Officials released an updated draft of the Code of Student Conduct this week, including several changes in response to student complaints, allowing for a final round of community feedback before the University officially adopts the code in June.
The Division for Student Affairs released an updated draft of the Code of Student Conduct in response to faculty and students’ feedback, removing restrictions on the appeal process included in a previous draft and establishing an automatic review panel of a student, faculty member and administrator for all cases with the most severe sanctions, like suspension and expulsion. The changes come after students objected to previous revisions the office made in the fall, which they said granted administrators too much authority in the conduct process and left students confused about which rights the code protects.
Officials opened a third and final revision period to the code Monday, where students, staff and faculty can provide feedback on the proposed changes through May 6 before the code takes effect June 1.
“This extensive revision of the code was absolutely necessary,” Vice President for Student Affairs and Dean of Students Colette Coleman said in a release announcing the changes. “The additions we are announcing today are a direct result of our community using its voice, and I am grateful for the thoughtful feedback.”
The University first released a revised draft in November after initiating a review of the code in the spring, which prompted criticism from the Student Government Association’s advocacy office and the SGA at large for removing panels — which usually consist of three to five students and a faculty member or administrator in cases of potential suspension or expulsion — and moving to a solely case manager model, where a full-time student affairs official decides a student’s case and sanctions. Under the code released in November, students could only appeal case manager decisions to another student affairs administrator, rather than to a new student, faculty and staff panel as the current code allows.
Under the November code, students would only be able to appeal conduct decisions in cases resulting in suspension, expulsion or revocation of student organization status. SGA members said following the release the changes lacked clarity about prohibited conduct, granted officials too much authority in the student conduct process and hurt students’ rights to “be heard.”
The most recent draft would allow students to appeal any administrator-determined outcome to an administrator, restoring the existing appeals process. Cases decided by student conduct agreements — agreed-upon resolutions between students and the University — are not eligible for appeal in the existing code or either draft.
The new draft also proposes cases where an administrator deems suspension, expulsion or revocation of organizational status as appropriate outcomes to be automatically referred to a three-person panel consisting of a student, administrator and faculty member and will be determined by a majority vote.
Officials in the release announcing the changes said they established the review panel and restored the full appeals process due to feedback from the SGA and the Faculty Senate, saying the new draft preserves “meaningful shared governance” while still addressing shortcomings in the current code.
“The automatic review panel and the restored appeals show that this process was genuinely iterative,” Coleman said in a University release. “The code that will take effect on June 1 will be a stronger document because of the voices that shaped it.”
DSA in spring 2025 hired D. Stafford & Associates, an outside consulting firm founded by a former GW Police Department chief, to review and suggest revisions to the code, though the firm declined to comment on what recommendations it offered the University.
SGA senators questioned Associate Vice Provost and Deputy Dean of Students Rachael Stark, who oversees proposed changes and feedback to the code, about the revisions at a meeting in February after the SAO sent a her a letter listing their concerns with the November draft. The SGA also passed a resolution in March asking officials to “explicitly” protect free speech and re-include the Statement on Student Rights and Responsibilities in the code.
The release states that the existing panel system has problems like limited administrative oversight of the process, a lack of trained professionals and inconsistent panel size. The release cites the fact that GW’s peer schools do not have student panels in their conduct processes, with Georgetown University’s lacking panels and Boston and Tulane universities limiting panels to certain types of cases.
Ben Wieser, the director of the SGA’s Student Advocate’s Office, said the proposed three-member panel is a “reasonable compromise” between the larger student panels and single-adjudicator model, though he would prefer a larger panel. He said students should be able to plead their case in person during an appeal, but the updated draft specifies there is no in-person element to the appeals process.
“I’m grateful that they’ve allowed for the second comment period, but on the whole, I think they’ve done a good job in responding to our feedback,” Wieser said.
Wieser said the revised code should include a clear statement about how it interacts with the Statement on Student Rights and Responsibilities, which is included in the current code but separate from both revised drafts.
SGA senators in March passed a resolution asking officials to add the Statement on Student Rights and Responsibilities back into the Code of Student Conduct, saying it being separate would cause confusion over which rights GW protects. The resolution also asked officials to revise the code to “explicitly” protect free speech, reinstate student panels and clarify what factors determine the degree of sanctions students receive.
Wieser said while the draft adds more detail as to what conduct is prohibited, the alcohol and drug misuse section lacks clarity — a concern he said SAO previously raised but “got lost” during the revision process. He said the reference to amnesty for those who report an incident of sexual misconduct is “vague” and should cite a specific Title IX policy, and the code should clarify whether students are required to carry an original prescription at all times when carrying prescription medications.
“We met with Title IX and CESA in the fall, and we all got together, we agreed, yeah, this should be a lot clearer in the code,” he said.
A representative of Students for Justice in Palestine — which disaffiliated from GW in August 2025 after being suspended through spring 2027 — who asked to remain anonymous for fear of retaliation from the University, said a single student vote on a review panel, compared to the current three to five, “marginalizes” the student voice, and the change shows a “fundamental mistrust” of students.
“The most important step GW can take to demonstrate they actually take student feedback into consideration is to reinstate student panels,” the representative said in a message.
A representative of SJP previously told The Hatchet officials entered a University-approved private event in March 2025, and a student conduct panel ruled officials added rules granting themselves access after the fact, allowing the event’s organizers to avoid charges.
The representative said while they support the University restoring the appeals process, the change is largely symbolic because appeals have been a “dead end” for students in recent years.
“The most recent draft makes marginal changes to the previous draft, which more or less doubles down on expanding administrative overreach,” the representative said.
The representative said the prohibited conduct section of the updated draft is vague because it fails to define what is considered “valid permission” to enter University spaces or “reasonable directions” of University officials.
“Similarly, what is or is not considered ‘disruption or obstruction’? Can a crowd chanting for workers’ rights be defined under that framework?” the representative said.
