How higher education institutions (HEI) handled sexual misconduct cases matters. It matters for survivors, accused, administrators, parents, HEI leaders, regulatory bodies (such as the Office for Civil Rights), and the general public. The 2011 Dear Colleague Letter published by the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights mandated the use of preponderance of evidence in all sexual misconduct cases (Ali, 2011). The change to utilize a low burden of proof, preponderance of evidence, was and is controversial. Despite a large literature base of legal opinions on the use of preponderance of evidence in the campus adjudication process, there are few practitioner voices commenting on the preponderance of evidence. Using a phenomenological approach, student affairs practitioner perceptions of the use of preponderance of evidence in sexual misconduct will become clear. While it is too early to conclude that the preponderance of evidence is best practice everywhere, the majority of participants at this institution felt it was in support of it as a best practice.
","abstract_html":"<p>How higher education institutions (HEI) handled sexual misconduct cases matters. It matters for survivors, accused, administrators, parents, HEI leaders, regulatory bodies (such as the Office for Civil Rights), and the general public. The 2011 Dear Colleague Letter published by the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights mandated the use of preponderance of evidence in all sexual misconduct cases (Ali, 2011). The change to utilize a low burden of proof, preponderance of evidence, was and is controversial. Despite a large literature base of legal opinions on the use of preponderance of evidence in the campus adjudication process, there are few practitioner voices commenting on the preponderance of evidence. Using a phenomenological approach, student affairs practitioner perceptions of the use of preponderance of evidence in sexual misconduct will become clear. While it is too early to conclude that the preponderance of evidence is best practice everywhere, the majority of participants at this institution felt it was in support of it as a best practice. <strong></strong></p>","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Sommer, Elizabeth"],"institution":null,"degree_name":"Master of Arts","degree_level":"Thesis","degree_discipline":"Education, Leadership and Public Service","degree_department":null,"school":null,"contributors":["Bethney Bergh"],"advisors":[],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":2015,"date_issued":"2015-12-01T08:00:00Z","date_published":"2015-12-01T08:00:00Z","updated_at":"2026-07-24T03:23:34Z","subjects":["preponderance of evidence","adjudication","sexual misconduct","higher education","standard of proof","campus adjudication","Community College Leadership","Educational Leadership","Education Law","Law","Other Education"],"languages":[],"rights":[],"rights_urls":[],"identifier_entries":[]},"links":{"outbound_url":"https://commons.nmu.edu/theses/69","outbound_label":"Repository record","outbound_source":"dc:identifier"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor","label":"Contributor","values":["Bethney Bergh"]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Sommer, Elizabeth"]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date.available","label":"Dc Date Available","values":["2015-11-30T08:00:00Z"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_discipline","label":"Discipline","values":["Education, Leadership and Public Service"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_level","label":"Degree Level","values":["Thesis"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_name","label":"Degree Name","values":["Master of Arts"]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["preponderance of evidence","adjudication","sexual misconduct","higher education","standard of proof","campus adjudication","Community College Leadership","Educational Leadership","Education Law","Law","Other Education"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier","label":"Identifier","values":["https://commons.nmu.edu/theses/69"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description.abstract","label":"Abstract","values":["How higher education institutions (HEI) handled sexual misconduct cases matters. It matters for survivors, accused, administrators, parents, HEI leaders, regulatory bodies (such as the Office for Civil Rights), and the general public. The 2011 Dear Colleague Letter published by the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights mandated the use of preponderance of evidence in all sexual misconduct cases (Ali, 2011). The change to utilize a low burden of proof, preponderance of evidence, was and is controversial. Despite a large literature base of legal opinions on the use of preponderance of evidence in the campus adjudication process, there are few practitioner voices commenting on the preponderance of evidence. Using a phenomenological approach, student affairs practitioner perceptions of the use of preponderance of evidence in sexual misconduct will become clear. While it is too early to conclude that the preponderance of evidence is best practice everywhere, the majority of participants at this institution felt it was in support of it as a best practice.
"]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["Use of Preponderance of Evidence in Campus Adjudication of Sexual Misconduct"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor":["Bethney Bergh"],"dc:creator":["Sommer, Elizabeth"],"dc:date.available":["2015-11-30T08:00:00Z"],"dc:description.abstract":["How higher education institutions (HEI) handled sexual misconduct cases matters. It matters for survivors, accused, administrators, parents, HEI leaders, regulatory bodies (such as the Office for Civil Rights), and the general public. The 2011 Dear Colleague Letter published by the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights mandated the use of preponderance of evidence in all sexual misconduct cases (Ali, 2011). The change to utilize a low burden of proof, preponderance of evidence, was and is controversial. Despite a large literature base of legal opinions on the use of preponderance of evidence in the campus adjudication process, there are few practitioner voices commenting on the preponderance of evidence. Using a phenomenological approach, student affairs practitioner perceptions of the use of preponderance of evidence in sexual misconduct will become clear. While it is too early to conclude that the preponderance of evidence is best practice everywhere, the majority of participants at this institution felt it was in support of it as a best practice.
"],"dc:identifier":["https://commons.nmu.edu/theses/69"],"dc:subject":["preponderance of evidence","adjudication","sexual misconduct","higher education","standard of proof","campus adjudication","Community College Leadership","Educational Leadership","Education Law","Law","Other Education"],"dc:title":["Use of Preponderance of Evidence in Campus Adjudication of Sexual Misconduct"],"thesis:degree_discipline":["Education, Leadership and Public Service"],"thesis:degree_level":["Thesis"],"thesis:degree_name":["Master of Arts"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-24T03:23:34Z"}