Queen's University Residences
Residence Discipline Process

approved by Senate March 3, 2005

Date: February 16, 2005

Introduction

The philosophy for discipline and community standards in the Queen’s University Residences is to promote the responsibility of all students regarding their own behaviour. The peer-centred discipline system presumes reasonable standards of courtesy and respect for the rights of other residents and, in conjunction with the University’s Code of Conduct, is the basis for determining what is or is not acceptable conduct. It is the responsibility of the Jean Royce Hall Council, the Main Campus Residents’ Council and/or Residence Life to make decisions with regard to breaches of residence community standards. The complete process, procedures and individual responsibilities are outlined in the attached appendices.

1. Principles

Students who live in residence contractually agree to abide by the policies, rules and regulations that govern acceptable conduct. Compliance with these community standards ensures the safety and security of the residence community and promotes the well-being of its residents. Residents who do not regulate their behaviour according to these standards are encouraged to learn from their mistakes and modify their behaviour through the discipline process. Therefore, to ensure that students receive fair treatment, are aware of their rights and responsibilities, and have an effective and efficient method for resolving disputes, the following principles guide non-academic discipline in the Queen’s Residences.

1. The discipline process is peer-centered.
2. Consistency and fairness are integral. There is a single discipline system for all residences with consistent rules, identical procedures and the same possible sanctions.
3. The process is remedial, rather than punitive, and has an educational component.
4. The tenets of natural justice are followed.

2. Goals

The goals of non-academic discipline in residence are to:

1. educate students by explaining community standards;
2. bring student behaviour into compliance with established community standards;
3. have students accept responsibility and accountability for their actions;
4. help clarify students’ values;
5. assist students in making more positive, self-directed choices that will better enable them to assume later adult roles;
6. help students consider, in advance, the consequences of their behaviour; and,
7. develop leadership and citizenship skills in students who participate in the system.

3. Resident Students and their Role in the Residence Discipline Process

Living by approved community standards is the responsibility of all students. This is encouraged by:

1. teaching and emphasizing expectations before and after students move into residence;
2. asking student staff and council to model and promote community standards;
3. encouraging resident students to adhere to and enforce community standards themselves; and,
4. participating in the discipline system in a variety of roles:
   • being leaders in Residence Life and student government positions that deal with community standards (e.g., Dons, Residence Facilitators);
   • becoming members of the Peer Judicial Board, including the position of Chair;
   • being members of the Appeals Committee; and,
   • participating in an advisory capacity to recommend policy and procedural changes.

Residence student government’s role is to:

1. support and uphold the non-academic discipline process, as approved by the Senate Residence Committee;
2. work with Residence Life to ensure the effectiveness of the process and procedures;
3. assume appropriate responsibilities with regard to training and supervision of council members involved in the discipline process; and,
4. assist with actions to be taken when community standards are not upheld.

Back to Top

4. Administrative Context and Rights

The University Senate, having responsibility for the well-being of students and final responsibility for non-academic discipline, has delegated authority for overseeing and approving the residence discipline process to the Senate Residence Committee. The Senate Residence Committee has responsibility for the well-being of resident students and holds Residence Administration and residence councils accountable for the effective implementation of Senate policies, including discipline.

1. The University has vested overall responsibility for University Residences in the Associate Dean of Student Affairs, including procedures, facilities, operations, residence life, and programming.
2. The Director of Residence Life has responsibility for ensuring the effective operation of the residence discipline system.
3. The Residence Judicial Advisor is responsible for managing the day-to-day administration and support of the discipline system, offering advice to students, student staff, council and staff.

Employees are accountable to Queen’s University to ensure that their duties are fulfilled. It is expected, therefore, that Residence Administration will take action at any time when duties have been neglected or community standards are in jeopardy.

In its day-to-day dealings with resident students, Residence Administration is responsible for such steps as are necessary to ensure the safety, security and well-being of residence occupants, or to preserve residence property. Such steps include, but are not restricted to, the right to reassign a room, temporarily or permanently, or to terminate a Residence Contract.

5. Staff, Council and Student Staff Training

The Director of Residence Life, in collaboration with the Jean Royce Hall Council and Main Campus Residents’ Council, is responsible for providing both initial training and professional development for all who are involved in the discipline system. Training is mandatory for staff, student staff and council members, including specific training related to areas of responsibility.

6. Review of Non-Academic Discipline in Residence

To ensure the integrity of the discipline process, and compliance with existing University policies and procedures, the residence discipline process is reviewed as follows.

1. The Discipline Working Group

   The Discipline Working Group, a standing committee of the Senate Residence Committee, meets on a monthly basis to review policies, procedures, rules and regulations, with a view to fine-tuning discipline processes and addressing new issues that arise. The committee is comprised of:

   • 3 student representatives (residence council presidents (2) and 1 resident student-at-large);
   • 3 non-student members (Residence Judicial Advisor, Co-ordinator of Dispute Resolution Mechanisms, and a member of the Senate Residence Committee); and
   • a convenor will be selected from the group annually.

   The committee reports to the Senate Residence Committee at least twice per year and provides general information about the residence discipline process, any proposed changes to procedures, and statistics on the number of cases, appeals, peer judicial board meetings, etc. The committee is responsible for determining the job description of the Peer Judicial Board Chair, establishing the selection process, and setting the timeline for hiring.

2. The Senate Residence Committee

   In keeping with the Senate Residence Committee’s responsibility for non-academic discipline, it receives reports from the Discipline Working Group, and deals with any recommendations for proposed changes to the discipline system. Approved recommendations are normally implemented the following year, as changes during the academic term have inherent difficulties. In the event that recommendations need to be approved at a time when the Senate Residence Committee is not sitting, the Chair of the Senate Residence Committee is empowered to act on the Committee’s behalf.

3. Senate Committee On Non-Academic Discipline (SONAD)

   SONAD has responsibility to review and recommend to Senate changes to non-academic discipline policy, and to draw attention to any special problems that it has identified or anticipates. In addition, a summary of the actions of the Peer Judicial Board is submitted annually to SONAD for review and comment.

Back to Top