ATIXA Position Statement in Favor of Notation of Expulsion and Suspension on College and University Transcripts

BERYWN, Pa., Sept. 23, 2015 /PRNewswire/ -- ATIXA's Board of Advisors has adopted this position statement in favor of transcript notation for any student expelled for any act of intimate partner violence, stalking and/or sexual violence. By definition, any student expelled for being too dangerous to continue to attend a college is someone whose misconduct should be known to future institutions into which that student might seek to transfer. ATIXA calls on all colleges and universities to adopt a policy on consistent and mandated transcript notation for all such expulsions.

Logo - http://photos.prnewswire.com/prnh/20150922/269334LOGO

ATIXA also supports the notation of suspension for any act of intimate partner violence, stalking and/or sexual violence as a discretionary decision within the authority of an institution's Title IX Coordinator or other appropriate officials, to be decided on a case-by-case basis, during the term of the suspension and/or thereafter. 

ATIXA calls on all institutions of higher education to implement a policy providing for the discretion to notate a transcript to indicate that a student withdrew while allegations of intimate partner violence, stalking and/or sexual violence were pending.

Further, ATIXA calls on all collegiate athletic conferences and governance organizations to implement policies that restrict a transferring student's eligibility to play when that student has been suspended, expelled or has withdrawn pending resolution from any previous institution for any act of intimate partner violence, stalking and/or sexual violence. 

ATIXA calls on Title IX Coordinators to train college and university admissions officers to detect gaps in transcripts that are telltales of allegations of misconduct, and to refer all such applications to the Title IX Coordinator for secondary admissions screening.

ATIXA calls on all colleges and universities to implement application screening questions intended to help admissions officers to screen applicants for past misconduct that may represent a future threat of harm or violence to the college community. Admission application screening should be implemented using non-discriminatory methods that minimize adverse impact on any particular ethnic, racial or other minority or historically disadvantaged population. 

ATIXA supports a simple designation of "Disciplinary Expulsion," "Disciplinary Suspension" or "Withdrawal Pending Conduct Resolution." These designations are sufficient to serve as a flag to future institutions to inquire further without specifying the specific nature of the offense on the transcript.

ATIXA does not suggest that students be excluded from admission solely on the basis of notation, but that colleges and universities should be empowered by the tool of transcript notation to make more informed vetting decisions on the eligibility of any candidate for admission. Because transcripts most often pass directly between schools, the transcript offers the sole opportunity for information to be shared without a student's interference. 

The lack of universal or consistent standards for defining and imposing sanctions for misconduct across colleges, although a concern, does not serve as an impediment to ATIXA's endorsement of transcript notation. Transcript notation does not need a universal standard to be effective as a tool for an institution to be informed and engaged in the collection of additional information. Moreover, ATIXA believes that noting ineligibility to re-enroll reflects a student's progress and standing at a school, and appropriately belongs on an academic transcript. If a student cannot attend classes that is, at its core, an academic issue.

Some opponents of notation argue that a transcript notation serves as a permanent scarlet letter for a student and could forever disadvantage them in both the academic and employment sectors. The argument often notes that colleges and universities should educate, not punish. They argue that the preponderance of evidence is too minimal a standard to prove that misconduct occurred. Others argue that notation is potentially defamatory, yet the truth that results from a thorough, reliable and impartial campus investigation is a defense, as is the non-specific nature of the notation. There is also concern about institutional liability for tortious interference with a student's future prospects. No doubt, colleges and universities face a liability balancing act; either they have failed to notify other institutions and employers about a potential risk or they disadvantage someone who has been found to have committed grave misconduct. ATIXA suggests that colleges and universities should err on the side of ensuring safety.

Media Contact:
Michelle Issadore, M.Ed.
Assistant Executive Director of Prevention and Advocacy
610-644-7858
Email

SOURCE Association of Title IX Administrators