Luận án Tiến sĩ: Pháp lý hóa Quản lý Hành vi Sinh viên và Tác động lên Chuyên gia

Glassman, THE JUDICIALIZATION OF STUDENT CONDUCT ADMINISTRATION AND ITS IMPACTS ON PRACTITIONERS. (Under the direction of Dr. Travis Lewis, Department of Educational Leadership; May, 2021.) This study examined the lived experiences of student conduct administrators in light of the impacts of the “judicialization” of their profession, illustrated in this sphere as the use of civil litigation to resolve matters typically addressed through campus disciplinary systems, the encroachment of students’ attorneys into the disciplinary process, and the maze of legislation and case law regulating this work. Using forty years of research that studied the impacts of medical malpractice litigation stress on physicians, the scholarly practitioner found parallels among reported impacts between both sued and non-sued student conduct administrators and doctors.

A national survey of 350 student conduct administrators followed by interviews with 12 survey respondents set out to determine the ways in which the changing nature of their profession effected their personal lives, professional work, and beliefs about the profession of college discipline. The Concerns About Litigation Survey for Student Conduct Professionals revealed significant differences in reported impacts between several demographic groups. These data mirrored results from the studies on physicians pertaining to the same demographics. The interviews invited participants to share personal narratives about their lived experiences and led to the discovery of seven themes pertaining to the judicialization of their work: (1) communication, (2) conservative decision making, (3) mental health concerns, (4) responding to perceptions of what student conduct is, (5) the role of campus legal counsel, (6) the shift from being student-centered to process-centered, and (7) impacts of students’ attorneys.

THE JUDICIALIZATION OF STUDENT CONDUCT ADMINISTRATION AND ITS IMPACTS ON PRACTITIONERS A Dissertation Presented to The Faculty of the Department of Educational Leadership East Carolina University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Education in Educational Leadership by Valerie Beth Glassman May, 2021 ©Copyright 2021 Valerie Beth Glassman THE JUDICIALIZATION OF STUDENT CONDUCT ADMINISTRATION AND ITS IMPACTS ON PRACTITIONERS by Valerie Beth Glassman APPROVED BY: DIRECTOR OF DISSERTATION:_________________________________________________ Travis Lewis, EdD COMMITTEE MEMBER:________________________________________________________ Marjorie Ringler, EdD COMMITTEE MEMBER:________________________________________________________ Crystal Chambers, PhD COMMITTEE MEMBER:________________________________________________________ Larry Moneta, EdD CHAIR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP: ________________________________________________________ Marjorie Ringler, EdD DEAN OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL: ________________________________________________________ Paul Gemperline, PhD DEDICATION In loving memory of Ria Van Ryn and in honor of my incredible family Nan and Ira Kolko, Lauren, Allen, and Samantha Kolko, Rosalie and Siggy Kolko, Harriet and Joel Glassman, and Matthew and Rafi Glassman. Thank you for your love and support. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This work would not have been possible without the love, support, and encouragement of the following individuals: My incredible Duke University “frolleagues,” including Sue Wasiolek, Gayla Winstead, Stephen Bryan, David Frankel, Sarah Lewis, Christine Pesetski, Leslie Grinage, Victoria Krebs, Cole Moore, Khary McGhee, Michele Armstrong, Jeanna McCullers, Clay Adams, Evan Heisman, Grace Sullivan, and Maggie Peterson. I am so grateful to have spent thirteen years alongside you.

Your commitment to equity, fairness, and accountability is proof that student conduct can be noble and honorable. I am especially thankful to Sue, Stephen, and Clay for their steadfastness and investment in my educational pursuits. Stephen, your influence on my work ethic is indelible. Thank you to my Brandeis and Indiana instructors and mentors, notably Joyce Antler, Robert Andrews, Cindy Spungin, Rod Crafts, Kris Asselin, Stephanie Grimes, Alwina Bennett, Rick Sawyer, Kate Boyle, Darrell Ann Stone, Jorg Vianden, and Michael Moore.

To my ACPA cheerleaders Alan Acosta, Jennifer McCary, and Jason Meriwether: I am privileged to have worked with you on the Commission for Student Conduct and Legal Issues, and I am so very thankful for your recognition. Jason, your love is infinite and your mentorship is unparalleled. To my peers and friends, Stephanie Bondi, Jenny Small, and Jason Lynch: I am so proud of your accomplishments as researchers and scholarly practitioners. The Duke women who completed the doctoral journey before me – LB Bergene, Mathavi Strasburger, Kate Zhang, Lisa Thomson, Sue Wasiolek, Cole Moore, Christine Pesetski, and Leslie Grinage – are my inspiration and exemplars.

I would not have succeeded if I hadn’t witnessed your accomplishments first-hand. You have proven that we women can do it all. Thank you for your exceptional role modeling. I am also grateful to Tamika Wordlow-Williams, an ECU Ed.

graduate without whose encouragement I would not have even applied to this program. Among this list of esteemed women is my extraordinary friend Dr. Ria Van Ryn, whose personality and appetite for learning were larger than life; the world seems less vibrant without Ria in it. And Jen Fry: I can’t wait for your doctoral hooding.

Nancy Geist Giacomini, you helped me discover a new perspective on conflict management that has permeated every aspect of my life. Thank you for your informal guidance and for enabling me to add “author” to my CV. Tamara King, you are one of the greats and a true treasure of the student affairs profession. It is my honor to call you both my friends.

My classmates Kweneshia Price and Heather Collins have been my unwavering champions through all of my ups and downs. Kweneshia – you are generous, no-nonsense, and full of light. I have been so proud to watch your successes and triumphs, and I am grateful that this program made us friends. Heather – my unofficial spiritual advisor.

You have the wisdom of a thousand pastors and I still have so much to learn from you. What a blessing it is that the two of you are in my life. To my Beth El Synagogue community, including Rabbi Daniel Greyber and Alan Friedman. The shul is as much a part of me as I am a part of it.

With so many others, you have contributed to the enduring spirit of our kehillah that uplifts and sustains me. Thank you to Nate Miller, whose research became the foundation of my study, and to my twelve interview participants whose vulnerability and authenticity enabled me to bridge the literature on physicians’ experience of malpractice litigation and the experiences of student conduct administrators. While I can’t list you by name, I am nonetheless indebted to you for your involvement in this work. Unquestionably, I hit the advisor jackpot when I was matched with Dr.

There is no greater gift to a doctoral student than a dissertation chair who is compassionate, curious, and challenging, and who will bend over backwards to support you in the most trying of times. I consider myself beyond lucky to have such a dedicated mentor. Thank you for championing my research and my career. Thank you to my incredible family.

To Allen, the smartest person I know; Lauren, whom Allen was smart enough to marry; and Sammy, the most adorable niece on the planet: I hate that you are so far away, but your texts, Facetimes, and videos almost make up for the distance. You’re the best brother and sister-in-law anyone could ask for. My grandparents, Rosalie and Siggy Kolko, are living proof of the power of love. I hope that in fifty years I have half the energy and vitality that you have today.

I’ve never met a better home cook than my mother-in- law, Harriet Glassman, or a better jokester than my father-in-law, Joel. Thank you for feeding my stomach and my soul, before and throughout my doctoral studies. Nobody believed in me more than Mom and Dad. You told it to me straight, but you also went to bat for me when I needed it.

Thank you for your patience and your reality checks, for the gifts of my moral compass and my persistence. And last, but certainly not least: Rafi and Matthew. Rafi, I know that being an only child can be hard, and even moreso when Mom has late nights in class, even when they’re on Zoom and in the bedroom. You have demonstrated resilience and grit, and you are my finest creation.

I am in awe of your talents, inquisitiveness, and humor, and I thank G-d that you are my son. Matthew, you are an amazing human, father, and partner. Your unwavering encouragement helped me persist through this long journey. Thank you for the many loads of laundry washed and folded, the dinners lovingly prepared and cooked, the driving to and from swim lessons, and most importantly, the endless laughter.

I love you very much. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TITLE. v LIST OF TABLES…………………………………………………………………. xiv LIST OF FIGURES………………………………………………………………….

xvi CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION. 1 Background of the Problem. 2 Naming and Framing the Problem of Practice. 5 Purpose of the Study.

8 Definition of Key Terms. 12 Scope and Delimitations. 14 Significance of the Study. 15 Advances in Practice.

16 Implications for Social Justice. 18 CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE. 20 History of College Student Conduct Administrators. 21 Laws, Lawyers, Policies, and Mandates: The Judicialization of Student Conduct.

27 Federal Legislation and Guidance. 31 Due Process in Disciplinary Proceedings. 34 A Student’s Right to Counsel. 36 The Lived Experiences of Student Conduct Administrators Today.

39 Litigation Stress, Critogenic Harms, and Litigaphobia: The Impact of Legal Action on Professionals and Their Practice. 47 Coping with the Fear of Making Mistakes. 50 Five Stages of Grief. 51 Appraisal Theories of Stress and Coping.

53 Maddi’s Hardiness Model. 55 Caplan’s Phases of Crisis. 57 Summary and Conclusions. 60 CHAPTER 3: STUDY DESIGN.

62 Study Design and Rationale. 64 Rationale for a Mixed Methods Approach. 65 Action Research Cycle 1………. 68 Qualitative Micro-Study……………….

69 Quantitative Instrument Testing. 73 Action Research Cycle 2………. 77 Quantitative Data Processing and Analysis. 77 Qualitative Data Collection.

79 Action Research Cycle 3………. 82 Sample and Sampling Procedures. 83 Ethical Considerations and Informed Consent. 84 Methodological Assumptions and Limitations.

86 Role of the Scholarly Practitioner……………. 91 Concerns About Litigation Survey for Student Conduct Practitioners. 93 Reliability and Composite Scoring…. 103 Analysis of Study Question #1………………………………………….

106 Analysis of Study Questions #2 and #3…. 109 Effects of Title IX Adjudication on Reported Impacts of Judicialization. 111 The Effect of Other Demographic Factors of Reported Impacts of Judicialization. 125 Conservative Decision-Making.

128 Mental Health Concerns. 130 Responding to Perceptions of What Student Conduct Is. 135 The Role of Campus Legal Counsel. 140 The Impacts of Students’ Attorneys.

142 Reducing the Impacts of Judicialization. 144 Analysis of Study Question #4…………. 149 Intervention Workshop: Full-Day Training. 149 Intervention Workshop: Webinar……….

151 CHAPTER 5: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS. 156 Summary of the Findings…………………. 157 Interpretation of the Findings…………………. 159 Impacts on Personal Lives and Professional Work.

161 Reported Impacts by Position Level…. 161 Gender Differences in Responses……. 162 Previous Involvement in Litigation of Federal Investigation. 165 Interference with the Disciplinary Process……….

168 Common Concerns Between Physicians and Student Conduct Administrators. 169 Beliefs About Judicialization…. 173 Reduction of Critogenic Harms…………………………. 176 Limitations of the Study……………………….

178 Implications of the Findings for Practice………. 180 Recommendations for Future Research. 188 APPENDIX A: INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL LETTER…… 208 APPENDIX B: INFORMED CONSENT WAIVER. 209 APPENDIX C: CONCERNS ABOUT LITIGATION SURVEY FOR STUDENT CONDUCT PROFESSIONALS…………………….

212 APPENDIX D: SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEW QUESTIONS. 232 LIST OF TABLES 1. Research Study Questions and Their Correlating Questions on the Survey Instrument……………………………………………………………………. Highest Educational Degree Obtained…………………………………….

Position Level Within Student Conduct…………………………………. Respondent’s Office Title/Function……………………………………. Minority-Serving Institutions……………………………………………. Types of Misconduct Adjudicated by Respondent’s Office………………….

Subscale B Question Means and Standard Deviations………………………. Independent Samples Test Between Male- and Female-Identifying Respondents……………………………………………………. Paired Samples Test between Subscales A and C……………………………. Paired Samples Test between Subscales A and C by Position Level…….

Subscale Means by TIX Purview………………………………. Independent Samples Test Between Offices Who Adjudicate Sex-/Gender- Based Misconduct and Those That Do Not……. Independent Samples Test Between Respondents Who Reported Being Involved in a Lawsuit and Those Who Did Not……………………………… 116 17. Independent Samples Test Between Respondents Who Reported Favorable and Unfavorable Outcomes from a Lawsuit………………………………….

Subscale Means by Gender………………………………………………. Independent Samples Test between Females and Males………………. Subscale Means by Position Level………………………………………. Demographic Information of Interview Participants………………………….

CALSSCP Questions with Statistically Significant Differences Between Females and Males……………………………………………………………. 163 LIST OF FIGURES 1.