New timeline for Student Conduct Code revisions
Our take
The recent announcement regarding a delay in the University of Washington’s Student Conduct Code revisions is, frankly, a welcome sign of thoughtful process. Initially spurred by a call for a “close look at how we continue to ensure transparency, fairness, and accountability,” the review, undertaken with the assistance of Husch Blackwell, seemed poised to swiftly reshape student conduct policies. However, President Jones’ decision to pause the rollout and solicit further feedback from faculty, students, and staff demonstrates a commitment to inclusivity that’s often missing in higher education policy changes. It’s good to see the university acknowledging the complexity of these issues, especially when considered alongside ongoing research like [Q&A: The Arctic melt season is a week longer now than it was in the 1980s, shows new UW research on sea ice trends], which highlights the nuanced and rapidly evolving landscape of our world and, by extension, the challenges faced by students navigating it. Furthermore, the scope of the review, as initially presented, seems to have taken on a broader definition of student conduct, necessitating this pause to ensure a comprehensive and equitable outcome.
This delay isn’t a setback; it’s a course correction. The original timeline, while ambitious, risked pushing through changes without adequately considering the diverse perspectives within the UW community. Student conduct codes are not abstract legal documents; they directly impact students’ lives, their academic futures, and their sense of belonging. To move forward without a robust opportunity for input from those most affected would have been a disservice. The separation of academic and non-academic conduct revisions, as outlined, also seems sensible. Addressing the complexities of academic integrity alongside issues like community standards requires distinct approaches and timelines. The fact that academic conduct revisions will be tackled over the 2026-27 academic year suggests a recognition of the depth and complexity involved, which is reassuring. This measured approach contrasts sharply with the often-rushed decision-making processes seen in other areas of higher education, even in areas with less direct impact on students – consider, for instance, the rapid shifts in athletic projections, as detailed in [Where Washington Huskies, WSU Cougars are projected to go bowling].
The broader significance of this development extends beyond UW’s campus. It sets a precedent for how institutions of higher learning should approach policy changes that affect student life. Universities are increasingly grappling with issues like free speech, online behavior, and mental health, all of which intersect with student conduct. A hasty revision of the conduct code could inadvertently stifle student expression or disproportionately impact marginalized groups. Taking the time to gather diverse perspectives, analyze potential consequences, and refine proposals is a responsible and ethical approach. It also reinforces the idea that universities should be places of open dialogue and collaborative problem-solving, rather than top-down mandates. Even seemingly unrelated areas of research, like the exploration of anxious attachment styles discussed in [August research highlights: Nectar robbing, anxious attachment styles, persnickety plasma, more], underscore the importance of understanding individual experiences and incorporating that knowledge into policy development.
Ultimately, the delay in the Student Conduct Code revisions is a positive development. It signals a commitment to fairness, transparency, and inclusivity – values that are essential to a thriving university community. The question now is whether the extended feedback period will truly be inclusive and whether the resulting revisions will genuinely reflect the needs and concerns of all stakeholders. It will be critical to monitor how the University facilitates this feedback process and ensures that diverse voices are heard and considered. The success of this revised timeline hinges on a genuine effort to listen, learn, and adapt, ensuring the Student Conduct Code remains a fair and equitable framework for all students.
In November 2025, President Robert J. Jones announced an external review of the UW Student Conduct Code, writing that it was time to “take a close look at how we continue to ensure transparency, fairness, and accountability when it comes to student conduct in the modern university environment.”
The University engaged an outside entity, the firm Husch Blackwell, to support the review because of its extensive experience working with colleges and universities around the country, including reviewing student conduct codes.
Over the last nine months, University leaders, staff and Husch Blackwell have engaged and consulted with faculty, staff and students. Their feedback, along with national peer best practices and the UW’s legal requirements under state and federal laws, was used to develop the proposed changes to the Code that were to be considered by the Board of Regents at their September meeting.
This week, President Jones wrote to UW Faculty Senate leadership that he will delay sending the Regents those proposed changes so that faculty, students and staff may provide additional feedback on the proposals related to non-academic student conduct. Revisions to provisions on academic student conduct, which are not part of the proposed changes, will be handled in a separate process over the course of the 2026-27 academic year.
“I believe this additional period of review and consultation will help us move forward with a Code that reflects both our legal obligations and our shared commitment to fairness, transparency, accountability, and the educational mission of the University,” President Jones wrote.
President Jones asked the Faculty Senate to provide its feedback no later than Dec. 10, 2026, the date of the final Senate meeting of the autumn quarter. Additional staff and student perspectives will also be incorporated during this time, including seeking further input from student governments on the UW’s three campuses.
This feedback, along with feedback already provided during the public comment period, will be used to shape revisions to the Student Conduct Code and related changes to the General Conduct Code that will eventually be presented to the Regents.
Based on the stakeholder engagement process and the feedback received during that process, the proposed revisions make many improvements to the Code, including:
- Bringing the code into compliance with current Title IX regulations governing sexual assault and misconduct, and aligning its terminology with the University’s Executive Order 81, which prohibits discrimination, harassment and sexual misconduct
- Adding amnesty language for students who admit to unlawful possession or use of alcohol or drugs when seeking medical assistance for another student
- Adding doxxing as prohibited conduct
- Updating the appeals process to enable the opportunity for inclusion of specialized expertise in non-academic misconduct cases, particularly on sexual assault and misconduct matters, since there have been cases where the need for more expertise on the difficult subject of sexual assault and consent created delays that did not serve students well
- Establishing that if an individual has been found responsible for prohibited conduct, concealing one’s identity for the purpose of evading or escaping discovery, recognition, or identification while engaged in that prohibited conduct may be considered in determining sanctions; students are already required to show identification to a University official when requested, so the proposal adds transparency to existing sanctioning criteria
- Clarifying that alleged conduct violations by Registered Student Organizations are adjudicated through the existing brief adjudication process and not a full hearing process
- Updating several definitions for clarity and/or to align current practices and legal standards, including definitions for academic misconduct; creating a nuisance in neighboring communities; hazing; abuse of others and threats; disruption, hindering, impeding, or obstruction; failure to comply; and unauthorized access, presence, or use of property
On this final item, it is important to recognize that the definitions around violations such as disruption, failure to comply and unauthorized access apply only to actions that qualify as misconduct. The Student Conduct Code does not prohibit speech or other expressive activities that are protected by the First Amendment, and these definitions will be applied consistently regardless of what views – if any – were being expressed when the misconduct took place.
In addition to these changes that deal with non-academic misconduct, during the coming academic year the University’s faculty is expected to undertake a review of the academic elements of the Student Conduct Code with the University’s administration, which is a particularly timely topic in light of advances in artificial intelligence and other technologies.
Read on the original site
Open the publisher's page for the full experience