Determining a Charge

Any JMU student, faculty, or staff member believing that a student has violated a university policy may bring a charge by giving relevant details of the alleged violation to the Office of Student Accountability and Restorative Practices. Generally, resolution of these allegations will follow the process below. However, cases involving alleged conduct that falls under policy J34-100 Sexual Misconduct will follow the separate and distinct Sexual Misconduct Accountability Process. Accused Students and Reporting Parties in cases involving alleged sexual misconduct should review policy J34-100 Sexual Misconduct, the Sexual Misconduct Accountability Process, and the “Responsibilities and Rights – Sexual Misconduct.”

Throughout the Accountability Process, Accused Students are afforded certain rights outlined in the “Responsibilities and Rights – Administrative Case Review” and the “Responsibilities and Rights – Accountability Board Case Review.”

Upon receiving relevant details of the alleged violation, The Office of Student Accountability and Restorative Practices will determine: 

  • Whether there are grounds for a charge and the initiation of the Accountability Process.

  • Whether the charge should be referred for restorative practices such as mediation, restorative circles, or to other university officials or administrative committees. 

Typically, this determination occurs upon the Office of Student Accountability and Restorative Practices receiving a police report, incident report, incident narrative, witness statement, or record of court outcome, but charges may be placed in other circumstances at the discretion of the Director of the Office of Student Accountability and Restorative Practices or designee.

If the information produced provides sufficient cause to believe that a violation may have taken place:

  • The Accused Student will be notified of the charges. In accordance with JMU Policy 1209, proper notification of a charge shall consist of an email to the student’s official JMU e-mail address. The notice will be considered received the day after the notice is sent via email.

  • The charge will state the relevant policy or policies for the alleged violation(s), but will not list the specifics of the alleged incident. For the purposes of adjudicating allegations of violation of policy in the Accountability Process the Office of Student Accountability and Restorative Practices will determine if any of the clauses listed within the policy were violated based on the information presented using a preponderance of the evidence standard.

  • When students are informed of their charges, they may also be instructed to have "no direct or indirect contact" with the specific members of the university community involved in the case. This includes, but is not limited to, verbal or non-verbal contact in person, through electronic means, or through a third party. A violation of this instruction may result in an additional charge of J21-100 Non-compliance with an Official Request and/or J18-100 Interference with or Retaliation for Exercising or Participating in the Accountability, Honor Council, or Title IX Process.

  • The student will be asked to schedule an Administrative Case Review in the Office of Student Accountability and Restorative Practices.

The university may proceed with charges and the Accountability Process regardless of enrollment status of the Accused Student, or have charges and/or sanctions remain pending until an Accused Student’s request to re-enroll is received. In most circumstances, the university will not proceed with the Accountability Process during a period in which an Accused Student is not actively enrolled in classes. The decision to proceed or not proceed with the Accountability Process when the Accused Student is not enrolled in classes is at the discretion of the Director of Student Accountability and Restorative Practices or designee and will be based on the severity of the case and the availability and/or preference of relevant persons to the case, including but not limited to the Accused Student, the Reporting Party, Administrative Witnesses, and Office of Student Accountability and Restorative Practices staff members. If the Accused Student is enrolled in classes and relevant persons to the case are available, the Office of Student Accountability and Restorative Practices will generally proceed with the Accountability Process.  

Since policy violations occurring through the end of a student’s graduation day may result in charges being placed, in cases involving graduating students, the student’s diploma and/or official transcripts may be withheld pending the conclusion of the Accountability Process and/or the completion of any outstanding sanctions.

Back to top



Administrative Case Review

An Accused Student charged with a policy violation will first have the violation reviewed in an Administrative Case Review by a staff member in the Office of Student Accountability and Restorative Practices in accordance with the following procedures:

  • Upon notification of the charge, the Accused Student will be given five business days to schedule an Administrative Case Review in the Office of Student Accountability and Restorative Practices. If the Accused Student does not schedule an Administrative Case Review, he or she will be set for an appointment time based on his or her academic schedule and informed of the appointment set via email. In some circumstances including but not limited to threats to campus and/or student safety or the timeliness of a case, at the discretion of the Director of the Office of Student Accountability and Restorative Practices or designee, the Accused Student may not be provided the opportunity to schedule the case review. Instead, an appointment will be set based on his or her academic schedule and the Accused Student will be informed of the appointment via email. In circumstances where the appointment is set by the Office of Student Accountability and Restorative Practices, the appointment will provide the appropriate notice of at least three days.

  • After reviewing the information with the Accused Student, the Case Administrator will use a preponderance of evidence standard to determine if the Accused Student is responsible for the charge.

    • If the student fails to appear at an Administrative Case Review scheduled either by the student or set based on the student’s academic schedule, the Case Administrator will make a decision in the case based solely on the information provided in the incident documentation in their absence.

  • If the Accused Student is found responsible, the Case Administrator will inform the Accused Student orally of the decision and the sanction that will be assigned. If the student is found not responsible or if the decision is held in abeyance, the Case Administrator will inform the Accused Student orally of their decision. Students who have their case decided in their absence will be notified of the Case Administrator’s decision via email.

  • If found responsible or if the decision is held in abeyance, the Accused Student may accept the decision and sign a statement indicating acceptance and making a commitment to completing the required sanctions. Failure to complete the assigned sanctions could result in an additional charge of J10-100 Failure to Comply with a Disciplinary Decision. The Accused Student may also choose to reject the decision and request a re-hearing of the case before members of the Accountability Board in the applicable setting or by a second University Case Administrator when the defined circumstances for a case to be heard by a University Case Administrator are met.

    • If the student does not indicate whether he or she accepts or rejects the decision made by the Case Administrator at the Administrative Case Review, a follow up meeting will be scheduled for this decision. If the student does not attend this scheduled follow up meeting, the decision of the Case Administrator will become final and the student will not have the opportunity to reject the decision and request a case review before members of the Accountability Board in the applicable setting or by a second University Case Administrator when the defined circumstances for a case to be heard by a University Case Administrator are met.

    • Students who have their case decided in their absence will be notified of the decision in their case via email and provided a deadline by which to accept or reject the decision, in accordance with their right to have the case re-heard at an Accountability Board Case Review.

    • Students who reject the decision made by their Case Administrator will be scheduled for an advising session to go over the procedures used in an Accountability Board Case Review.  If an Accused Student does not attend this scheduled advising session, the decision of the Case Administrator will become final and the student will not have the opportunity to have the case re-heard before members of the Accountability Board in the applicable setting or by a second University Case Administrator when the defined circumstances for a case to be heard by a University Case Administrator are met.

Administrative Case Reviews are closed meetings between the student and the Case Administrator; all information and decisions shall remain confidential. Students are not permitted to make their own recordings of an Administrative Case Review. Attorneys and/or support persons are not permitted at an Administrative Case Review. The Accused Student (and Reporting Party, as applicable) shall receive notice of all rights they are guaranteed through the Accountability Process. In Administrative Case Reviews, the technical rules of evidence applicable in civil and criminal cases do not apply.

If a student rejects the decision rendered at an Administrative Case Review during the last three weeks of any semester or during the summer sessions the Accountability Board Process may be altered as follows:

  • If all witnesses will be available, students attending JMU the following semester may choose to have the Accountability Board Process conducted immediately by an individual University Case Administrator or when the next semester begins.

  • If all witnesses will not be available the following semester, the Accountability Board Process may be conducted immediately by an individual University Case Administrator.

  • Students who will not be attending JMU the following semester (e.g. graduating students, students transferring, students at off site student teaching, students studying abroad, etc.) will have the Accountability Board Process conducted immediately by an individual University Case Administrator.

A student who provides falsified or misleading information at an Administrative Case Review may be charged additionally with a violation of J18-100 Interference with or Retaliation for Exercising or Participating in the Accountability, Honor Council, or Title IX Process.

Back to top



Accountability Board

Members of the Accountability Board volunteer to serve on Minor Boards, on Major Boards, or in some circumstances as University Case Administrators. Minor Boards, Major Boards, and University Case Administrators act as the original decision making body for cases in which a student is charged with minor, major, or flexible policy violations as classified by the Office of Student Accountability and Restorative Practices.

  • The Accountability Board shall have faculty, staff, and student members. Student members are selected by the Office of Student Accountability and Restorative Practices from the student body, exclusive of student government executive officers.

  • The Accountability Board shall have some members that serve as Board Chairs and/or University Case Administrators.

  • The Office of Student Accountability and Restorative Practices may appoint additional members to the Accountability Board as needed.

  • Appointment to the Accountability Board shall be on an annual basis. Reappointment shall be made with consideration to the need for continuity.

  • The Office of Student Accountability and Restorative Practices is responsible for the training of the Accountability Board.

Minor Board

The role of a Minor Board is to act as the original decision making body for cases in which a student is charged with a violation of a university policy classified as “minor” under the university’s procedures. The board shall also act as the original decision making body for “flexible” violations when so designated by the Office of Student Accountability and Restorative Practices.

    • For case reviews by a Minor Board, the board will be composed of three student members of the Accountability Board. Minor Board Case Reviews will be chaired by a nonvoting faculty or staff member of the Accountability Board.

Major Board

The role of a Major Board is to act as the original decision making body for cases in which a student is charged with a violation of a university policy classified as “major” under the university’s procedures, when the student is charged with more than one policy violation, and/or the student has been found responsible for a previous charge. The board shall also act as the original decision making body for “flexible” violations when so designated by the Office of Student Accountability and Restorative Practices.

    • For case reviews by a Major Board, the board will be composed of three student members and three faculty and/or staff members of the Accountability Board. Major Board Case Reviews will be chaired by a nonvoting faculty or staff member of the Accountability Board.

Back to top



Accountability Board Case Review Procedures

The rights of an Accused Student participating in an Accountability Board Case Review are delineated in the “Responsibilities and Rights – Accountability Board Case Review.”

Accused Students participating in an Accountability Board Case Review have a right to a support person or attorney provided that person is willing and able to attend the scheduled Accountability Board Case Review and the Office of Student Accountability and Restorative Practices is notified at least two days prior to the Accountability Board Case Review. An attorney or support person attending an Accountability Board Case Review may not actively represent the Accused Student but may give advice on how to present his or her case; an attorney or support person cannot also serve as a witness at the Accountability Board Case Review. The support person must be a current student, faculty or staff member selected from the university community or a licensed attorney.

If any member of the Accountability Board serving on a Minor Board or Major Board feels that their previous contact with the case or the students involved will prevent a fair decision from being rendered, the member must request that they not serve for that Accountability Board Case Review. Upon receiving notification of the board members that will be reviewing their case, an Accused Student may immediately request that a member serving on the board be excused if the student can show a bias on the part of the member. In order to make such a request, an Accused Student must contact the Director of the Office of Student Accountability and Restorative Practices immediately, setting forth his or her reasons in writing. The Director of the Office of Student Accountability and Restorative Practices or designee will review all requests.  Any decision to remove a board member and/or to postpone an Accountability Board Case Review is at the discretion of the Director of Office of Student Accountability and Restorative Practices or designee.

Accountability Board Case Review times are set based on the academic schedule of the Accused Student and the availability of the Administrative Witnesses. If an Accused Student fails to appear at an Accountability Board Case Review after being properly notified of its date and time, the case will be heard on the basis of the information accumulated in the case file and as a result of the information provided by those present. In such situations, the Accused Student will be notified of the decision via email. If a witness fails to appear at an Accountability Board Case Review, the Accountability Board Case Review will generally proceed without the witness.

The decision to postpone an Accountability Board Case Review for any reason is at the discretion of the Director of Office of Student Accountability and Restorative Practices or designee.

In circumstances where multiple Accused Students in the same case reject the decision of the Case Administrator, the Accused Students will be given the option to have their cases heard together during the same Accountability Board Case Review or to have their cases heard separately at an Accountability Board Case Review. If Accused Students choose to have their cases heard separately, the same members of the Accountability Board and/or Board Chair will be used to make the decisions for all the Accused Students’ cases. Decisions of responsibility and sanctioning, if applicable, will be made individually for each Accused Student by the members of the Accountability Board.

Accountability Board Case Reviews will be audio and/or video recorded.

An Accountability Board Case Review will generally be conducted in accordance with the procedures below.

  1. The board members (or University Case Administrator, as applicable) and participants are introduced.

  2. The statement of the charges is presented by the Board Chair.

  3. Participants state any questions they have concerning rights or procedures.

  4. Information is presented about the incident allegedly involving the Accused Student; each Administrative Witness is called individually.

    • Each Administrative Witness will individually share their perspective and be questioned by the Board Members and the Accused Student.

    • The board members may request witnesses to return for further clarification.

  5. Information is presented about the incident allegedly involving the Accused Student; the Reporting Party and each Reporting Party Witness, if applicable, is called individually.

    • Each Reporting Party Witness will individually share their perspective and be questioned by the Board Members, the Reporting Party, and the Accused Student.

    • Reporting Party Witnesses can provide information relevant to the case, including but not limited to what they know about the alleged incident or their knowledge of the Reporting Party. A Reporting Party Witness may not provide his or her perspective on the character of the Accused Student, nor what he or she feels the appropriate decision or sanction in the case should be.

    • A support person or attorney for the Reporting Party may not also serve as a witness at the Accountability Board Case Review.

    • The Board may request that the Reporting Party or a witness for the Reporting Party return at a later point in the case review for further clarification.

    • The Board Chair shall have the authority to limit the number of witnesses in order to avoid unreasonable delays, where the information would be repetitious or unnecessary, or where the information does not contribute positively to the fair review of the case.

  6. Information is presented by the Accused Student. The board members may question the Accused Student.

  7. The Accused Student will call his or her witnesses individually.

    • Each witness called by the Accused Student will individually share his or her perspective and be questioned by the Accused Student, followed by questions from the members of the board.

    • Witnesses called by the Accused Student can provide information relevant to the case, including but not limited to what they know about the alleged incident or their knowledge of the Accused Student. An Accused Student Witness may not provide his or her perspective on the character of the Reporting Party, nor what he or she feels the appropriate decision or sanction in the case should be.

    • A support person or attorney for the Accused Student may not also serve as a witness at the Accountability Board Case Review.

    • The Board may request that a witness for the Accused Student return at a later point in the case review for further clarification.

    • The Board Chair shall have the authority to limit the number of witnesses in order to avoid unreasonable delays, where the information would be repetitious or unnecessary, or where the information does not contribute positively to the fair review of the case.

  8. The Board may ask final questions of the Accused Student.

  9. The Accused Student may present concluding remarks.

  10. All persons are excused from the board room while the Board determines responsibility and, if applicable, sanctions.

    • The Board and Board Chair will consider only the information introduced in the Accountability Board Case Review and/or case file.

    • The Board and Board Chair will deliberate in closed session until a decision is made as to responsibility. The decision is based on the preponderance of the evidence and is decided by a simple majority vote. In case of a tie vote, the Board will find the student not responsible after deliberation.

    • If a student is found responsible, the Board and Board Chair will then be informed of the Accused Student’s previous violations and sanctions, if applicable. Previous violations and sanctions are to be considered in the assigning of appropriate sanctions for the current case; the Board and Board Chair will deliberate in executive session until a decision is made as to sanctioning. In cases of a tie vote with regards to sanctioning, the Board will impose or recommend the less severe sanctions.

  11. The decisions regarding responsibility and, if applicable, sanctioning is then given to the Accused Student and his or her support person or attorney.

After receiving the decision made at the Accountability Board Case Review, a representative from the Office of Student Accountability and Restorative Practices will provide the student with information on the process for submitting an appeal. The student will also be provided the opportunity to waive his or her right to appeal and accept the decision made at the Accountability Board Case Review.

In circumstances where the Accused Student waives his or her right to appeal the decision made at the Accountability Board Case Review, or if the Accused Student does not submit an appeal of the decision made at the Accountability Board Case Review within the timeline set by the procedures listed in the JMU Student Handbook, the Dean of Students will not review the decision made at the Accountability Board Case Review; the decision made at the Accountability Board Case Review will be considered final in these circumstances. Procedures for appeals in the Accountability Process are outlined within the section titled “Appealing a Decision.”

A student who knowingly provides falsified or misleading information at an Accountability Board Case Review may be charged additionally with a violation of J18-100 Interference with or Retaliation for Exercising or Participating in the Accountability, Honor Council, or Title IX Process.

An Accused Student or a student who is a Reporting Party who discusses the case before the Accountability Board Case Review with any of the Administrative Witnesses, the Board Members, the other party, or the other party’s witnesses may be charged with a violation of J18-100 Interference with or Retaliation for Exercising or Participating in the Accountability, Honor Council, or Title IX Process.

Accountability Board Case Reviews are closed meetings; the University will maintain confidentiality of all information and decisions. The Accused Student shall receive notice of all rights they are guaranteed through the Accountability Process. In Accountability Board Case Reviews, the technical rules of evidence applicable in civil and criminal cases do not apply.

Back to top



Appealing a Decision

If found responsible, students have the right to  submit a written appeal of the decision made by a Minor Board, Major Board, or University Case Administrator within four days of the date the Accountability Board Case Review occurred based on a violation of due process or new evidence. If an appeal is submitted, it must be submitted directly by the Accused Student. Appeals from an Accused Student based on due process must outline how the university failed to follow the stated process for the adjudication of the charge and how that affected the decision. Appeals from an Accused Student based on new evidence must introduce evidence that was not available or accessible to the Accused Student at the time of the Accountability Board Case Review. The Director of the Office of Student Accountability and Restorative Practices or designee will review the appeal submitted and determine if an appeal review will be granted to the Accused Student based on these criteria. An appeal that does not meet these requirements will be denied.

If an appeal is submitted by the Accused Student and the appeal is denied, the decision rendered at the Accountability Board Case Review will be considered final when the sanctions imposed at the Accountability Board Case Review do not include suspension or expulsion.

If an appeal is submitted by the Accused Student and the appeal is denied in cases where the Accountability Board Case Review recommended a sanction of suspension or expulsion, the Dean of Students or designee shall conduct a final review of the recommendations made by the Accountability Board. The reviewer will review all materials relevant to the case and take one of the following actions: 

  • Uphold the decision of the Board

  • Reverse the decision of the Board

  • Reduce the decision of the Board

  • Have the case reheard at a new Accountability Board Case Review

After the review by the Dean of Students or designee, the Office of Student Accountability and Restorative Practices will notify the Accused Student of the outcome of the Dean of Students or designee’s review and, if applicable, the final decision.

If the appeal is submitted by the Accused Student and the appeal is granted, the make-up of the Appeal Board will be determined using the following guidelines:

  • For appeal reviews of decisions made by a Minor Board, the appeal board will be composed of two students and one faculty or staff member of the Accountability Board. The faculty or staff member, in addition to being a voting member, will also serve as the Board Chair. If the appeal is held within the last three weeks of a semester or during the summer sessions, it may be reviewed by a University Case Administrator.

  • For appeal reviews of decisions made by a Major Board, the appeal board will be composed of two students and two faculty and/or staff members of the Accountability Board. One of the faculty or staff members, in addition to being a voting member, will also serve as the Board Chair. If the appeal is held within the last three weeks of a semester or during the summer sessions, it may be reviewed by a University Case Administrator.

  • For appeal reviews of decisions made by a University Case Administrator during the last three weeks of the semester, the appeal will be conducted by another University Case Administrator.

If any member of appeal board feels that their previous contact with the case or the students involved will prevent a fair decision from being rendered, the member must request that he or she not serve for that appeal review. Upon receiving notification of the appeal board members that will be reviewing their case, an Accused Student may immediately request that a member serving on the appeal board be excused if the student can show a bias on the part of the member. In order to make such a request, an Accused Student must contact the Director of the Office of Student Accountability and Restorative Practices immediately, setting forth his or her reasons in writing. The Director of the Office of Student Accountability and Restorative Practices or designee will review all requests.  Any decision to remove a board member and/or to postpone an Accountability Board Appeal Review is at the discretion of the Director of Office of Student Accountability and Restorative Practices or designee.

Appeal boards will review the case file, the written appeal, and the recording of the Accountability Board Case Review.

If an appeal is submitted by the Accused Student and an appeal review is granted by the Director of Office of Student Accountability and Restorative Practices or designee based on due process, the Appeal Board will first vote to uphold, overturn, or alter the decision of responsibility rendered at the Accountability Board Case Review. If the Appeal Board upholds or alters the decision of responsibility, it will then vote to uphold or alter the sanctions assigned at the Accountability Board Case Review as applicable. Decisions of the Appeal Board will be determined by a majority vote. In cases of a tie vote with regards to responsibility, the Board will find the student not responsible after deliberation. In cases of a tie vote with regards to sanctioning, the Board will impose or recommend the less severe sanction.

If an appeal is submitted by the Accused Student and an appeal review is granted by the Director of Office of Student Accountability and Restorative Practices or designee based on new evidence, the Accused Student may choose to present the new evidence or testimony in person to the board. In such circumstances, the appeal review will be arranged around Accused Student’s academic schedule and his or her participation will be recorded; deliberation of the board will not be recorded.

In appeal reviews based on new evidence where the Accused Student chooses to present to the appeal board, the Accused Student has a right to a support person or attorney if the Office of Student Accountability and Restorative Practices is notified at least two days before the appeal review, provided that person is willing and able to attend the scheduled appeal review. The support person must be a current student, faculty or staff member selected from the university community or a licensed attorney. An attorney or support person attending a case review may not actively represent the Accused Student but may give advice to the student on how to present his or her case.

An appeal review based on new evidence will generally proceed in accordance with the procedure below.

  1. The board members (or University Case Administrator, as applicable) and participants are introduced.

  2. If the Accused Student is present, information is presented by the Accused Student solely about the new evidence in the case. The board members may question the Accused Student about the new evidence.

  3. If applicable, the Accused Student’s witnesses will be called individually.  

    • Each witness called will individually share their testimony on the new evidence and be questioned by the Accused Student, if the Accused Student is present, followed by questions from the members of the board.

    • A support person or attorney for the Accused Student may not also serve as a witness at the Appeal Review.

    • At the conclusion of the testimony and questions for each witness, the witness will leave.

  4. If the Accused Student is present, the board members may ask final questions of the Accused Student.

  5. The Accused Student and Attorney/Support Persons will leave; the board will enter closed deliberation.

  6. The Appeal Board will deliberate and make a decision using the procedures below:

    • The Appeal Board will first vote to uphold, overturn, or alter the decision of responsibility rendered at the Accountability Board Case Review.

    • If the Appeal Board upholds or alters the decision of responsibility, it will then vote to uphold or alter the sanctions assigned at the Accountability Board Case Review as applicable.

    • Decisions of the Appeal Board will be determined by a majority vote.

    • In cases of a tie vote with regards to responsibility, the Board will find the student not responsible after deliberation. In cases of a tie vote with regards to sanctioning, the Board will impose or recommend the less severe sanction.

If an Appeal Board upholds the decision of responsibility and chooses to alter the sanctions imposed, the Appeal Board may not impose or recommend sanctions more severe than imposed at the Accountability Board Case Review.

If an Appeal Boards recommendation includes a sanction of suspension or expulsion, the Dean of Students or designee shall conduct a final review of the recommendations made by the Appeal Board. The Dean of Students or designee will review all materials relevant to the case and take one of the following actions:

  • Uphold the decision of the Appeal Board

  • Reverse the decision of the Appeal Board

  • Alter the decision of the Appeal Board

  • Have the case reheard at a new Accountability Board Case Review or Appeal Review

If the Dean of Students or designee upholds the decision of responsibility but chooses to alter the sanctions imposed by the Appeal Board, the Dean of Students or designee may not impose sanctions more severe than those imposed at the Accountability Board Case Review. However, if the Dean of Students or designee orders the case to be re-heard at a new Accountability Board Case Review, it is possible that the Accused Student may receive more severe sanctions at that new Accountability Board Case Review.

After the review by the Dean of Students or designee, the Office of Student Accountability and Restorative Practices will notify the Accused Student of the outcome of the Dean of Students or designee’s review and, if applicable, final decision.

Back to top




Interim Suspension

If the Director of the Office of Student Accountability and Restorative Practices or a designee determines that a student presents a risk to the orderly operation of the university or to the safety and welfare of members of the university community, the Director or designee may initiate the Interim Suspension Process and place the Accused Student under an Interim Suspension Status. For incidents that result in an Interim Suspension Status, an Administrative Case Review will not occur. Instead, Interim Suspensions will proceed as follows:

  1. The Accused Student will be notified of the charge(s) against him or her and that he or she is being placed under an Interim Suspension Status by a professional staff member from the Office of Student Accountability and Restorative Practices through a method that may include, but is not limited to, in person notification, notification via the Accused Student’s JMU email address, or notification via telephone. While under an Interim Suspension Status the Accused Student is barred from the university campus; the Accused Student may not attend classes, enter or live in residence halls, or enter property owned or leased by James Madison University without permission from Director of the Office of Student Accountability and Restorative Practices or designee. If the Accused Student comes to the campus without permission, he or she will be subject to arrest for trespassing and additional charges in the Office of Student Accountability and Restorative Practices.

  2. Within two business days of the Accused Student receiving notice that he or she is being placed under an Interim Suspension Status, the Accused Student may request an Interim Suspension Appeal Review.  An Interim Suspension Appeal Review does not determine whether or not a student is responsible for violating university policy nor any sanctions for the case; An Interim Suspension Appeal Review only determines if the Interim Suspension Status of the Accused Student will be upheld, overturned, or altered until the decision in the case is finalized. If the Interim Suspension Status is upheld at the Interim Suspension Appeal Review, the Interim Suspension Status will remain in place until the conclusion of the Accountability Process or Sexual Misconduct Accountability Process, including all appeals.

    • Interim Suspension Appeal Reviews will be conducted by a University Case Administrator.

    • Accused Students may be accompanied at their Interim Suspension Appeal Review by an attorney or support person, provided the attorney or support person is able to attend. An attorney or support person attending an Interim Suspension Appeal Review may not actively represent the Accused Student but may give advice to the Accused Student on how to present his or her case; an attorney or support person cannot also serve as a witness in the Accountability Process. The support person must be a current student, faculty or staff member selected from the university community or a licensed attorney.

    • Students are not permitted to make recordings of Interim Suspension Appeal Reviews.

  3. An Accountability Board Case Review will be held to determine if the Accused Student is responsible for the alleged violations and, if applicable, sanctions. See Accountability Board Case Review for information on this process; the Accused Student has the right to submit a written appeal of the decision or recommendations made at the Accountability Board Case Review as outlined in the Accountability Process.

    • In circumstances where an Interim Suspension is enacted and the Accused Student does not request an Interim Suspension Appeal Review, the Accountability Board Case Review will take place within ten business days from the date the Accused Student was originally notified of the Interim Suspension Status.

    • In circumstances where an Interim Suspension is enacted and the Accused Student requests an Interim Suspension Appeal Review, the Accountability Board Case Review will take place within ten business days from the date of the Interim Suspension Appeal Review.

  4. If an Interim Suspension is enacted due to allegations of violating JMU Policy J34-100 Sexual Misconduct, a Sexual Misconduct Case Review will be held to determine if the Accused Student is responsible for the alleged violations and, if applicable, sanctions. See the Sexual Misconduct Accountability Process for information on this process; the Accused Student and Reporting Party have the right to appeal the recommendations made at the Sexual Misconduct Case Review as outlined in the Sexual Misconduct Accountability Process.

    • In circumstances where an Interim Suspension is enacted and the Accused Student does not request an Interim Suspension Appeal Review, the Sexual Misconduct Case Review will take place within ten business days from the date the Accused Student was originally notified of the Interim Suspension Status.

    • In circumstances where an Interim Suspension is enacted and the Accused Student requests an Interim Suspension Appeal Review, the Sexual Misconduct Case Review will take place within ten business days from the date of the Interim Suspension Appeal Review. 

Circumstances that surround Interim Suspension often involve concurrent criminal charges, and sometimes involve concurrent civil litigation. The Office of Student Accountability and Restorative Practices may implement an Interim Suspension prior to the conclusion of the criminal or civil process; decisions made as a part of the Interim Suspension, Accountability Process, or Sexual Misconduct Accountability Process will not be revisited at the conclusion of the criminal or civil process.

In cases where a student has extenuating circumstances, including but not limited to incarceration, that prevent attendance at an Interim Suspension Appeal Review, Accountability Board Case Review, Sexual Misconduct Case Review, or Appeal Review the decision to continue with or delay the Accountability Process or Sexual Misconduct Accountability Process is at the discretion of the Director of the Office of Student Accountability and Restorative Practices or designee.

If an Interim Suspension occurs during the last three weeks of the semester or during summer sessions for charges other than Sexual Misconduct, the Accountability Board Case Review will be heard by a University Case Administrator. In these circumstances, if the student chooses to appeal the University Case Administrator’s decision, the appeal will be heard by an Associate Vice President for Student Affairs, Assistant Vice President for Student Affairs, or designee.

If an Interim Suspension occurs due to an allegation of violating JMU Policy J34-100 Sexual Misconduct, the Sexual Misconduct Accountability Process will be followed, regardless of when the Interim Suspension is imposed. However, in these cases the timelines stated in Sexual Misconduct Accountability Process may be altered to accommodate the Interim Suspension Process; Accused Students and Reporting Parties will be informed of all relevant deadlines and timelines in their case. 

Back to Top