University Conduct Pool

Faculty Representatives

Brooks College of Interdisciplinary Studies:

  1. Krista Benson
  2. Steve Nathaniel


College of Liberal Arts & Sciences:

  1. Carl Brown
  2. Teresa Castelao-Lawless
  3. Lauren Keough
  4. Ruije Liu
  5. Norma Ortiz-Robinson
  6. Brian Phillips
  7. Scott Stabler


College of Health Professions:

  1. Jennifer Ford
  2. Bonni Kinne
  3. Janna Pacey


Kirkhof College of Nursing:

  1. Della Hughes
  2. Amy Manderscheid


Seidman College of Business:

  1. Catherine Jones-Rikker
  2. Kevin Lehnert
  3. Leslie Muller
  4. Ji Qi


Padnos College of Engineering & Computing:

  1. Zachary Kurmas
  2. Mingyu Wu


College of Education & Community Innovation:

  1. Scott Rood


University Libraries:

  1. Anna White

Staff Representatives

  • Audra Courtade 
  • MJ Creutz 
  • Raven McClinon 
  • Katie Perschbacher 
  • Grace Pushman
  • Phillip Todd 


Traditionally aged college students are making the final transition from adolescence to adulthood. They are striving for independence, hoping to prove to themselves and to others their capacity for directing their own lives. In the past, they have often been told what and how to do things by various adult authority figures. The college experience provides students with a freedom from restraints.

Regardless of the means by which student conduct is processed, the ends remain the same: to redirect the behavior of the student into acceptable patterns and to protect the rights of the community. The question becomes one of choosing the most effective means of maintaining conduct, which is acceptable for an academic community. The unique advantage of a hearing lies in the opportunity for members of the university community to influence the attitudes and subsequent behavior of students through a formally constituted student conduct process. Without question, this type of influence exercised through the student conduct process, can often be more effecting in redirecting the behavior patterns of students than any other method of student conduct within the institution.

As a final word, there is no substitute for fairness, objectivity, and good judgement. The success of a hearing is contingent on the confidence of the hearing officer to maintain a nurturing, academic environment while affording individual students maximum personal freedom within institutional guidelines.

Page last modified September 8, 2023