Academic integrity is expected of all faculty, staff and students in order to promote a productive and safe environment for learning.  Key components of academic integrity are communication and mutual respect among the members of the Samuel Merritt University community.  Faculty, staff, and students are expected to abide by the codes of conduct and ethics of this University, as well as, the code of ethics of their respective professions, which includes reporting misconduct to the appropriate authorities.  Lack of academic integrity includes, but is not limited to, plagiarizing, cheating, deception, breach of confidentiality, failure to report a clinical error, falsifying research results, and failure to confront and/or report misconduct of others.

Faculty members reserve the right to evaluate individual cases of academic dishonesty by a student and to take appropriate action, which may include failure on a paper or exam or failure in the course.  Faculty may also recommend censure, probation, suspension or dismissal to the Academic Vice President.  A written report of any action will be placed in the student’s file in the Office of the Registrar.  If the student’s status in the program is affected, a permanent notation will be made on his/her transcript.

Regardless of any action taken by the course faculty member, lack of academic integrity constitutes grounds for suspension or dismissal from Samuel Merritt University through the Office of the Academic Vice President.

Faculty and staff standards of conduct and consequences are delineated in the Faculty Handbook and in PolicyStat.

To alert the University of a potential policy violation, please utilize the Conduct Reporting Form. 

Students enrolled at Samuel Merritt University assume an obligation to conduct themselves in a manner compatible with the philosophy of the institution, the codes of ethics, and California laws and regulations pertaining to their respective professions.  Behaviors for which students are subject to discipline include but are not limited to the following categories: 

  1. Violation of University policies;
  2. Dishonesty, including but not limited to, cheating, plagiarism, forgery, alterations, or misuse of University documents or records;
  3. Obstruction or disruption of teaching, research, administration, disciplinary procedures, or other authorized University activities, including clinical experiences;
  4. Physical, verbal, or written abuse or intimidation of any person, implicit or explicit, or endangering the health or safety of any person;
  5. Theft of or damage to physical or intellectual property belonging to the University or to a member of the University community or a campus visitor;
  6. Unauthorized entry, access, or use of University facilities;
  7. Failure to comply with directions of University officials acting in the performance of their duties, including the reasonable request for students to identify themselves;
  8. Possession or use of weapons, firearms or explosive devices of any description (see “Weapons” policy, Campus Policies);
  9. Violations of policy on alcoholic beverages and illegal substances;
  10. Failure to conform with stated institutional policies and procedures;
  11. Misrepresentation of the University and/or its policies and philosophy;
  12. Behavior that seriously jeopardizes the safety of others;
  13. Violation of California laws and regulations;
  14. Violation of codes of ethics and standards of practice for the respective professions.

There are related policies and procedures which expand the Code of Conduct. Some of these include the codes of conduct and standards of practice for the respective professions, the Academic Integrity Policy and the Student Code of Ethics, faculty and staff personnel policies (published in the Faculty Handbook and PolicyStat), and individual departmental policies and handbooks.

To alert the University of a potential policy violation, please utilize the Conduct Reporting Form.

We, the faculty, staff, and students of Samuel Merritt University, share the conviction that the interactions among ourselves and between us and our community are founded in mutual trust, respect, and consideration. We are dedicated to a code of ethics which sets forth moral principles for positive human interaction.

  • We agree to be trustworthy.
  • We agree to be just in our evaluations and decisions.
  • We agree to respect human dignity and cultural & personal differences among people, and to be sensitive to these in our respective roles.
  • We support individuals’ rights to autonomy and to pursue their own life decisions as long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others.
  • We agree to be accountable for our decisions and actions, and for our roles and interactions among others.
  • We are committed to life-long learning, continual self-assessment, and the conscientious and diligent pursuit of excellence in our respective fields.
  • We believe in working together as a team toward the common good and for academic purposes.
  • We observe the confidentiality of information and records in our charge.
  • We agree to abide by the written standards and codes of ethics and conduct of our respective professions.

There are related policies and procedures which expand the Code of Ethics. Some of these include the codes of ethics and standards of practice for the respective professions, the Academic Integrity Policy and the Student Code of Conduct, faculty and staff personnel policies (published in the Faculty Handbook and PolicyStat), and individual departmental policies and handbooks.

To alert the University of a potential policy violation, please utilize the Conduct Reporting Form.

Critical Behaviors, which if proven can immediately result in failure of the course, as well as disciplinary action by the University:

  • Purposeful falsification of a client’s record.
  • Denying responsibility for one’s own deviation from standard practice.
  • Act or threat of intimidation, harassment or physical aggression.
  • Actions which place the client or others in physical or emotional jeopardy.
  • Abusive behavior toward clients or others.
  • Failure to disclose actions, which place the client or others in physical or emotional jeopardy.
  • Ignoring the need for essential information before intervening.

Disclosures/Truth in Information - Refer to the policy in the Academic Policies section.

To alert the University of a potential policy violation, please utilize the Conduct Reporting Form.

Bullying is the repeated actions or threats of action directed toward a person by one or more people who have (or are perceived to have) more power or status than their target in order to cause fear, distress or harm. Bullying can be physical, verbal, psychological or any combination of these three. Bullying behaviors can include name-calling, obscene gesturing, malicious teasing, rumors, slander, social exclusion, damaging a person’s belongings, threats and physical violence.

Any online postings or other electronic communication by students, including cyber-bullying, cyber-stalking, cyber-harassment, etc. occurring completely outside of University’s control (e.g. not on University networks, websites or between University email accounts) will only be subject to this policy when those online behaviors can be shown to cause a substantial University disruption.

To alert the University of a potential policy violation, please utilize the Conduct Reporting Form.

Purpose

Samuel Merritt University strictly prohibits hazing in all forms. Hazing undermines individual safety, dignity, and access to education and is inconsistent with the University’s academic mission and values. The University adopts this policy to comply with all applicable federal and state laws, including the Stop Campus Hazing Act, and other University policies. This hazing policy establishes definitions, prohibited conduct, reporting options, response procedures, transparency requirements, and prevention education.

Policy

It is a policy violation to plan, direct, facilitate, encourage, permit, or participate in any hazing conduct, including but not limited to:

  1. Physical brutality or endangerment: Striking, paddling, branding, electronic shocks, forced calisthenics, exposure to extreme weather; applying harmful substances; confinement; denying reasonably necessary medical care.
  2. Coerced consumption: Requiring or pressuring consumption of alcohol, controlled substances, excessive food/liquid, or non‑food substances; drinking games tied to initiation or status.
  3. Psychological harm or humiliation: Acts reasonably expected to cause humiliation, degradation, severe embarrassment, social isolation, or mental distress; compelled silence; coerced servitude or errands (“line‑ups,” “hell week”).
  4. Sexual misconduct: Coerced nudity or sexual acts; sexualized tasks or performances.
  5. Threats or intimidation: Activities placing others in reasonable fear of bodily harm; degrading or abusive verbal conduct.
  6. Compelled unlawful acts: Vandalism, theft, trespass, providing alcohol to minors, or any act requiring a criminal violation.
  7. Implicit/explicit quid pro quo: Conditioning membership, roles, leadership positions, benefits, gear, travel, or playing time on participation in prohibited activities.
  8. Failure to act: Knowingly failing to report hazing; knowingly allowing an environment where hazing occurs; or directing others to remain silent.
  9. Retaliation against any party or witness; interference with an investigation (coaching statements, destroying evidence, group chats to coordinate stories).

Organizational traditions, “inside jokes,” or “group bonding” do not excuse conduct that meets the definition of hazing.

Relationship to Other Policies and Laws

This policy supplements, and does not limit, other University policies (e.g., Student Conduct Code; Alcohol and Drug Policy; Title IX/Sexual Misconduct; Anti‑Hazing State Law; Anti‑Bullying/Harassment; Athletics Compliance). Conduct may violate multiple policies and laws simultaneously.

Nothing in this policy limits First Amendment protections or due process rights as provided by law.

Scope

This policy applies to conduct by students and student organizations on or off campus, including in digital and online spaces, travel (e.g., retreats, competitions), clinical placements, and locations affiliated with the University or its organizations. It applies to recognized and unrecognized organizations, and to prospective and former students when conduct relates to a University organization.

Definitions
  1. Hazing

Hazing means any intentional, knowing, or reckless act committed by a person (individually or with others) against another person regardless of their willingness to participate that:

  1. is committed in the course of an initiation into, affiliation with, or maintenance of membership in a student organization; and
  2. causes or creates a risk, above the reasonable risk encountered in ordinary participation in the University or the organization (e.g., the physical preparation necessary for athletics), of physical or psychological injury, including but not limited to:
  • whipping, beating, striking, electronic shocking, placing harmful substances on the body, or similar activity;
  • causing, coercing, or inducing sleep deprivation, exposure to the elements, confinement, extreme calisthenics, or similar activity;
  • causing, coercing, or inducing another person to consume food, liquid, alcohol, drugs, or other substances;
  • causing, coercing, or inducing sexual acts;
  • any activity that places another in reasonable fear of bodily harm through threatening words or conduct;
  • any activity that includes or requires a criminal violation of local, state, or federal law.

Consent is not a defense. A person’s willingness to participate in a hazing activity does not excuse hazing.

  1. Student Organization

Any organization at the University (e.g., club, society, association, varsity or junior‑varsity athletic team, club sports team, fraternity/sorority, band, student government) with two or more members who are students, whether or not officially recognized by the University.

  1. Related Terms

1. Organizational Hazing: Hazing that is planned, promoted, facilitated, or condoned by an organization or its members.

  1. Aggravated Hazing: Hazing resulting in serious bodily injury or death, or involving coercive alcohol/drug consumption.
  2. Retaliation: Any adverse action (threats, intimidation, harassment, doxxing, social ostracism, adverse academic or employment action) against a person for reporting hazing or participating in a process.
  3. Complainant/Reporter: Any person who reports hazing, whether or not they are the person subjected to it.

2. Exclusions

This policy does not prohibit reasonable and customary social, athletic, military, law‑enforcement, or similar training, contests, competitions, or events that do not create risks or harms described above and are not connected to initiation, affiliation, or other types of membership conditioning.

Procedure

A. Intake, Support, and Interim Measures

  • Upon receipt of a report, the University will promptly:
  1. Acknowledge the report and offer resources, including medical care, counseling, academic support, and safety planning.
  2. Assess immediate safety risks and implement interim measures (e.g., interim suspension of activities, no contact directives, practice/game restrictions, event holds, facility access limits).
  3. Determine appropriate process (student conduct, Title IX/sexual misconduct, HR for employee only matters) and coordinate among offices as needed.

B. Investigation

The Dean of Students Office will review all hazing reports and determine the appropriate investigator, depending on the individuals involved. When reports involve potential violations of multiple policies (e.g., Title IX, discrimination, civil rights), the institution will coordinate between the relevant offices to ensure appropriate and legally compliant handling of the case. Hazing investigations may be paused for, or proceed concurrently with, other investigations. Hazing investigations will, to the extent possible, be concluded within 90 days of the receipt of a report or complaint. Depending on the alleged parties involved, the matter may be referred to an appropriate forum, such as [the Student Conduct Panel] for formal review and adjudication. The reviewing body will follow the institution’s established conduct procedures, including due process protections for all parties involved. The standard of review for non-Title IX investigations is preponderance of the evidence. Non-Title IX investigative steps may include:

  • Contacting individuals accused of hazing and notifying relevant organizational leaders;
  • Interviewing victims, witnesses, and any accused individual(s);
  • Imposing interim measures if necessary;
  • Requiring individuals or groups to participate in investigatory meetings;
  • Limiting communication or use of electronic devices during the investigation; and
  • With voluntary consent, requesting physical examinations if allegations include physical abuse (medical findings will be summarized for the investigator, in compliance with privacy laws).

Upon conclusion of an investigation, a written report will be submitted to the Dean of Students. If warranted, charges will be issued in accordance with the Student Code of Conduct. A finding of responsibility will also be determined through the investigation process. Determinations of responsibility (e.g., individual vs. organizational) will consider:

  • Number of members involved or aware of the violation;
  • Knowledge and actions of officers/leaders/advisors;
  • Whether members acted in concert or under organizational influence;
  • Connection to an organizationally sponsored or endorsed event; and
  • Presence of a pattern of past violations without organizational intervention.

C. Findings and Sanctions

Both individual and organizational responsibility, or both, may be found. Factors may include: number of members involved or aware; knowledge and actions of officers, captains, advisors, or coaches; whether members acted in concert or under organizational influence; connection to organizationally sponsored/endorsed events; patterns of past violations. Potential sanctions and remedies include, but are not limited to, the following:

  • Individuals: education, reflection assignments, probation, loss of privileges/eligibility, suspension, expulsion.
  • Organizations (including athletic teams): training and reform plans; probation; restrictions on recruitment, events, travel, practices, competitions; loss of housing or facility access; suspension; revocation of recognition or season cancellation.
  • Employees/Volunteers: corrective action up to termination or removal of roles, pursuant to employment policies and contracts.

Additional remedies may include restitution, community service, additional educational training, mandated prevention programming, and more, at the discretion of the institution.

D. Appeals

Parties may appeal findings/sanctions based on material procedural error, new evidence, or disproportionate sanction, pursuant to the Student Conduct Code or applicable procedures.

E. Retaliation and False Reports

Retaliation is strictly prohibited and will result in separate discipline. Intentionally false or bad‑faith reports may also violate University policy.

Reporting Incidents

In cases of emergencies, 9-1-1 should always be called first. In non-emergency cases, any person (students, employees, parents, alumni, community members) may report hazing to any of the following sources:

  1. Online: https://samuelmerritt-advocate.symplicity.com/public_report/ (reports utilizing this system will directly be routed to the Dean of Students Office). 
  2. Anonymous Reporting: https://www.samuelmerritt.edu/smuconfidential (the University accepts anonymous reports; however, anonymity may limit our ability to respond). 

Reports may be shared with law enforcement when required by law or when safety risks are present.

Good-Faith Amnesty

To remove barriers to help‑seeking, the University may offer amnesty from disciplinary action for certain lesser violations (e.g., personal alcohol use) to students who in good faith seek medical assistance, report hazing, or cooperate in investigations. Amnesty does not bar educational or remedial measures and does not preclude criminal/civil liability.

Confidentiality and Privacy

The University will protect privacy consistent with legal obligations. Personally identifiable student information will not be included in the University’s public Campus Hazing Transparency Report. FERPA applies.

Recordkeeping

Annual Security Report (“ASR”)

The University will collect and disclose statistics on hazing incidents reported to campus security authorities or local police in the Annual Security Report (“ASR”) published each year, consistent with federal law.

Campus Hazing Transparency Report (“CHTR”)

The University will maintain a Campus Hazing Transparency Report (“CHTR”) on a prominent location of its public website. The CHTR will:

Summarize findings of responsibility for hazing violations by recognized student organizations (name of organization; general description of the violation including whether alcohol/drugs were involved; University findings and sanctions; and the dates of (a) the alleged incident, (b) investigation initiation, (c) conclusion with a finding, and (d) notice to the organization).

  • Be updated at least twice per year (e.g., January and July) when new findings of responsibility exist.
  • Retain each update for 5 calendar years from the date of publication.
  • Exclude personally identifiable information about individual students.
  • Link to the ASR hazing statistics and to this policy; include information about applicable local and state laws.
  • Note that if there are no findings during an update period, the University may note this and is not required to publish an update for that period.

Records and Data

The University will maintain investigation and disciplinary records as required by law and policy. CHTR entries will be preserved consistent with guidelines outlined above. Case files will be retained in accordance with the University’s records retention schedule and FERPA obligations.

Education and Prevention

The University will maintain research‑informed, campus‑wide prevention and awareness programs designed to reach students, staff, and faculty. Programming includes:

  • Primary prevention strategies (e.g., bystander intervention, ethical leadership, team culture building without hazing).
  • Annual distribution of this policy to all students and employees; targeted training for organization leaders, advisors, coaches, and new members.
  • Orientation modules for incoming students; annual refreshers for returning students; specialized training for high-risk contexts.
Policy Review

This policy will be reviewed annually by the Dean of Students Office, in consultation with the Office of People and Culture, and legal counsel, to ensure alignment with evolving federal/state requirements and best practices.

Preamble

All University policies that do not have their own enforcement mechanism are enforced through the Student Code. SMU expects that all members will inform themselves of the community standards.

These are SMU’s procedures and are distinguished from public law enforcement, which is the province of local, state, and federal authorities.

Each College, Department, or Program within the university may establish its own student conduct procedures to address violations of the Student Code of Conduct, tailored to the specific needs and context of their academic community, accreditation and/or licensure requirements. These localized procedures must align with the overarching principles and standards set forth by the university. In cases where a unit does not have its own established conduct process, this general university-wide Student Conduct Process and Procedure will serve as the default mechanism for addressing such matters. Additionally, even when internal procedures exist, units may choose to adopt or refer cases to the university’s general process to ensure consistency, impartiality, or timely resolution. This flexibility allows for both autonomy and alignment, ensuring that all students are treated fairly and that conduct issues are resolved efficiently and appropriately.

Purpose

The purpose of the Student Conduct Process and Procedure is to uphold the university’s core values of integrity, fairness, and accountability. This process ensures that all students are held to consistent standards of behavior that reflect the expectations of the academic community. It provides a structured and transparent framework for addressing alleged violations of the Student Code of Conduct. By promoting responsible decision-making and respectful interactions, the conduct process contributes to a safe and inclusive campus environment. Ultimately, this procedure supports the educational mission of the university by fostering a culture of ethical conduct and mutual respect among students. The university community is founded on mutual trust, respect, and consideration. We are committed to fostering an environment where individuals act with integrity, respect human dignity and cultural differences, and support each other's autonomy and rights. Members of the community are expected to be accountable for their actions, maintain confidentiality, adhere to professional ethical standards, and strive for excellence through lifelong learning and collaboration.

Scope

This procedure applies to all students enrolled at the university, including undergraduate, graduate, prelicensure and professional students, whether full-time or part-time.

Statement of non-retaliation

Retaliation is Prohibited. Retaliation is an adverse action that is taken because someone files a complaint or participates in an investigation or complaint proceeding. Retaliatory actions which are prohibited include intimidation, threats, coercion, or discrimination against any such individual. Complaints of retaliation will be investigated by the University under the same complaint processes and standards which applied to the original underlying complaint.

Definitions

  • Account Hold: a non-disciplinary restriction applied to a student record to ensure compliance with University processes, requirements, or deadlines.
  • Advisor: any member of the SMU community who assists a student in responding to alleged policy violations or in participating in any judicial process. An advisor may be any student, faculty, or staff member who is not a witness in the case, or a panelist in the case. Students have the right to an advisor and shall be offered an advisor by default when a matter is referred to the Dean of Students Office.
  • Complainant: refers to the individual(s) initiating a complaint of a violation of the Student Code. In some cases, the University may be the complainant.
  • Conduct Review - The process through which a Review Authority evaluates information related to an alleged policy violation and renders a decision.
  • Dean of Students Office: comprises of the Dean of Students, Assistant Deans of Students, and Student Service Coordinators.
  • Evidence: refers to information provided during a hearing by the University, complainant, or respondent that is relevant to the case and may have an impact on the decision or sanction. Evidence may be physical, verbal, or electronic (i.e., texts, web pages).
  • Interim Protective Measure: a neutral, non‑disciplinary action used during the conduct process.
  • No-contact order: an administrative directive requiring that designated individuals have no direct or indirect contact with one another, including in person, electronically, or through third parties.
  • Respondent: refers to the person(s) or group cited in the complaint who allegedly violated the Student Code.
  • Review Authority: The individual or panel responsible for reviewing the case and determining responsibility and sanctions.
  • Sanction: A disciplinary action imposed as a result of a conduct violation.
  • SMU: an acronym standing for “Samuel Merritt University” and may be used interchangeably.
  • University: means Samuel Merritt University.

Procedure

Reporting a Violation

Any member of the university community may report a suspected violation. Reports must be submitted in writing via the official conduct reporting form:

https://samuelmerritt-advocate.symplicity.com/public_report/

Suspected violations of the Student Code reported via other methods, such as SMU Confidential, will be forwarded to the Dean of Students Office.

Preliminary Review

The Dean of Students Office reviews the report to determine if it falls within the scope of the Code of Conduct. If the report is valid, the Dean of Students Office initiates a preliminary investigation. The respondent is notified in writing and provided with:

  1. A summary of the allegations
  2. A copy of the Student Code of Conduct and Code of Ethics
  3. Information about their rights and responsibilities, including the option to have an advisor during the process.
Investigation

The Dean of Students Office may interview witnesses, gather evidence, and consult relevant university departments. The respondent is given an opportunity to respond to the allegations and present their own evidence.

Resolution Options
  1. Informal Resolution - At any point during the investigation and before a final judgment has been made and at their discretion, the Dean of Students Office may offer alternative resolutions such as (but not limited to): mediation, restorative justice, or a behavioral agreement.
  2. Conduct Review -  A designated Review Authority will evaluate the available information, consider any statements or documentation submitted by the involved parties, and determine an appropriate outcome based on the preponderance of the evidence. 
Determination and Sanctions

The Review Authority determines responsibility based on a preponderance of the evidence. If a student is found responsible, sanctions are assigned based on the severity of the violation, the student’s conduct history, and any mitigating or aggravating factors.

Examples of Sanctions

The sanctions listed in this document are intended to serve as examples and are not exhaustive. The university reserves the right to impose other appropriate sanctions, as deemed necessary, based on the nature and circumstances of each individual case.

  1. Educational Sanctions
  • Written Warning: A formal notice that the behavior was inappropriate.
  • Reflection Paper: A written assignment requiring the student to reflect on their behavior and its impact.
  • Workshops or Seminars: Attendance at educational programs (e.g., alcohol awareness, academic integrity).
  • Community Service: Completion of a set number of service hours with an approved organization.
  1. Disciplinary Sanctions
  • Conduct Probation: A period during which further violations may result in more severe sanctions, typically outlined in formal letter or behavioral contract.
  • Loss of Privileges: Temporary or permanent loss of campus privileges (e.g., access to facilities, participation in student organizations, and attending social events).
  • Restitution: Reimbursement for damage or loss caused by the student’s actions.
  • No Contact Order: Prohibition from contacting specific individuals.
  1. Severe Sanctions
  • Suspension: Temporary removal from the university for a defined period, after which the student may be reinstated.
  • Expulsion: Permanent removal from the university with no option for return.
  • Transcript Notation: A note on the student’s transcript indicating a conduct-related separation.
Appeal Process

The appeal process provides students with an opportunity to challenge the outcome of a conduct decision if they believe there was a significant error or unfairness in the original process.

In lieu of an appeal, a student may also utilize the University’s Grievance process, as outlined in the Student Catalog/Handbook. 

Grounds for Appeal

A student may submit an appeal based on one or more of the following grounds:

  1. Procedural Error: A significant procedural mistake occurred that affected the outcome of the case.
  2. New Evidence: New, relevant information has become available that was not reasonably available at the time of the original hearing.
  3. Disproportionate Sanction: The sanction imposed is excessively harsh or inconsistent with university precedent for similar violations.
Appeal Submission

Appeals must be submitted in writing to the Dean of Students within 5 business days of receiving the outcome letter. The written appeal should include:

  1. The specific ground(s) for appeal
  2. A detailed explanation supporting the appeal
  3. Any new evidence (if applicable)
Appeal Review Process
  1. Initial Review: The Dean of Students reviews the appeal to determine if it meets the criteria for consideration.
  2. Further Investigation (if needed): The Dean of Students may request additional information or clarification from involved parties.
Appeal Decision Options
  1. Uphold the original decision and sanction
  2. Modify the sanction
  3. Overturn the decision and dismiss the case
  4. Remand the case for a new hearing due to procedural error or new evidence
Finality of Appeal

The decision of the Dean of Students is final. No further appeals will be accepted unless otherwise stated in university policy.

Administrative Actions

During the conduct process, the University may take reasonable and appropriate administrative actions as necessary to ensure the safety and well‑being of all parties, protect the integrity of the process, and support compliance with applicable policies and procedures. Examples of Administrative Actions are:

  • Account Hold
  • Administrative Separation
  • Interim Measure
  • No-contact order

These actions are not disciplinary in nature and do not constitute a determination of responsibility. Administrative actions may be implemented at any point in the process and will be reviewed as appropriate based on the circumstances of the matter.

Records and Confidentiality

Conduct records are maintained by the Dean of Students Office and kept confidential in accordance with FERPA. Records are retained for a minimum of 7 years or longer if required by law.

Policy Review

This procedure is reviewed annually by the Dean of Students Office in consultation with Academic Affairs representatives, The Office of People and Culture, and legal counsel.

To support a safe, inclusive, and informed campus environment, all students are required to complete designated mandatory trainings by the assigned due dates each academic term. These trainings cover essential topics such as community standards, safety, and well-being.  The trainings will be conducted through an online training platform chosen by the university.

Failure to complete the required trainings by the specified deadline will result in a registration hold. This hold will prevent a student from enrolling in future classes, making schedule changes, or accessing certain campus services until the training is completed.

Students are encouraged to check their university email regularly for training notifications and reminders. Notifications and reminders may come from non-SMU accounts consistent with the chosen online training platform. 

Introduction

Samuel Merritt University is committed to an environment in which students are treated fairly and in accordance with University policies and procedures. A student who believes they have experienced treatment that was improper, unfair, or inconsistent with University policy may submit a grievance for review.

For the purpose of this policy, a grievance is a complaint regarding an action, condition, practice, or process that the student believes was improper, unfair, or inconsistent with University policy. A grievance is distinct from an appeal. An appeal is a request for reconsideration of a specific decision or outcome, such as an academic, disciplinary, or administrative determination.

Some concerns contain elements of both a grievance and an appeal. When a student submits a written request for review under Step 3, the Office of the Provost determines whether the matter is properly a grievance or an appeal. When the primary issue is the review of a specific decision or outcome, the Office of the Provost may redirect the matter to the applicable appeal process. The student receives written notice of any redirection and information about the appropriate process.

The University encourages students to raise concerns promptly so that they may be addressed fairly and without delay.

Definitions
  • Grievant: The enrolled student who is directly affected by the matter and who submits the grievance.
  • Working days: Monday through Friday. Working days do not include University holidays or other days on which the University is closed. All time periods stated in this policy pause during University closures.
  • Reviewing Officer: For academic grievances, the Provost. For disciplinary grievances, the Dean of Students.
Policy

Samuel Merritt University (SMU) addresses student concerns fairly and without undue delay. This policy establishes the process for the review and resolution of student grievances. It is available to students currently enrolled at the University. A grievance may be initiated only by the grievant. A grievance may not be submitted on behalf of another person.

This policy does not apply to complaints alleging discrimination or harassment based on a protected status, including matters arising under the University's Title IX Policy, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, or Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. The University addresses those matters through its separate nondiscrimination and civil rights policies and procedures, which operate independently of this policy.

Statement of Non-retaliation

The University prohibits retaliation against any student who files a grievance in good faith or who participates in the review of a grievance. A student who believes they have experienced retaliation may report it to the Office of the Provost or the Dean of Students. Retaliation is subject to corrective action under applicable University policy.

Process and Procedures

Step 1 — Informal Resolution

The student shall make a good faith effort to resolve the grievance directly with those involved within five (5) working days after the event giving rise to the grievance.

Step 2 — Submission to the Step 2 Officer

If the grievance is not resolved through Step 1, the student may submit the grievance in writing to the next highest academic or administrative officer of the program (Program Director), department (Chair), College (Dean) in which the student is enrolled (the "Step 2 Officer"). The student shall submit the grievance within five (5) working days after the conclusion of Step 1.

Academic Grievances at the Course Level
Step 1Faculty
Step 2.1Program Director or Department Chair
Step 2.2College Dean
Academic Grievances at the Program Level
Step 1Program Director or Department Chair
Step 2College Dean
Non-Academic Grievance
Step 1Direct parties involved
Step 2Assistant Dean of Home Campus


 

The Step 2 Officer shall provide the student with any internal grievance procedure required by the program or department or College and shall attempt to resolve the grievance. The Step 2 Officer shall issue a written decision within ten (10) working days and provide it to the parties to the grievance.

Step 3 — Request for Review by the Office of the Provost

The student may accept the Step 2 decision and comply with its terms, or the student may request a review. The student shall submit a request for review in writing to the Office of the Provost within five (5) working days after the Step 2 Officer's decision.

The request for review shall contain:

  • a statement of the reasons for the request;
  • identification of the University policies or regulations alleged to have been violated, if any;
  • supporting documents and information; and
  • the remedy sought.

No supplemental filing of documents or materials is permitted unless the Office of the Provost requests it.

Upon receipt, the Office of the Provost determines whether the matter is a grievance or an appeal under the standard stated in the Introduction, and whether the grievance is academic or disciplinary. The Office of the Provost designates the Reviewing Officer accordingly.

Within ten (10) working days after receipt of the request for review, the Reviewing Officer shall request all pertinent documentation from the Step 2 Officer and shall give the grievant and the other parties an opportunity to review a complete set of these documents. The University makes documents available for supervised review, and they may not be removed, copied, or transcribed. The University provides a transcription or an accessible format of these documents to a grievant with an approved ADA accommodation.

The Reviewing Officer shall record the notification of the grievance and may forward pertinent written information to the parties involved in the review. The Reviewing Officer may assign the review to the Student Grievance Committee (SGC). The SGC is a University committee that reviews eligible student grievances impartially and provides findings and recommendations to the Reviewing Officer. Operational guidelines for the SGC are published in the Student Catalog and Handbook. The Reviewing Officer may retain jurisdiction over a grievance through its conclusion.

Academic Grievances

Academic grievances concern the learning environment, including classroom and clinical conduct and circumstances that arise within it. Academic grievances are under the final jurisdiction of the Provost.

Grading, assessment of clinical performance, and decisions related to matriculation or a student's failure to meet a program's technical standards are not subject to grievance review. A student may grieve such a decision only by demonstrating one of the following:

  • the institution failed to follow department or University policy or procedure; or
  • the decision was grounded in a finding of an academic-integrity violation or unprofessional conduct, and the student can show that the finding was unsupported.

A student who believes a decision resulted from discrimination shall pursue that claim through the University's nondiscrimination and civil rights procedures, which are separate from this policy.

Disciplinary Grievances

Disciplinary grievances concern matters outside the classroom or clinical setting that are unrelated to academic matters. Disciplinary grievances are under the final jurisdiction of the Dean of Students. They may include intimidation or physical aggression and violations of non-academic student rights, the code of ethics, or the code of conduct.

The decision of the Dean of Students is the culmination of the review process for a disciplinary grievance.

Student Grievance Committee Review

When the Reviewing Officer assigns a grievance to the SGC, the SGC Chair shall set a meeting date within ten (10) working days after the assignment. The SGC has full discretion over the conduct of the review, including what additional information it receives. The grievant shall be given an opportunity to review all available documents and to meet with the SGC.

The SGC shall deliberate and provide its recommendation to the Reviewing Officer within ten (10) working days. A valid recommendation requires a simple majority of the SGC. The Reviewing Officer shall review the SGC recommendation and, within ten (10) working days, provide written notice approving, disapproving, or modifying it.

Dispositions

The decision of the Reviewing Officer on a request for review is limited to the following dispositions:

  • dismissal of the grievance;
  • the University upholds the decision of the academic program or Step 2 Officer;
  • the program reconsiders its decision based on substantial evidence that it failed to follow standard policies and procedures; or
  • the program's decision is reversed on the stated grounds.
Transcript Notation

A decision that upholds probation, suspension, or dismissal is noted on the student's academic transcript.

Final Decision

The Reviewing Officer may extend a review period in this policy to allow further review and shall provide written notice of the extension to the parties. The Reviewing Officer distributes the written decision to the grievant and to the Step 2 Officer of the program in which the student is enrolled.

For academic grievances, the decision of the Provost is final. For disciplinary grievances, the decision of the Dean of Students is final. A disposition that results in the student's suspension or dismissal from the University takes effect upon the final decision of the Reviewing Officer.

When the Reviewing Officer disapproves an SGC recommendation, the Reviewing Officer shall provide written notice of that decision and the reason for it to the SGC before notifying the grievant. The SGC Chair may request a meeting with the SGC and the Reviewing Officer to resolve the difference. If the difference is not resolved, the decision of the Reviewing Officer is final.

Interaction with Faculty and Other University Policies

When a grievance concerns the conduct of a faculty or staff member, that individual is entitled to notice of the grievance and an opportunity to respond before the Reviewing Officer issues a decision. This policy does not supersede rights or procedures established in the Faculty Handbook. When a grievance implicates those procedures, the Reviewing Officer shall coordinate the review to give effect to both.

Confidentiality and Records

The University handles grievance records with discretion and discloses information only to those with a legitimate need to know or as required by law. The Office of the Provost maintains grievance records and retains them in accordance with the University's records retention schedule.

 

A student suspended or dismissed from the University under the graduate and undergraduate progression and graduation policies and who is involved in the grievance process outlined in this catalog and student handbook will be allowed to register for non-clinical classes in the semester immediately following the ruling while their grievance is being reviewed.  This policy does not apply to students whose next semester involves only clinical courses as defined by the program.

The student, if otherwise eligible, will be allowed to collect financial aid and will be required to pay tuition as any regularly registered student.  If applicable, the student’s refund will be held on account until the grievance is resolved. 

If the dismissal is upheld, the effective date will be the end of the previous term.  Any financial aid refunds will be retained by the University until the decision has been made.  At that point, all eligible financial aid will be returned to the appropriate financial aid agency.  

If the dismissal is overturned, any financial aid refunds will be processed.

If, at the end of the grievance procedure, the appeal is denied (upholding the suspension or dismissal from the University), the student’s registration status will be revoked and the student will be suspended or dismissed.

If, at the end of the grievance procedure, the appeal is upheld (overturning the suspension or dismissal) the registrar will return the student to a regular registration status.

The Student Grievance Committee (SGC) is a standing committee of the Faculty Senate and has responsibility for hearing all grievances that are received by the University’s Academic and Student Affairs Office(s). This Committee also has responsibility for oversight of the University Dispute and Grievance Policy. The SGC is not responsible for handling grade appeals. The process for initiating a grade appeal is governed by the University’s Grade Appeal Policy. 

The SGC will consist of two faculty members from the College of Nursing, and one faculty member from each additional school or department.  These faculty members shall be nominated by their colleges/departments.  One student from each College or Department, appointed by the Dean/Chair of the College or Department, will also serve on the committee on an on-call basis to participate in grievance hearings. One staff member from the Student Affairs Office, appointed by the Vice President of Student Affairs, will also serve on the committee on an on-call basis to participate in grievance hearings. One member of the Admissions Department will also serve on the committee on an on-call basis to participate in grievance hearings. The SGC Chair, selected from members of the Committee, will hold a faculty appointment.  

Each grievance review will consist of at least three members of the SGC.

Retaliation is Prohibited. Retaliation is an adverse action that is taken because someone files a complaint or participates in an investigation or complaint proceeding. Retaliatory actions which are prohibited include intimidation, threats, coercion, or discrimination against any such individual. Complaints of retaliation will be investigated by the University under the same complaint processes and standards which applied to the original underlying complaint.

Get Started