Colleges and universities across the country have become stricter in applying hazing policies. While regulations are meant to protect student community members on and off campus, they don't always ensure impartiality to all parties involved. Students can land in serious trouble engaging in hazing activities, even when they are present but not the force behind them. While the University of Denver (DU) provides a pathway for defending against allegations, fast-paced investigations, and interim disciplinary measures can become too involved for students to manage.
Fortunately, DU students defending against hazing allegations have a trusted partner for counsel and guidance. The Lento Law Firm Student Defense Team stands prepared to protect students' right to fair disciplinary procedures. We will exhaust all means of redress to ensure students can remain aligned with their academic goals. Call us at 888-535-3686 now or visit our confidential consultation form.
How Does DU Define Hazing?
Unlike other schools that list acts considered hazing, DU maintains a broad definition. DU's Honor Code states that hazing is "any act…that endangers the psychological or physical health or safety of a person, or by which a person is encouraged to engage in conduct that a reasonable person would consider humiliating." Hazing is also relegated to acts "explicitly or implicitly a condition of admission into, affiliation with, or continued membership in any group."
DU has a stricter interpretation of the Colorado state statute, wherein hazing is characterized by recklessness and not humiliation. Although DU does not list examples of hazing, the Colorado statute asserts that hazing includes but is not limited to:
- Forced and prolonged physical activity
- Forced consumption of any food, beverage, medication, or controlled substance over usual amounts or consumption of any substance not intended for human ingestion
- Prolonged deprivation of sleep, food, or drink
Critically, acts are considered hazing even if all parties consent. DU stresses that consent cannot be obtained through physical force, threats, intimidation, or coercion. Individuals always retain the right to revoke consent, and consenting to any activity cannot automatically imply consent to any other activity. Nevertheless, even passively encouraging or being present near hazing activities is prohibited.
DU Investigations and Hearings
Students may think that only hazing activities that occur on campus are within the school's jurisdiction. However, DU will address any alleged behavior or conduct that may have violated its policies or the Student Rights and Responsibilities (SRR) Community Standards, regardless of where it occurred.
When the SRR Office receives a report, they may proceed with an investigation, even if the accuser (complainant) chooses to rescind or withdraw all or part of the allegations. If the SRR Office substantiates a violation of its standards or school policies, it will refer the report to a Case Resolution Body (CRB).
School officials will review the academic schedules of the parties involved and schedule a Case Resolution Meeting (DU's name for a disciplinary hearing) with the appropriate CRB, such as the Student Accountability Board. During the meeting, the CRB will learn from the complainant and the accused student (respondent) about their perspectives regarding the incident.
The CRB determines violations through a preponderance of the evidence. If substantiated, the CRB and the respondent will:
- Evaluate the impact of the incident
- Explore possible alternatives to the behavior and conduct that occurred
- Discuss opportunities to repair harm
After the meeting, the CRB can decide whether the respondent is not responsible for the violation or dismiss the case. However, they may also continue with the finding of responsibility through a preponderance of the evidence and assign sanctions. They may also refer to a Restorative Justice Conference for outcomes or a new meeting under a separate CRB.
DU Sanctions and Appeals
Individuals found responsible for violation policies are assigned disciplinary outcomes that balance the "developmental needs of the respondent" and DU's needs for an "equitable process and promote a safe campus community." The SRR Office will determine sanctions through a myriad of criteria, including, but not limited to:
- The nature and severity of the matter
- The use of physical violence (if any) associated with the incident
- The impact of the conduct on the complainant and DU community
- The respondent's intent and acceptance of responsibility
- The respondent's previous disciplinary record
At DU, disciplinary sanctions are split into two categories: educational outcomes and status outcomes. Educational outcomes are intended to facilitate rehabilitation and work similarly to probationary measures like behavioral interventions, privilege restrictions, referrals for mediation, and even restitution. If students fail to complete any educational outcome by the specified deadline, the university will place a hold on their account, impacting their ability to add or drop courses or register for classes. Additionally, they may be subject to further disciplinary action.
Status outcomes define or alter a student's standing at DU. Such sanctions from the SRR Office include:
- Educational Letter: notifies students about inconsistencies with the expectations of the university.
- Written Warning: informs students that further inconsistencies in behavior or conduct could lead to disciplinary action.
- Probation: acts as a period when the student is subject to conditions for remaining enrolled at DU, which may be taken to "elevated probation" status with further stipulations or interim suspensions.
- Suspension: temporary ban from the university and required to reapply for readmission.
- Expulsion: permanent ban from DU, including being trespassed from all university activities, academic or otherwise.
Fortunately, respondents have the right to submit an appeal of the CRB's decision within five business days. However, grounds for the appeal are limited to the following:
- Substantial procedural errors
- Presentation of new and significant evidence
- Bias or conflict of interest of the CRB impacted the outcome
- Sanctions imposed are disproportionate to the severity of the violation
The Director of the SRR Office will review the appeal and refer it to an Appellate Officer for further determination. The officer may reverse a finding of responsible or not responsible, remand the back to the SRR Office, or increase, decrease, or alter the sanctions. All decisions are final and conclusive, thus fulfilling DU's Case Completion status.
DU Students Need the Lento Law Firm Student Defense Team
Being accused of hazing can significantly disrupt student life and threaten future endeavors. When DU students are building their defense, they need an experienced team of professionals to mitigate severe consequences. Fortunately, the Lento Law Firm Student Defense Team stands prepared to serve as a trusted advisor.
Our team will ensure DU students have their rights protected throughout the university grievance process and can exhaust all avenues of redress against allegations and appeals. We coach students on how to respond to the CRB's inquiries and will boost your chances of getting back to your academic goals. Call the Lento Law Firm Student Defense Team at 888-535-3686 now or visit our confidential online consultation form, and we will contact you.
