Legal and Ethical Issues in Student Affairs

The case of arturo

By Luz Maria Borjon
May 2, 2000

Class Discussion Guide

Synopsis

A new Student Affairs professional loses his job as the Assistant Director for a University
Outreach program. It was determined that he exhibited a lack of professional competence
in supervising his staff, leading to a problem that jeopardized the integrity as well as the
future funding of the program.

Additional Factors to Consider

1. The University Outreach program is currently under evaluation by the U.S.

Department of Education as well as a public interest research group entitled
Mathematica. This particular group has been contracted by the government in order
to satisfy Congressional concerns over the funding of public education which has
recently
been the target of political criticism. Many of the senior student affairs administrators are
keenly attuned to the political tone in Washington D.C. after the threat to dismantle
the Department of Education a few years ago as well as the trend toward decreased
funding for federally funded programs. There is growing political support in this
climate of increased accountability for education across the board, for the idea that
many services could best be handled by private-public ventures rather than the
government dolling out grants to the universities and colleges. Mathematica
recently published a report attacking the effectiveness of one of the most
established of the national federally funded outreach programs that targets first-
generation and low-income college bound students.

2. Art first began an investigation the day after the trip. He explained to Maricruz what he
had been told by Lisa. He revealed that Lisa had told him about the incident
because he felt that everyone should be accountable for what they say. Maricruz
became very upset that people were hurling accusations at her and began to cry.
She blamed Art as well as the other Student Advisor for not defending her when the
boys disrespected her during the campus tour. She resigned her position and
stormed out of the meeting.

3. When Maricruz “wrote-up” Will and Jimmy, they were promptly disciplined and given
detention by the Principal. The boys blamed the whole incident on Maricruz (and thereby
the outreach program itself) for being discriminatory against them and accused her of
having a sexual relationship with Johnny. They repeated the story to their parents who
contacted both the Principal and Art. (It snowballed at this point).
 2

4. When Art met with his immediate supervisor as well as the officer from the U.S.
Department of Education, they determined that he should be put on administrative leave
to reconsider his capability to perform his job. During this time, a committee would
decide how best to resolve the situation. Art eventually resigned.
 3

Issues and Rules

There are four main issues to take into consideration in this case. The rules that apply are
United States laws or professional standards as well as institutional codes. The distinction
is that laws are applicable to the population in general while the standards and codes are
applicable only to the profession and the institution.

1. Professionalism
The Assistant Director must consider the integrity of the program at all times, constantly
relating his actions to the goals of the program. Congruency with word and deed is
ultimately the way in which the goals will be met and affects the way in which others will
view the program. His conduct was especially critical at this time that the program was
under review by the Department of Education for continued funding.

A. Professional Standards: according to the National Association of Student

Personnel Administrators Standards of Professional Practice; the American
College Personnel Association’s Statement of Ethical Principles and Standards;
and TRIO Professional Standards and Guidelines (for educational opportunity
programs that receive federal funding) the Assistant Director is responsible for
performing his duties with high levels of professional competence and judgment.

2. Student and Staff Development

One of the Assistant Director’s duties is to provide training and ongoing staff
development to the college students who work as paraprofessional peer advisors. The
Assistant Director serves as their mentor as well as their supervisor. The objective of the
program is to promote the educational and experiential development for the college
students as well as the high school students. If there are issues such as the perception of
favoritism or crossing working boundaries, the Assistant Director should address these
immediately.
 4

A. Professional Standards: the organizations representing the profession clearly

outline student development as the foremost obligation of Student Affairs
professionals. This situation represents a bad experience for all involved that
contributes negatively towards the developmental progress of all the students
involved. The foremost tenet of ethical behavior outlined by ACPA in particular
is that professionals should act to benefit others as well as “do no harm”.

3. Accountability and Management

There have been increasing demands of Education across the board, from elementary to
post-secondary colleges and universities, to be more accountable to the public and the
students that it serves. At the college and university level, this translates into student
affairs practitioners having to defend their programs and services to faculty as well as
elected officials who approve the state and federal budgets. Outcomes are extremely
important and if the program is perceived to be mismanaging resources (including human
resources) and possibly unethical behavior. In addition, the people that direct these
programs have to be aware that they are under scrutiny.

A. Professional Judgment: as part of his normal duties, the Assistant Director is in

charge of the daily operations and outcomes of the program. However, when the
program is in a funding review, best practices and procedures should be at an
optimum. TRIO program standards specifically state that the programs must “be
structured purposefully and managed effectively to achieve their stated goals.

4. Dual Relationship
If there is a romantic relationship of any kind between the high school student and the
college student intern then this constitutes a dual relationship. It is the job of the college
student intern to represent the University to the high school students. A romantic
relationship violates the boundaries required of that type of helping relationship as well
as policies set by the University and codes of conduct adopted by the professional
organizations. When one student represents the University as a service and information
provider then that student has a duty to help those that he/she serves. Dual relationships
 5

are unethical because they destroy the integrity of the services being provided as well as
the institution. Charges could violate the parameters of the grant and its administration.

A. State Law: If there is a sexual relationship, then statutory rape laws might
apply since the high school student is a minor.
B. Institutional Regulations: The institution cannot prohibit intimate
relationships between staff and between staff and students (who are of
consenting age)
C. Professional Codes: Student Affairs organizations clearly define romantic
relationships between staff and students as unethical behavior that should not
be engaged in.

5. Discrimination
The high school students who were reprimanded on the field trip felt that they were
receiving unequal treatment because of their race as well as the victims of favoritism due
to an unfair romantic relationship. They perceived that another student was getting
preferential treatment because of a special relationship with the program representative.

A. Federal Civil Rights Regulations: Because this program receives federal

funding it is obligated to the civil rights requirements delineated in Title IV of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which declares that no person shall be denied
benefits or be subjected to discrimination based on race or national origin
under federally funded programs.
B. Institutional Regulations: The institution expands the scope of what is
considered discrimination and specifically prohibits bias by staff toward
students based on race, gender, sexual orientation, and national origin.
C. Professional Codes: professional organizations are adamant about the
principle of fair and equal treatment and prohibit discrimination as well. These
codes go beyond Federal and Institutional rules by calling for the creation of
communities of understanding and respect in order to promote optimal
learning communities.
 6

Analysis
The Assistant Director is ultimately in charge of the daily operations of the program. In
his lackadaisical attitude toward supervision, he did not exercise proper judgment. He
missed an opportunity to discuss his observation with the college student advisor, thereby
preventing the situation from going out of control. Although it was not a particularly
egregious error on his part, it could have jeopardized the program because of the timing
of the audit by the U.S. Department of Education. Furthermore, if allegations about
discrimination were true, the program and possibly the administrator and the college
student could be held libel by the parents of the minor1. It was extremely shortsighted and
careless of the Assistant Director not to anticipate how the situation might unfold
especially at a time when he was under scrutiny.

Conclusion
While the Assistant Director’s resignation is unfortunate, his superiors were within their
rights to question his competence. They felt that it was a serious breach of the program’s
integrity and because these actions risked the future of the program, the gravity of the
incident was amplified.

1
Kaplin and Lee. A Legal Guide for Student Affairs Professionals. Personal Liability for Violations of
Federal Constitutional Rights (sec. 2.4.3, pg. 123). Jossey-Bass: San Francisco. 1977.