In the sections below, new sections will be highlighted in BLUE and substantially changed sections will be highlighted in GREEN. Deletions are indicated by a strikethrough.

Note: Some sections have not been changed.

To view a section, click on the section title in the accordion below. When commenting on a section, please provide its title.

Please be aware that this is a moderated process and abusive posts will be deleted. When leaving a comment, please state the title of the section you are commenting about, and keep in mind the following questions:

  1. What objective is this policy/procedure trying to meet? How does it fail?
  2. Can you suggest an alternative to the language proposed?
  3. How would the alternative language meet the same objective or be more effective?

Recent Posts



Arman Bozkurt says:

I think that these new additions are particularly useful given that they add encompass the student’s entire life, not just their academic pursuits. Further, hazing should affect nobody, including students…and these new revisions reflect this. Though still thinking of items that could be added to this, none come to mind given the current lists thoroughness.

Amber Adkins says:

For Complicity- what if a person does not know that they are helping someone violate University guidelines? Should it be clarified that it is intentional complicity?

Amber Adkins says:

In bullying/cyber bullying, it mentions that the offenses must be ongoing. How would an isolated post clearly going against cyber bullying policies be handled even if it’s an isolated incident?

Anonymous says:

For threatening behavior, will other witnesses beyond the complainant’s and the reasonable person’s accounts be accounted for in such a situation?

Ethan Wearner says:

In Section 11 (“Failure to Comply with the University of Other Officials”), students are required to identify themselves to law enforcement or first responders when requested to do so. There is little explanation on how this language intersects with a student’s Fifth Amendment rights. Students have the right to remain silent if their testimony to an officer could be incrimianting. Is Section 11 suggesting that students do not have that right? If not, that should be addressed. The right to silence is a very basic Constitutional privilege. A student’s silence should not be weaponized to their detriment if cooperating with law enforcement could lead to self-incrimination (particularly in regards to something Federal like underage alcohol consumption).

Hasan Pyarali says:

I think this is a great change, especially the part of the personal commitments because although academics come first there is much more to a person’s life. Making it clear that it is not tolerated is a good policy. However there should be automatic monitoring and maybe check-ins so it is not incumbent on someone experiencing hazing to report it but rather for it to be stopped by the University in its tracks