This current copy of the rules of the Committee on Discipline is provided for the convenience of the MIT community. The current ODSA staff to COD is: Betty Sultan;SULTAN@EAGLE.MIT.EDU The current Chair of the Committee is: Prof. Sheila Widnall; sheila@eagle.mit.edu [Ed. note: The above information is obsolete] COMMITTEE ON DISCIPLINE Rules and Regulations Revised Jan. 1991 I. PURPOSE The mandate of the Committee on Discipline is to adjudicate cases of alleged misconduct by a student brought to its attention by any member of the M.I.T. community, the M.I.T.-Harvard Exchange Program, or the M.I.T.-Wellesley Exchange Program. In all cases, the Committee acts with power, except when the offense is so grievous as to warrant a recommendation of expulsion or suspension to the President. The Institute reserves the right to take any action that it deems as necessary or appropriate to protect the intellectual integrity, safety, and well being of the campus community. To that end, M.I.T. students are expected to abide by the rules, regulations, and policies of the Institute, as well as city, state, and federal laws. In addition, M.I.T. students who cross-register at Harvard, or participate in the M.I.T.-Wellesley Exchange Program, are expected to demonstrate good citizenship at those institutions as well. While students are in attendance at either Harvard or Wellesley, they are governed by the rules, regulations, and policies of the host institution. Cases of alleged misconduct by an M.I.T. student may be referred by the host institution to M.I.T. for adjudication. II. THE COMMITTEE'S AUTHORITY The Committee on Discipline is a Standing Committee of the Faculty. Its function and membership are prescribed by the Rules and Regulations of the Faculty, paragraphs 1.71, 1.73, and 1.76.3. 1.71 "There shall be Standing Committees on the following: Faculty Policy, Graduate School Policy, Undergraduate Programs, Curricula, Academic Performance, Undergraduate Admissions and Financial Aid, Student Affairs, Discipline, Nominations, Library System, Industrial Liaison, and Outside Professional Activities." 1.73 "Each of the Standing Committees shall, in addition to the specific duties listed, be responsible for (1) formulating and reviewing educational policies and other policies which relate to its work, (2) requesting any needed clarification of such policies from the Faculty Policy Committee, (3) recommending to the Faculty Policy Committee any changes of such policies which it deems to be advisable, and (4) performing such other duties as may be delegated to it by the Faculty Policy Committee or by the Chairman of the Faculty." 1.76.3 "The Committee on Discipline shall consist of the Dean for Student Affairs, ex-officio, six elected members of the Faculty, three undergraduate and two graduate students. The Committee shall consider such cases of alleged misconduct by students as shall be brought to its attention by the Dean for Student Affairs or by any member of the M.I.T. community. An accused student shall be given the opportunity to appear in person at a meeting of the Committee. If the findings of the Committee include a recommendation that a student be required to withdraw from the Institute, the recommendation with the finding shall be reported to the President for approval or disapproval; otherwise, the Committee shall act with power." Consistent with rule 1.73, the Committee adjudicates cases within the framework of Institute policies. Revisions to such policies are properly the concern not of the Committee on Discipline, but of the office or committee that is responsible for considering changes in the policy. In connection with its consideration of a particular case, the Committee on Discipline may seek an interpretation or clarification of an Institute policy relevant to that case through the Faculty Policy Committee. Except to the extent inconsistent with the Rules and Regulations of the Faculty, the Committee, after consultation with the Faculty Policy Committee, may from time to time amend these rules and regulations. The Chairman may appoint Associate Chairmen of the Committee for a period of time, usually an academic year, who will be empowered to chair hearings. III. GENERAL PROCEDURES A. Who May Bring Charges Anyone in the M.I.T., Harvard, and Wellesley communities, directly aggrieved, may file a charge against an M.I.T. student. Moreover, charges of misconduct as related to an Institute function may originate from individuals responsible for such functions or for a department. For example, a Director of a laboratory, the Chief of the Campus Police, the Chairman of the Faculty, an Administrative Officer, an Officer of the Student Government, an officer of student residence, and a manager of facilities may initiate a complaint against a student. B. How Charges Are Brought A complaint against a student should be submitted to the staff member to the COD within the Office of the Dean for Student Affairs by the aggrieved individual. If preferred, it may be sent directly to the Chairman of the Committee on Discipline. A complaint should include the charge and the names of any witnesses and copies of any documents the complainant plans to present at a hearing in the event one is held. Once a charge has been initiated, the ODSA staff member will contact the student being charged. The ODSA staff member to the Committee is available from the beginning to the end of each case to offer guidance, information, and advice to the complainant and the accused student. The charge and its documentation is transmitted to the Chairman of the Committee on Discipline, if the Chairman did not receive it directly from the complainant. After a review of the documentation, the Chairman will decide whether or not a hearing is warranted. In some cases the Chairman may consult the Dean for Student Affairs and/or the Chairman of the Faculty in reaching this decision. The complainant and accused student are then notified of the Chairman's decision and advised of their rights. Both the complainant and the accused have the right to have an advisor and witnesses present at the hearing. Each advisor must be a member of the M.I.T. Community. If a hearing is not warranted, the Chairman may recommend that the complainant seek a resolution through either the Office of the Dean for Student Affairs or other Institute grievance processes. Off-campus misconduct is not a basis for MIT action unless the Institute considers that such misconduct impinges on the well being or functioning of the Institute. The Institute reserves the right to determine its jurisdiction on a case by case basis. C. Committee Procedures In adjudicating cases, the Committee adheres to the following procedures: 1. If a hearing is warranted, the accused student will be provided with a written copy of the charges with sufficient specificity to prepare for the hearing, including the names of any witnesses and copies of any documents that will be presented by the complainant. The accused student is also provided with a copy of the Committee on Discipline - Rules and Regulations and given ten official Institute working days in which to prepare a response to the charges. To expedite the scheduling of a hearing, the accused student may waive the right to this ten day period. The waiver must be submitted in writing to either the Chairman of the Committee or the ODSA staff member. The accused student should respond to the charge in writing. Included in the response should be the name of the advisor, the names of any witnesses who will be testifying at the hearing, and copies of any documents that will be presented at the hearing. A student may not graduate if subject to a pending discipline case, defined as one where formal charges have been brought and the case is either in the process of being heard or about to be heard. The restriction of graduation is limited to cases that are sufficiently serious that disciplinary action, if taken, would likely bring a penalty of suspension or expulsion. This judgement of seriousness will be made by the Chairman of the Committee on Discipline after consultation with the Associate Provost and the Associate Dean for Student Affairs. The President will, after the completion of the disciplinary procedure, determine whether a degree should be awarded. In the event that a case is brought after graduation, for actions that occurred before graduation but were unknown at that time, academic degrees may be withdrawn. The withdrawal may be for a specified period of time after which the degree will be reinstated (appropriate to a judgement the equivalent of suspension from the Institute), or it may be without limit of time (the equivalent of expulsion). 2. The accused student has the right to assistance in preparation of his/her defense by any person, such as a member of the Faculty, an administrator, another student, or a person of his/her choice, who is a member of the MIT Community. If the student decides to seek assistance from an individual who is not a member of the MIT community, the student should be aware that such a person will not be allowed to be present at the hearing. Members of the MIT Community are Faculty members, students, and employees. Only members of the MIT community directly associated with the case are allowed at the hearing. The student may ask the ODSA for a referral to an adviser within the community. The advisor may speak or question witnesses at the hearing with the permission of the Chairman of the Committee. Attorneys for either the accused or the complainant will not be allowed to be present at a COD hearing. The Chairman may allow the presence of an attorney to the Committee itself in unusual cases. When there is significant concern with respect to self-incrimination because of potential or pending criminal charges, the Chairman can defer the COD hearing until after any charges have been heard in court. When the COD has deferred the hearing until court proceedings have been completed, interim measures, including temporary suspension, may be taken by administrative action. 3. The hearing is scheduled as soon as possible after the accused student's written response has been received by the ODSA staff to the Committee or the Chairman. Once the hearing date has been established, any modification of the charge or additional charges must be submitted to the ODSA staff member and the accused student at least three days prior to the scheduled hearing. The accused student has the right to be present at the hearing and to be heard by the Committee. However, refusal or failure by the student to participate in the hearing shall not prevent the Committee from proceeding with the hearing and adjudicating the complaint. The accused and complainant may testify and present evidence in their behalf. They also may question witnesses presented by either party. The Chairman may call witnesses including expert witnesses to aid the Committee in its deliberations. Expert witnesses for the accused and the complainant will be allowed by the Chairman only in unusual cases, and the Chairman should act to insure impartial expert testimony. 4. A hearing may be held by a quorum of the Committee. A quorum consists of a majority of the members of the Committee. No member of the Committee who is involved in a particular case will sit in judgment. The hearing will be chaired by the Committee Chairman or Associate Chair. Members who have finished their terms on the Committee may, for a period of three years after their service on the Committee, be called to fill out a quorum for a particular hearing, only one such member to be at a given hearing. 5. In some cases, the Chairman of the Committee may determine that a panel shall act for the full Committee, using the same procedures and criteria for judgment. The panel will be chaired by the Committee Chairman or Associate Chairman and will further consist of one faculty member, one student member, and the Dean for Student Affairs or the designated representative of the Dean. If either the complainant or the accused student(s) dissents from the judgment of the panel, he/she has the right to appeal for a rehearing of the case by a quorum of the Committee. Such an appeal must be received by the Committee within ten official Institute working days from the date of the letter notifying the parties of the panel decision. 6. All hearings of the Committee are closed to individuals who are not directly involved as the complainant, the accused, advisors, and witnesses identified in advance by each party. The Chairman of the hearing may decide to permit witnesses to be present at the hearing only during their testimony. The Chairman of the hearing may make an official tape recording of the testimony, but not of the deliberations, for the sole use of the Committee and then destroyed. No other tape recording may be made. 7. The decision of the Committee is based on evidence introduced at the hearing. Formal rules of evidence that apply to civil judicial processes shall not be applicable. The decision is made in executive session following the hearing, and based on a majority vote of the participating members. The standard for determining guilt is less stringent than the criminal standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" but more stringent than the civil standard of "a preponderance of the evidence". It may be more appropriately stated as that of "clear and convincing evidence". If the Committee's decision does not involve a recommendation for either suspension or expulsion, the decision is final and is transmitted by the Chairman of the Committee to the accused and the complainant in writing. If the Committee recommends to the President that the accused student be either suspended or expelled, the President decides the final sanction and informs both the accused and the complainant in writing. Upon receiving notification, the suspended or expelled student may request that the President reconsider the decision. 8. A record of the proceedings should be kept with the records of the Committee. This record should consist of (1) a summary of the issues and the specific charges, (2) the outcome of the deliberations, and (3) all documents submitted in the course of preparing and conducting the hearing. This record is not intended to convey testimony or deliberative discussions. IV. SPECIFIC PROCEDURES FOR CONDUCTING A HEARING To permit an orderly sequence at the hearing, the Committee adheres to the following steps: 1. Opening statement by complainant 2. Opening statement by accused student 3. Testimony by complainant and his/her witnesses 4. Questioning of complainant and his/her witnesses by accused student 5. Testimony by accused student and his/her witnesses 6. Questioning of the accused and his/her witnesses by complainant 7. Committee members may ask questions of any party at any time After all the testimony and statements have been completed and all questions asked, the hearing is concluded and the Committee meets in executive session to reach its decision. The Committee shall decide either to dismiss the complaint or to impose sanctions in accordance with Section V below. V. SANCTIONS Sanctions vary according to the seriousness of the offense. Three general categories of offenses are perceived: (a) those impinging upon academic affairs and standards; (b) those violating non-academic internal regulations or standards of conduct at MIT; and (c) those against City, State, and Federal laws. Each case brought before the Committee on Discipline is treated individually. The Committee has the authority to impose any sanction it deems appropriate. Possible sanctions include, by way of example, reprimand, informal probation, and formal probation with or without monitoring. Sanctions may include requiring direct restitution and/or designated service to the Community. If the Committee decides to recommend that a student be either suspended or expelled from the Institute, the recommendation shall be reported to the President for approval or disapproval. A. Probation A decision to place a student on probation must stipulate the number of semesters for which probation is to be imposed. Only those semesters for which the student is registered at MIT count toward the fulfillment of the probationary period. Informal probation shall be noted only on the student's record in the Office of the Dean for Student Affairs. At the discretion of the Committee, formal probation may be recorded on the student's official transcript and may be communicated to the student's faculty advisor, housemaster, or other party with a need to know of the probation sanction. B. Suspension Suspension is imposed for a definite period of time. It presumes that the student will be readmitted to MIT after this stated period. At the time the recommendation to suspend is made, the Committee shall stipulate whether the student should be readmitted through the Office of the Dean for Student Affairs or through the Committee on Discipline. If a student is suspended, the ODSA representative shall notify the student's faculty advisor and housemaster (if any) and have the appropriate disciplinary notation placed on the student's official transcript. C. Expulsion Expulsion implies that the student should not consider MIT for further education. However, to give the student the right of review, the Committee recommendation to expel must include a time period after which the student may request the Committee to review the case. If a student is expelled, the ODSA representative shall notify the student's faculty advisor and housemaster (if applicable) and have the appropriate disciplinary notation placed on the student's official transcript. VI. DISCIPLINARY NOTATIONS Formal probation, suspension, expulsion, and termination of expulsion, are noted both on the student's official transcript and on the student's internal grade report, but not on end-of-term grade summaries except by request of the Committee. At the time the Committee imposes formal probation or recommends suspension or expulsion, it shall set two time limits: 1. The first time limit shall be established to indicate when a student may petition the Committee to remove the disciplinary notation from the official transcript and internal grade report. This time limit cannot be more than: for formal probation: The limit is the end of the formal probation period. for suspension: The limit is the end of the suspension period. for expulsion: The limit is two years after the effective date of expulsion. 2. The second limit is the period after which the disciplinary notation shall be removed automatically. This time limit cannot be more than ten years for formal probation or suspension. VII. CONDITIONS FOR REMOVAL OF DISCIPLINARY NOTATION To justify early removal of disciplinary notations from a student's transcript, the Committee on Discipline will require clear and convincing evidence that: 1. removal of the notation is necessary to avoid undue and unforeseen hardship, or 2. community standards have changed in such a way that the offense for which the sanctions were imposed is no longer deemed grounds for imposing such a sanction, or 3. the individual is not likely in the future to engage in the kind of activity for which he or she was penalized by the Committee. The student must present suitable evidence that similar misbehavior will not occur in the future. Testimonials are not necessary, but may provide additional information, especially when they originate from MIT sources.