Developing the Revised Code of Student Conduct

All members of the GW community play an integral role in fostering a respectful and safe living-learning environment. One aspect of building and maintaining this environment is through the development of policies and procedures. For students, the Code of Student Conduct (“the Code”) is the primary document governing non-academic student behavior.

Guiding Principles

The Division for Student Affairs developed the following principles to guide the GW community as we consider revisions to the Code of Student Conduct.

The Code of Student Conduct should inform and educate members of the community about non-academic behavioral expectations for students, resolution pathways, review procedures, and sanctions.
The language used in the Code of Student Conduct should be clear and easily understood by all members of the GW community. (Avoiding legalese, incorporating more student-centered and accessible language.)
The Code of Student Conduct should encourage learning and accountability, highlight personal and community responsibility, and ensure that sanctions consider both the student’s learning needs and the impact on individuals and the community.
The Code of Student Conduct should reflect national standards of being learning-centered, procedurally-sound, and community-focused.*

Themes from Initial Public Comment Period

In spring 2025, a public comment period solicited community feedback on the current Code of Student Conduct. Community input provided valuable insight into questions about the Code and recommendations for improvement. The feedback also highlighted a diversity of viewpoints that sometimes offered conflicting recommendations on a policy or procedure.

The following summaries highlight themes expressed throughout the feedback but do not attempt to capture every comment or perspective shared.

Sanctions and Proportionality: Stakeholders expressed a desire for greater clarity around sanctions, including how they are proportionally assigned based on the nature or severity of the misconduct.

Protected Characteristics: Concerns were raised that the current list of protected characteristics and reference to “applicable laws” is not sufficiently inclusive, especially in light of evolving political and social contexts.

Fair Application of the Code: Varying perspectives on the fair application of the Code were provided. Some find the Code/conduct process to be clear, fair, and procedurally sound, while others believe that the Code is applied inconsistently or that it unfairly targets specific populations or protest activities.

Procedural Timelines: Several individuals provided feedback that the timeframe for steps in the conduct process (e.g., panel notification, submission of evidence, identifying a support person) are too limited.

Free Expression and Protests: A notable portion of feedback referenced issues related to free speech, protesting, and interference with university operations. Many advocated for stronger protections for free expression activities, while a small group sought a more strict and prompt response to such activities.

Substance Use Policies: There is a desire to evaluate policies and actions related to alcohol and marijuana use. For alcohol, respondents preferred educational or treatment-focused approaches. Regarding marijuana, questions arose about its use on campus given the differences between D.C. and federal law.

While all feedback was valuable in understanding community member perspectives, not all feedback was relevant to the Code itself or consistent with other university policies or practices.

Revisions to the Code of Student Conduct

In addition to public comments, input was collected through reports, written feedback, and conversations between various GW constituent groups representing students, faculty, and staff. The Division for Student Affairs also worked with an external consultant to provide an independent review of the Code, offer objective guidance and subject matter expertise, and facilitate the development of the new draft.

The draft Code of Student Conduct was re-written, rather than simply edited, to facilitate a comprehensive review of policies and procedures and address feedback requesting improved clarity, standardized terminology, and simpler language. This is a material change to the current Code. Material changes include those that affect the university’s position, commitment, or spirit of the policy, because of changes in business principles, practices, or relevant laws and regulation.

A primary objective throughout this process was to emphasize a collaborative, less adversarial approach to upholding community standards. We carefully considered more meaningful and educational ways to engage students with the conduct process through avenues such as the Probation Review Committee and an Advisory Committee.

Below are key changes found in the draft Code of Student Conduct. The draft is not final as additional edits may be made following this community engagement period.

Student Rights: Additional language about student rights was added to the Preamble. The Statement of Student Rights and Responsibilities, currently published before the Code, will become a standalone document as it is not part of the Code.
Discrimination Moved Out of Code:Feedback requested an expanded definition of protected characteristics and fair application of policies. Since the public comment period, the protected characteristics definition and discriminatory misconduct was removed from the Code. Such reports are now addressed by the Office of Access and Opportunity under the Equal Opportunity, Nondiscrimination, Anti-Harassment, and Non-Retaliation Policy.
Harming Behavior: Harming behavior was added as prohibited conduct. This addresses severe or repeated acts directed at an individual that causes physical or substantial emotional harm, that otherwise does not constitute discriminatory misconduct.
Approach to Student Organizations: Registered student organizations and their members remain subject to both individual and collective sanctions. An unregistered student group; however, is no longer considered a collective entity accountable under the Code of Student Conduct as they are not formally recognized by the university and do not receive university benefits. Students who are members of these unregistered groups remain accountable to the Code.
Clarity Around the Conduct Process: The revised Code offers clearer descriptions of the conduct process, including student conduct conferences. The types and descriptions of status sanctions and action items were revised to be more clear and concise and to consider the balancing of education and accountability.
Revised Conduct Resolution Process to Remove Panels: The conduct resolution process was also revised and simplified for improved consistency, objectivity, and timeliness. Students continue to have the option to accept sanctions and action items through a one-on-one Student Conduct Conference with a case manager. Cases reasonably resulting in suspension, expulsion, or loss of housing will no longer be referred to a panel. If a student and case manager are unable to reach an agreement through a Conference, the case will be referred to an administrative decision. Panels previously accounted for 1-2% of resolution pathways.
Indefinite Probation and Student-Led Probation Review Committee: To emphasize the learning and personal growth, conduct probation is no longer for a fixed term (e.g., six months, one year, indefinite). Instead, it will be indefinite and can be lifted after at least six months through review by a student Probation Review Committee. Trained students will be engaged in the review of petitions to lift probation status of a respondent. The petition and conversations will focus on student learning and positive contributions to the campus community.
Records Release and Transcript Notations Revised: To further reinforce the educational goal of the conduct process, the language on if and when records will be released to a third party was revised. Similarly, the practice for transcript notations for suspension was revised to be more limited. These changes do not impact transcript notations related to Academic Integrity or Title IX which are not managed under the Code of Student Conduct.

*The Council for the Advancement of Standards (CAS) for student conduct programs provides the industry standard for this work in higher education. “College campuses must balance three complex, interconnected goals: community-focused, learning-centered, and procedurally-sound” (CAS Standards and Guidelines, Student Conduct Programs, pp. 2-3.)

Community-focused: Student conduct programs must reflect the unique needs, characteristics, and values of their individual institutions and campus communities. As such, they must set forth clear standards for their particular community and also ensure protection for all students within that community.
Learning-centered: Student conduct programs should, whenever feasible, seek to prioritize educational processes and outcomes for students while also ensuring the safety and integrity of the learning environment for all students. The imperative is to identify and utilize conduct practices and interventions that have a demonstrable effect on students’ knowledge, values, and behavior.
Procedurally-sound: Student conduct programs must ensure that their policies and practices are procedurally sound. Although institutions must comply with legal and judicial authority (including procedural and substantive due process, legislative mandates, and regulatory directives), student conduct programs also have a moral and ethical duty to ensure their processes are inclusive, socially just, and multipartial.