend to have a lower impact on one’s self, others, or property. Common assigned outcomes may include educational experiences, reflection exercises, restorative service hours, and fine

Category B violations are considered moderately severe and tend to have a more significant impact on one’s self, others within the community, or property. Common assigned outcomes may include educational experiences, reflection exercises, increased restorative service hours, increased fines. Probation is often considered and Suspension may be considered.

Category C violations are considered the most severe violations and tend to have a more substantial impact on one’s self, others within the community, or property. Common assigned outcomes include extensive service hours or educational experiences, considerable fines, and restrictions to University facilities. Probation or Suspension is likely.

Hearings generally proceed according to the following format:

1.    Introduction of all parties present (including witnesses, when applicable) and an overview of the hearing process
2.    Review and signing of the “Student Rights in the Conduct Process” form
3.     Conduct administrator or board reviews the nature of the alleged conduct and the University policies potentially violated
4.    Witnesses are excused until statements are needed (if applicable)
5.    Respondent(s) (and complainant(s) when applicable) provide a personal account of the reported incident
6.    Respondent(s) are given opportunity to (a) accept full responsibility for all policy violations, (b) accept responsibility for some violations and refute others, or (c) refute all suggested violations
7.    Respondent(s) (and complainant(s) when applicable) have the opportunity to review all documentation relevant to the case that will be used by the conduct administrator or board to make a decision
8.    Conduct administrator(s) asks any remaining investigative and developmental questions to the parties present (including witnesses, if applicable)
9.    Respondent(s) are invited to comment on any harm or impact caused by the alleged incident and offer recommendations related to outcomes that will repair harm.
10.    Respondent(s) are provided a final opportunity to make any closing comments
11.    The conduct administrator or board may excuse all parties for deliberation if needed
12.    Respondent(s) (and complainant(s) when applicable) are notified of the decision and any related outcomes either immediately after deliberation or, when further deliberation is needed, typically within three business days

There are two different types of hearings (explained in detail below): administrative hearings and Student Community Board hearings. The SRCR Team will decide which hearing type is most appropriate for a particular case.

a.    Administrative Hearing
Administrative hearings are facilitated by the conduct administrator assigned to the case. Conduct administrators are members of the professional or paraprofessional University staff, usually from within the Division of Student Development. Conduct administrators are trained by the SRCR Team to handle matters of student conduct according to the policies and procedures of the Community Standards. In some cases an administrative hearing may be facilitated by more than one conduct administrator working together depending on the nature and severity of the incident.

b.    Student Community Board Hearing
The Student Community Board (“SCB”) is a standing board made up of 10-15 students who resolve cases that tend to have a more substantial impact on the University or residential community.  Each hearing is facilitated by three or more students from the SCB who have been selected and extensively trained by the staff members from the SRCR Team. Each SCB is chaired by a student and advised by a conduct administrator. The SCB is not in session during study days, final exam periods, breaks, and the summer term.

In many cases, when a case is processed the conduct administrator will send a letter to the respondent(s) through the Maxient software system. Students will receive an email to their LUC outlook account notifying them that they have received correspondence from the OSCCR and must click the link provided in the email to access the letter. Students will be prompted to enter their Loyola UVID and password in order to access the contents of the letter.

a.    A brief description of the potential violation, including the time, date, and place the incident allegedly occurred;
b.    A list of any University policies potentially violated;
c.    The type of meeting in which the case will be adjudicated or resolved;
d.    Information about when the meeting is to take place or be scheduled; and
e.    A reminder that students may obtain an advisor to support them through the conduct process.