King’s College Student Conduct Code: Upholding the Values of Spirituality, Respect, Integrity and Scholarship

King’s College is more than just a Catholic institution that provides quality education to its students. As an academic establishment, it places a high value on preserving the core values of Spirituality, Respect, Integrity and Scholarship through its Student Conduct Code. This code enables students to take responsibility for their actions and have accountability for any violations committed.

The College Judicial System at King’s College

The College Judicial System process begins once a complaint is filed against a student. Everyone associated with the college including students, faculty staff and administration have the right to file a complaint against any student they feel has violated the code. Once reviewed by an Administrative Hearing Officer (AHO), the accused student will be notified of a meeting that has been arranged with them in question.

Throughout this process, campus community members must keep in mind that they will be known as the “complainant” while the accused student becomes known as simply “accused.” The AHO will inform each individual regarding their rights within this particular system as well as ensure that both parties understand their respective roles accordingly.

At this point proceedings can either be dismissed if sufficient evidence does not exist to find guilt or alternatively offer chance at resolution this may include imposing sanctions in accordance with severity of violation commited.

Informal Administrative Disposition

An informal hearing process occures when facing accusations of lesser violation. This hearing is held before an AHO instead of a conduct panel. Both parties are able to present evidence and witness testimonies however; only one person hears testimony since there is no other panel hearing officers available apart from administrative hearings officers (AHOs). The decision made after evidence provided and testimony heard relies on preponderance of evidence standard – meaning balance appears authority-wise such no side wins solely based on belief’s feelings but rather powerfuy asserted facts further emphasising due diligence in decision makings.

College Student Conduct Panel

Volunteer applicants form College Student Conduct Panel and will be chosen for hearings. Consisting of 3 faculty/staff members, 2 students and led by one panel member(TBD) with this particular individual acting as a non-voting chairperson. Hearings consisting of two parties (accused student and complainant) present before a panel who will determine whether or not violations took place, including all witnesses relevant to the case.

This process permits both the accused student and the complainant to present their sides whilst being aware that both side’s will be actively questioned. Following questioning sessions, each party involved may make final summary arguments whereby hearing panel decides whether responsible or not responsible stating “majority vote”.

Students have option of choosing between an Administrative Hearing officer – this has same format for presentation as seen in panel hearing with one exception where Administrative hearing officers chair proceedings instead of panels making determinations alone.

Although limited in scope to only students, witnesses and personnel involved in above matter, advisors are permitted though must belong within the college community. Even though helpful allies; said advisors do lack the specific skillset necessary for building strong defenses against claims as opposed to legal experts/attorneys/ lawyers.

It is important to note that attorneys may still participate in hearings for criminal charges— see below how having an attorney can help students secure favoritism towards their candidancy:

King’s College Appeals

In some cases there can exist unfavorable outcomes from cases heard by either AHOs or parking boards so those who suspect unfair decisions affecting right & wrong should request appeals immediately in compliance that such requests ought highlight reason(s) for scrutiny.

Appeals must contain documentatative evidence clarifying why appellant believes appealed verdict does not uphold common fairnessness principles thus indicating flawed processes that brought about incorrect verdicts given all aspects considered during rulings on presented matter.