SSMS Training

I recently met with Clayton Bracht, lead advocate, Student Advocate Services, to talk about what advocate services his office offers to respondents in Student Sexual Misconduct cases, and to hear what the students are telling him about their experience during the conduct process.

Tucked into a quiet cove on the second floor of Appleby Hall is the Student Advocate Services (SAS) office, occupied mostly by Clayton Bracht, the lead advocate in the office. The office is bright and cozy, and a striking, deep green philodendron houseplant towers prominently against the back wall in the center of the room–certainly a hallmark in the space. It grabs my attention immediately. A transplant from the west coast when Bracht relocated to Minnesota over the summer, he tells me. Also newly settled into a Minnesota life is Bracht’s friendly, relaxed Bichon-Poodle pup, Cooper, who was in the office that day, and after greeting me, parked himself on his dog bed under Bracht’s desk.

It is a comforting space, and Bracht’s dedication to student advocate work was evident as he talked with me about the student experience as a respondent in student sexual misconduct cases, and how student advocates help respondents seeking their services.

Student advocates have been available to students in previous years, but the Student Advocate Services office was established when Bracht was hired as a lead advocate last summer. Previously, the student advocates were available through the Student Conflict Resolution Center. Bracht’s office has three part-time student advocates, who are also full-time law students at the Law School, and a part-time support person that helps the advocates with administrative work. His role is to supervise the advocates; provide continuity for the services offered to students, like representation at hearings; and explore new ways to develop this work on campus. He has held leadership roles in residential life on three other campuses, most recently at Lewis and Clark College in Portland, Oregon, and he has a master of education degree in educational leadership and administration, with a focus on Student Affairs, from the University of Utah.

When respondents typically first contact SAS, where are they in the overall process of investigation, etc. (i.e., what other University offices have contacted, spoken to them)?

Students reach out at all different points in the process. Sometimes after an Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action (EOAA) investigation is conducted and sanctions have been determined by the Office for Community Standards (OCS), and sometimes it is before contact from any University officials, but the student is anticipating a report. Most often though, it is right after a respondent is contacted by EOAA to come in for an interview.

How much do respondents know about the University's investigation and hearing processes at the first meeting with SAS?

Generally, students know relatively little about the process, and it is complicated for them. Intake meetings often start with an advocate explaining his/ her role, followed by an overview of the investigation process, and what happens if the student is found responsible or not responsible. Advocates also explain the formal hearing process; specifically how the advocate role shifts into presenting the case, and how the respondent is likely to testify and be cross-examined. The advocates also explain the appeals process and the standard of evidence.

In every case, advocates stress to respondents the importance of being open and honest with the advocates. Advocates make clear that they are not lawyers, and they are also not going to lie on behalf of the students, but they will help ensure the student gets a fair hearing.

How do you educate respondents about the hearing process and the advocate role in the process?  

Advocates talk respondents through the implications of going to a hearing, what the sanctions really translate to, and how they can potentially impact future school admissions or military career prospects. They explain that the advocate role is to be a megaphone for student voices. In other words, advocates will give advice, but the respondents have to make their own decisions, and they will be supported in whatever choice they make about whether to go to a hearing, and how to present their case.

When a respondent decides to move forward with a hearing, how does an advocate help them prepare?  How much time is spent with the respondent?

An advocate will spend roughly five to 15 hours one-on-one with a student to prepare for a hearing. The time spent will depend on the complexity of the case and how willing the student is to meet with the advocate. The meetings focus on collecting evidence, walking through the case, and preparing a respondent for what to expect with cross-examination. The advocates also talk about the tone of the hearings, and how the respondent might dress, or what he or she should be aware of.

Advocates also acknowledge that the entire conduct process is difficult and they encourage respondents to go to Student Counseling Services for support.

In addition to meeting with the respondent, advocates spend an average of 10 to 20 hours gathering information on the case, building exhibit binders, drafting opening and closing statements and witness questions, and doing research.

How do advocates support the respondent after the hearing and before the panel's decision is rendered?

After a hearing has closed, the advocate will typically debrief with the respondent to talk about impressions and how the respondent felt during the hearing. If an advocate observed that the respondent was not genuine or composed, they will share that feedback in order to educate and help the respondent understand a potential growth opportunity. They will generally also discuss hypotheticals, expectations, and timelines.

If the respondent is willing, advocates will schedule time to meet after the disposition has been sent so that they can discuss the panels’ decision and any potential next steps that the advocate can help with.

How do you support the respondent after the panel’s decision is received?

Advocates make sure respondents understand that they are not alone in the process, and they can always contact an advocate to help direct them or to bounce ideas off of. Advocates will also write appeal letters on behalf of respondents, if they choose to go that far in the process.

What have respondents told you about the fairness of the University’s hearing process?

Often respondents understand the context of the criminal court process better than they understand the student conduct process, and that leads to frustration about the standard of evidence. It can be difficult for respondents to come to terms with a preponderance of evidence standard rather than beyond a reasonable doubt standard. Sometimes advocates will feel villainized because of an accusation, and that will translate to a perception that the process is unfair. In these cases, the advocates spend time talking respondents through their impressions that the process is unfair for the accused, and will reassure the respondent that the system does afford the accused due process, and our University offers more due process than other schools.

These conversations are very common, about 3 in 4 students come to SAS with these feelings, and those conversations can be difficult because advocates have to balance being a support person for the respondent, while also pushing back to help educate the respondent about the impact of the potential conduct.

Does SAS feel that students trust the process?

SSMS hearings have decreased this year, in part because students have decided to go with an informal resolution. This shift may show that respondents have more trust in the process, because accepting an informal resolution also requires the respondent to accept some level of responsibility for the incident. The outcome of an informal resolution isn’t as black-and-white as it can be in a hearing when a panel determines the outcome; it is more of a negotiation, and that also allows more room for learning opportunities. Respondents take at least some responsibility, hopefully learn from it, and understand how to move forward and right their wrongs. A hearing is generally more contentious, and some students view it as a gamble. No matter how the advocates explain the hearing process, there is still uncertainty for respondents.

When a respondent is represented by an outside attorney, how does SAS provide support to the student?

When a respondent hires as attorney, SAS excuses themselves from any involvement in the case. Often respondents will ask SAS about the benefits of getting an attorney, and advocates will explain that if a lawyer is involved, the Office of the General Counsel will represent the University, and hiring a lawyer will likely cost around $300 an hour. Advocates also tell respondents that SAS is familiar with the student conduct process, and lawyers might be less aware of higher education policies. They also caution that lawyers can make things more hostile, and SAS has internal relationships that help foster an informal resolution. In the end though, advocates tell respondents that they do not have to work with SAS, and they can always hire a lawyer and then come back to SAS if it doesn’t work out.

What can SSMS do to help students better understand or trust in the process?

Students are watching panelists through the hearing, and relying on them to thoughtfully contribute to the process. Being aware of physical expressions and postures in a hearing, checking your demeanor, and overall just being aware of your non-verbal cues and being present is very important for the students. There has also been a lot of attention and care given to being respectful of a complainant in hearings, but that has not reciprocated for respondents, so just being mindful of what you are asking and how you are asking it to make sure that the parties are treated equally is important. Students are paying attention, and the stakes are high for them in these hearings.