Community College Journal of Research and Practice

ISSN: 1066-8926 (Print) 1521-0413 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ucjc20

A Document Analysis of Student Conduct in

Florida’s Community Colleges

Allyson Miller & Cristobal Salinas Jr.

To cite this article: Allyson Miller & Cristobal Salinas Jr. (2019) A Document Analysis of Student
Conduct in Florida’s Community Colleges, Community College Journal of Research and Practice,
43:10-11, 796-802, DOI: 10.1080/10668926.2019.1600606

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2019.1600606

Published online: 22 Apr 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 74

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ucjc20
COMMUNITY COLLEGE JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND PRACTICE
2019, VOL. 43, NOS. 10–11, 796–802
https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2019.1600606

EXCHANGE

A Document Analysis of Student Conduct in Florida’s Community

Colleges
Allyson Miller and Cristobal Salinas Jr.
Educational Leadership and Research Methodology, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL, USA

ABSTRACT
Student disciplinary systems have been operating in higher education for
decades and their role in furthering an institution’s educational mission con-
tinues to raise. Almost all institutions have a Code of Conduct section in their
handbook which describes all rules and regulations students must comply
with in addition to federal, state, and local laws. The student conduct process
varies as each university or college has their own unique set of standards and
methods for adjudicating misbehaviors. Through a document analysis, we
examined the history of student conduct and analyzed the mission of student
conduct offices at community colleges in the state of Florida.

A document analysis of student conduct in Florida’s Community Colleges

The definition and meaning of student conduct varies by institution and, thus, leaves ambiguity in
higher education. Since the collapse of in loco parentis1 in the 1960s, colleges and universities have
received limited guidance from the government on the handlings of student disciplinary issues
(Chun & Evans, 2016). While student misbehavior is displayed in several forms including academic
dishonesty, violation of housing policies, alcohol and drug use, and sexual misconduct, this docu-
ment analysis serves to provide an overview of the mission and purpose of student conduct offices in
community colleges2 in the state of Florida. Currently, there are over 100 community colleges across
the United States that are under investigation by the Department of Education’s Office of Civil
Rights (“Pending Cases Currently”, 2018). The allegation for each institution varies but the common
theme of why these institutions are under investigation is due to student conduct matters. Student
conduct plays a large role on any college campus as it can have an impact on graduation rates and
retention rates which are evaluated by the state, the federal government, and prospective students. It
is also important to note that the literature surrounding mission statements for student conduct
policy and departments, both at the two-year and four-year institutions level is limited. More
research is needed to examine whether a clear mission statement and student conduct policy helps
to improve campus culture and reduce lawsuits and allegations of mishandling.
Students or organizations who have alleged to have violated a university policy will be referred to
an administrator to determine responsibility of their actions and impose appropriate sanctions if
necessary (Smith, 1994). Although some institutions use student judicial affairs or community
standards, we will refer to this area of higher education as student conduct. Policies are created
and established based on the needs of the individual institution, state and federal laws, and previous
situations that have threatened the safety of the students (Smith, 1994). Some examples include the
use of alcohol, the ban on candles in the residence halls as it poses a fire hazard, and hazing policies
as they are often unclear (Salinas & Boettcher, 2018). Higher education institutions will often seek

CONTACT Allyson Miller amill144@fau.edu Educational Leadership and Research Methodology, Florida Atlantic
University, Boca Raton, FL, USA.
© 2019 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
 COMMUNITY COLLEGE JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND PRACTICE 797

advice from others in student conduct offices to update their handbooks in hopes of preventing any
unexpected circumstances (Lancaster & Waryold, 2008).
Since the 1600s, it has been the responsibility of the higher education institution to ensure the
safety and monitor the behavior of the members of a college or university community (Chun &
Evans, 2016). However, the expectation of the college or university to do more than provide a safe
space for adults to learn has expanded due to a rise in mental health, social media, and student
activism. The purpose of this document analysis was to examine the history of student conduct and
to analysis the mission statements of student conduct offices at community colleges in the state of
Florida. Through this document analysis, we hope to create an exchange of ideas and start the
conversation of the value student conduct offices might bring to educational settings and its
importance of student learning directed by misbehavior.

Student conduct defined

Although the act of disciplining students has been around for centuries, colleges and universities
have not agreed on a formal definition and term for this practice (Lancaster & Waryold, 2008). Each
higher education institution has their own definition and methodology based on the values and
mission in which the college or university was founded upon. Yet, there are some higher education
institutions that have not institutionalized a code of conduct. The process of adjudicating conduct
cases are often reflected in higher education institutions’ code of conduct which should be made
public to students, faculty, and staff members. In addition to the outlined student conduct process,
the code of conduct consists of all policies and violations in which students have consented to abide
by including housing guidelines, classroom and community etiquette, state and federal laws, and off-
campus behavior.
Moreover, there are two common outcomes to any student conduct case in which an alleged
individual is found responsible for a violation(s): punitive sanctions and educational sanctions
(Martin-Anderson, 2009). Punitive or sometimes called administrative sanctions include written
warnings, disciplinary probation, suspension, and expulsion. Disciplinary probation and suspension
can range in length of time and include other restrictions such as studying abroad, living on campus,
and/or the ability to hold a leadership position within a student organization. Educational sanctions
can range in format from research papers, meetings with campus partners, restitution, apology
letters, alcohol or drug courses, community service, and other creative ideas in which the hearing
officer feels is appropriate (Martin-Anderson, 2009). Most college administrators agree that the
disciplinary process, including sanctions, should be educational in nature and help the student(s)
learn from their past behavior (Kompalla & McCarthy, 2001).
A common misconception by students and faculty members is the idea that the code of conduct of
higher education institutions is similar, if not entirely, the same as a court of law. Despite the fact that
courts have ruled students must have due process, right to appeal and other constitutional rights,
Bostic and Gonzalez (1999) pointed out the failure of courts to “communicate a consistent, clear
approach to guide higher education administrators” (p. 166). This obscurity allows institutions to
create their own technique for handling student disciplinary issues including the manner in which
evidence is weighed (Taylor, Thrasher, & Wilfong, 2012). Some institutions will base their conduct
decisions on preponderance of the evidence, meaning more likely than not, while others will use clear
and convincing as the standard of proof (Loschiavo & Waller, n.d.). Additionally, each college and
university has their own boundaries regarding student organizations and academic integrity cases.
Further, numerous code of conduct mission statements analyzed for this paper includes the
development of students, encouragement of displaying citizenship and self-discipline, and ensuring
the safety of the community members. However, when examining the code of conduct mission
statements for Florida’s community colleges, we noted some differences between each institution.
For example, Seminole State College (2018) Office of Student Conduct defined their process to be an
“educational opportunity that foster individual growth, ethical development, and personal
798 A. MILLER AND C. SALINAS JR

accountability while promoting the core values of the college: integrity, respect, excellence, academic
freedom and learning” (para. 2). Moreover, Broward College’s (2018) Student Code of Conduct
states, “Upon admission to Broward College, students and student organizations agree to act
responsibility in all areas of personal and social conduct and to take full responsibility for their
individual and collective action” (p.67).

History of student conduct

The evolution of student conduct in higher education can be aligned with the transformation and
development of colleges and universities (Smith, 1994). During the Colonial Era (1636–1789),
young men attended universities to study clergy beginning at age 12 or 13 years-old. The
President and faculty members of higher education institutions were responsible for instilling
morals and ethics, and handled all student discipline. Colleges and universities in the United
States followed the pathway established by British Common Law and adopted in loco parentis,
meaning in place of parent. For students who misbehaved during the Colonial Era, punishment
could range from fines, loss of privileges, extra assignments, flogging, and expulsion (Smith,
1994). Harvard University considered flogging to be inhumane and was replaced with “boxing”
where a student would kneel before a faculty member and receive slaps on the side of the head
(Smith, 1994, p.78). These actions reflected on punishments people would receive during this
time for violating any laws.
By the end of the 1700s and beginning of the 1800s, student discipline was at its deadliest (Smith,
1994). Students were rebelling against the sanctions and began to fight for their constitutional rights.
Buildings were burned, professors were killed, and student protest was a weekly occurrence (Smith,
1994). Thomas Jefferson wanted to combat the violence in higher education by treating students
with respect and as adults by having a student court (Smith, 1994). However, this led to numerous
legal problems and outbursts from students, turning the 1830s into one of the worst student violence
scenes in American higher education.
With the passing of the Morrill Land Grant Act in 1862, higher education began to see a shift in
student population to meet the needs of the working class by opening public junior colleges and
technical schools (Lancaster & Waryold, 2008). With a higher enrollment rate and the development
of student organizations and student athletes, faculty members had a difficult time balancing student
relationships with their disciplinary roles. In the nineteenth century, the first “disciplinary specialist”
was employed (Chun & Evans, 2016, p. 34). Counseling was added to the options of punishment for
misbehaved students and the President along with faculty members transitioned into a hands-off
approach to student conduct (Smith, 1994). In 1883, Amherst College created the first student
government which allowed students to act as judicial bodies, but the president was able to veto any
decision made (Smith, 1994). Several colleges and universities mirrored the “Amherst system” and
hired college deans to assist with the disciplinary responsibilities (Smith, 1994, p. 81).
The 1900s served as a pivotal moment in the history of student conduct. In the beginning of the
century, each college or university conducted student disciplinary meetings as they saw fit. The lack
of uniformity across higher education raised concerns among students. In reaction to the protests,
institutions began to create committees or councils with bipartisan representation, allowing students
to be seen as “whole” (Smith, 1994, p. 84). By the 1940s, the American Council of Education
emphasized that higher education should focus on “the development of the student as a person
rather than upon his intellectual training alone” (Smith, 1994, p.82). Student activism on college
campuses brought about some of the biggest changes to student conduct. The Dixon v. Alabama
(1960) case marked the beginning of the end for in loco parentis. The courts ruled public higher
education institutions were required to give students due process. In addition, the majority of age
was lowered from 21 to 18. Since then, several students have brought their conduct case to
a courtroom and many have won.
 COMMUNITY COLLEGE JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND PRACTICE 799

Above all, on June 23, 1972, Title IX of the Education Amendment of 1972 was enacted into law.
This law prohibits any school – elementary to university level – who is receiving federal funds to
discriminate against an individual based on sex. Originally, the law was passed to afford equal rights
for women in athletic programs (Helper, 1999). However, the shift of focus to sexual misconduct came
from Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education (1999). The Supreme Court ruled educational
institutions can be held liable in private suits for student-to-student sexual harassment if the behavior
is “so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it can be said to deprive the victims of access to
the educational opportunities or benefits provided by the school” (Lieberwitz et al., 2016, p. 75).
Today, students continue to contest for their civil liberties on college campuses, while the line
between student conduct and the judicial system grow thin. Pierce College, a community college in
California, is under fire for allegedly violating student’s First Amendment rights (Svrluga, 2017).
Kevin Shaw, a student, was passing out copies of the US Constitution when an administrator told
him he would need to move to the designated free speech area and obtain a permit if he wished to
continue. Shaw hired an attorney from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE)
and filed a lawsuit against the college, citing the free speech zone is unconstitutional (Svrluga, 2017).
Virginia, Missouri, Arizona, Kentucky, Colorado, Utah, North Carolina, and Tennessee have
explored the possibility of banning free speech zones on public college campuses. For example,
a recent proposed bill (SB 4) in the state of Florida hopes to ban free speech zones on college
campuses. The Florida Excellence in Higher Education Act of 2018 would prohibit the use of free
speech zones and would allow students to actively protest anywhere on campus as long as it does not
disrupt the process of learning (Blake, 2018). The bill came about from hundreds of students calling
upon their state politicians.
In 2017, hundreds of students at The Evergreen State College in Washington State protested the
removal of campus leaders for racism and gender discrimination (Pemberton, 2017). As student
activism boosts, the spotlight on student conduct intensifies. Almost all institutions have a conduct
process and minor violations tend to be informal and focus on education, while more serious actions
take on a formal process to protect the rights of students involved. Title IX creates hefty pressure on
the field of student conduct as the rise in lawsuits and investigations into alleged violations remains
a concern for higher education administrators. As the shift in viewpoint advances toward students as
private consumers, the identity crisis of student conduct cultivates (McKay, 1968).

Methods
We used document analysis to identify and examine the mission statements and purpose of student
conduct policies and office in community colleges in the state of Florida. According to Bowen
(2009), a document analysis is a procedure in which both paper and electronic documents are
analyzed. A document may contain words and varies in format from websites, agendas, and journals
(Bowen, 2009). In this work, we assessed the mission statements of student conduct policies and
offices to evaluate the similarities and differences amongst Florida’s community colleges.
Document analysis is best suited for qualitative research to “elicit meaning, gain understanding,
and develop empirical knowledge” (Corbin & Strauss, 2008, p. 377). The utilization of this method to
understand and compare the mission statements and purpose of student conduct offices in com-
munity colleges across the state of Florida was advantageous. The ambiguity in this area of higher
education is seen through the contrasting mission statements of the individual community colleges;
thus, leaving an opportunity for further research and deeper questioning.
The data collection process for document analysis was conducted in three steps: (1) research all 28
community colleges in Florida; (2) explore the institution’s website for student conduct office; (3)
scan the college’s code of conduct to identify their mission statement; and (4) compare and contrast
mission statements among the community colleges.
800 A. MILLER AND C. SALINAS JR

Results: Student conduct offices & mission statements

Through this document analysis, we found that only four community colleges in the state of Florida
have a specialized office for handling student and organizational misconduct: Daytona State College,
Pensacola State College, Seminole State College, and Tallahassee Community College. However, 20
community colleges have mission statements specifically relating to their Code of Conduct and
student conduct process.3 Most of the mission statements discuss the process to be educational and
developmental in nature, while promoting civility among community members. Integrity, responsi-
bility, and citizenship are common values seen throughout the community colleges examined. Yet,
there are eight community colleges with no clear mission statement regarding the student conduct
process, leaving ambiguity to the campus community.4
One major difference among all of the community colleges studied is the individual serving as the
hearing officer for conduct matters. From this study, we discovered several institutions utilize the
Dean of Students or Director of Student Services to adjudicate conduct cases with the President
serving as the appellate officer. St. Petersburg College and Eastern Florida State College, model
colonial times by having a provost or a member of academic affairs adjudicate conduct matters. Only
two colleges, Daytona State College and Pensacola State College, have Directors whose job is to
oversee the student conduct process. In contrast to community colleges, most four-year universities
in Florida have a student conduct office with multiple full-time staff members including a Director,
Associate Director, and Assistant Director to aid in adjudication of conduct cases. It is rare for
a four-year university to have the President hear and rule on appeals; this is typically the job of the
Dean of Students or Vice President for Student Affairs.
Although individual hearing officers are popular among the community colleges, there are five
community colleges (Chipola College, Gulf Coast State College, Santa Fe College, St. Johns River
State College, and State College of Florida) that utilize a student conduct committee, board, or
student court to assist in the adjudication of conduct. Chipola College, Gulf Coast State College, and
St. Johns River State College have adopted a committee model; whereas, State College of Florida
operates with a student court. Based on the information within the student code of conduct or
student handbook provided by each community college, a committee consists of faculty, adminis-
tration personnel, and students who have been appointed and approved by the President of the
college. Santa Fe College is the only community college to have a student conduct board in their
practice. This board is made up of three members selected by the vice president for student affairs.
Specific qualifications were not listed within Santa Fe’s Student handbook. According to each
community colleges website, their appeals are often heard by the vice president of student affairs.
The lack of consistency in mission statements, offices, and hearing officers demonstrates the
autonomy of student conduct in higher education.

Implications for practice and future research

Community colleges should work to create an office for student conduct and communicate a definitive
mission statement to the campus community. To combat stereotypical notions associated with this area,
institutions should have a strong presence in the community by hosting programs and educational
sessions and being accessible to students. Additionally, community colleges should establish
a committee consisting of faculty, staff, and students to aid in the creation and annual revision of
a mission statement and campus policies. Student discipline has been in higher education for centuries
and is only increasing in needs. Procedure, charges, and potential sanctions relating to the student
conduct process are exclusive to each institution. Without a clearly defined mission statement and
administrator to adjudicate student and organizational misbehavior, community colleges could face
lawsuits, loss of funding, and other consequences outlined by the Department of Education.
Students and student organizations misbehavior remain an issue within higher education. As
student conduct can impact student success, graduation and retention rates, it is crucial for further
 COMMUNITY COLLEGE JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND PRACTICE 801

research to be conducted with respect to how conduct cases are adjudicated and the role a conduct
office plays in a student’s college experience. Institutions need to have a clearly defined mission
statement and process relating to the student disciplinary system in which they enact to ensure the
rights of alleged students are protected and the safety of the community is at the forefront of the
framework. By installing a thorough mission statement, colleges and universities can ensure their
goals and community standards are mutually understood while promoting a positive campus culture.
The majority of the literature on student conduct focuses on Title IX or sexual misconduct
(Hepler, 1997; Lieberwitz et al., 2016). However, it is imperative to further study student conduct in
other subcategories to gain knowledge in the function and the value it has in various institutional
settings. Research in sanctioning, standard of evidence, substance abuse and methodology would
greatly benefit practitioners and other campus stakeholders. Additionally, studies concerning
restorative justice programs and student development through the conduct process will aid in the
future success of students. Annual or biennial assessment of an institution’s student conduct
procedure should be conducted to safeguard best practices and equal opportunities for students.
It is important for campus administrators, faculty members, and students to be well educated on
campus policies and violations, the conduct process, and the rights afforded to them. Student
conduct hearing officers or administrators should be knowledgeable on the potential implications
their institution can face including lawsuits and governmental fines. By continuing with research
efforts, colleges and universities can have a better understanding of the needs of their students in
order to provide support while securing the safety of the community. Throughout this document
analysis, we have defined what student conduct is, the history of this phenomenon, and evaluated the
mission statements of conduct offices in Florida’s community colleges.

Notes
1. In loco parentis in Latin means “in place of parent”.
2. Community colleges primarily offer two-year degrees, and some offer four-year degrees and these institutions
may be referred as state colleges (Floyd & Walker, 2008).
3. Institutions include Broward College, College of Central Florida, Chipola College, Daytona State College,
Edison State College, Florida State College at Jacksonville, Florida Keys Community College, Gulf Coast State
College, Hillsborough Community College, Indian River State College, Lake-Sumter State College, North
Florida Community College, Palm Beach State College, Pensacola State College, Santa Fe College, Seminole
State College, South Florida State College, State College of Florida, Tallahassee Community College, and
Valencia College.
4. Colleges include Eastern Florida State College (formerly Brevard Community College), Florida Gateway College
(formerly Lake City Community College), Miami Dade College, Northwest Florida State College, Pasco-
Hernando Community College, Polk State College, St. Johns River State College, and St. Petersburg College.

References
Blake, A. (2018, March). Florida lawmakers ban ‘free speech zones’ on college campuses. The Washington Times. Retrieved
from https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/mar/6/florida-lawmakers-ban-free-speech-zones-college-ca/
Bostic, D., & Gonzalez, G. (1999). Practices, opinions, knowledge, and recommendations from judicial officers in
public higher education. NASPA Journal, 36(3), 166–183. doi:10.2202/0027-6014.1085
Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40.
doi:10.3316/QRJ0902027
Chun, E., & Evans, A. (2016). Rethinking cultural competence in higher education: An ecological framework for
student development. ASHE Higher Education Report, 42(4), 7–162. doi:10.1002/aehe.20102
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded
theory (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Davis, V. Monroe County Board of Education, 526 US 629 (1999)
Dixon, V. Alabama State Board of Education, 186 F. Supp. 945 (M.D. Ala. 1960)
Floyd, D. L., & Walker, K. P. (2008). The community college baccalaureate: Putting the pieces together. Community
College Journal of Research and Practice, 33(2), 90–124. doi:10.1080/10668920802564667
802 A. MILLER AND C. SALINAS JR

Hepler, C. I. (1997). A bibliography of title IX of the education amendments of 1972 and its impact on intercollegiate
athletics. SSRN Electronic Journal. doi:10.2139/ssrn.1116692
Kompalla, S. L., & McCarthy, M. C. (2001). The effect of judicial sanctions on recidivism and retention. College
Student Journal, 35(2), 223–225.
Lancaster, J. M., & Waryold, D. M. (2008). Student conduct practice: The complete guide for student affairs profes-
sionals. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Lieberwitz, R. L., Jaleel, R., Kelleher, T., Scott, J. W., Young, D., Reichman, H., & Runyan, A. S. (2016). The history,
uses, and abuses of Title IX. Academe, 102, 69.
Loschiavo, C., & Waller, J. (n.d.). The preponderance of evidence standard: Use in higher education campus conduct
processes. Association of Student Conduct Administration, 1–6. Retrieved from https://www.theasca.org/files/The%
20Preponderance%20of%20Evidence%20Standard.pdf
Martin-Anderson, K. A. (2009). Student conduct practice: The complete guide for student affairs professionals. Journal
of College Student Development, 50(1), 133–135. doi:10.1353/csd.0.0056
McKay, R. B. (1968). The student as private citizen. Denver Law Journal, 45(4), 558–570.
Pemberton, L. (2017, March). Students allege racism, protest administrators at The Evergreen State College. The
Olympian, para. 7.
Pending Cases Currently Under Investigation. (2018, March 30). Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/
list/ocr/docs/investigations/open-investigations/index.html
Salinas, C., & Boettcher, M. L. (2018). Critical perspectives on hazing in colleges and universities: A guide to disrupting
hazing culture. New York, NY: Routledge.
Seminole State College. (2018). About the office of student conduct. Retrieved from https://www.seminolestate.edu/
student-conduct/about
Smith, D. B. (1994). Student discipline in American college & universities a historical overview. Educational Horizons,
72(2), 78–85.
Student Code of Conduct. (2018). Broward college student handbook. Retrieved from https://reader.mediawiremobile.
com/BrowardCollege/issues/203632/viewer?page=1
Svrluga, S. (2017, October). Justice department supports student’s claim that his free-speech rights were violated. The
Washington Post.
Taylor, T., Thrasher, R. R., & Wilfong, M. (2012). A study of current student conduct investigation practices. Journal
of Student Conduct Administration, 4, 1–34.