Armstrong State U.

1. Jeffrey Powell
is a candidate for the Assistant Dean for
Student Integrity. He currently works at
the University of North Dakota. He has two
decades of student affairs experience,
focused heavily in student crisis response,
student discipline response, and residence
life and housing. He has held appointments
as an academic advisor, worked in
academic deans’ offices, and was a part of
the University’s accreditation central
committee.
In addition to student affairs work, he
holds an appointment as an Adjunct
Faculty and is a member of the graduate
faculty. He’s happy to be here because it is
raining at home in Grand Forks and the
projected high is 46°today. And he’s happy
to be a candidate for this position.

2. Five things
I was given two of the terms I will use
later; they came in the question I was
asked to answer in advance of our time
together. Literally, the question was to
address the work I will do when I hold the
Assistant Dean position – how will I
promote the formation of community, a
community that is built on integrity and
respect.
I did what we teach students to do in
rhetoric class – I deconstructed the
question, and examined the meaning of the
words involved. Or in this case, the
meanings – plural, at least of the key word
here, “integrity.” I assume “integrity” was
chosen because this will be the office that
responds to situations where a student has
violated the rules or the principles of

3. academic conduct. When a person is
outside of the values system, they are said
to lack integrity.
There is a standard we expect of our
community members. My youngest
daughter is in grammar school, still. Their
three word code is “Safe, Respect, and
Responsible,” which - initially - frustrates
the grammarian in me. They operationalize
the system such that when she is “written
up,” or when we have a parent-teacher
conference, her behavior is reflected
against these basic expectations then
referred to as “above the line” or “below
the line.”
Such an evaluation is – in Supreme Court
terms – “overbroad,” which means it’s
largely undefined. Responding to “under
the line” behavior requires or demands – it
is predicated on - a subjective definition. I
trust that in this role, you will trust me,
and require of me, to make sometimes
subjective decisions about whether

4. someone’s behavior is “above the line” or
“below the line.”
I have met with thousands – that is not
hyperbole – thousands of students because
they violated rules, observed someone
violating the rules, or were injured by
someone violating the rules. In nearly
every meeting with students related to the
filing of a complaint, follow up to a crisis
response, or addressing a behavioral
concern, citation or documentation, or
announcing an investigation – in nearly
every meeting, I will describe to a student
that my agenda for today is “safety, your
success as a student, and your growth as a
person.” Something we did in our Dean of
Students Office, beginning about five years
ago, was to begin having more purposeful
conversations with our students about the
possible chasm between their actions and
their sense of their own value system. I
would like to say I put this into place. I
presented some compelling information –
information and presentations you might

5. have found in a search of my internet
footprint. To be clear, not every student
believes their action to be a violation of
their own value system. But many do.
College is a time in our lives and in our
society where some exploration of personal
boundaries is to be expected. The
foundational work of Lawrence Kohlberg –
about whom every student affairs-y person
learns during a masters program, reminds
us that our self-exploration of our
personhood sometimes requires us to
question our relationship with the values
and authority present in the culture. To
help a student develop her own sense of
“integrity,” I get to be in my daily work
life, a “mirror” for the student to observe
what I observe. The development of
integrity in the micro-unit life of our
students occurs one-student-at-a-time, and
it occurs not because of the authority the
office has, but because of the ability we
might have to cause the student to self-reflect
on his or her reported behavior,

6. and to evaluate this behavior in light of his
or her own self-interest and self-identity.
This work is a blessing, and it requires
someone special doing this work. I
frequently hear from friends or colleagues
that they “don’t understand how” I can do
the kind of work that student conduct
expects, and I know that there are some
special hardwired characteristics one must
have. I’m pretty calm, I don’t get
flustered, I read people well and quickly,
and I’m flexible. I seldom experience “the
same meeting” twice with students, even
in those situations when the fact case
walking in the door looks a lot like the last
case I had. Being in the right state of mind
is important, I suspect. Being intent to
help and be perceived as helpful to the
student with whom I’m meeting is also
important.
There is a cornerstone-of-the-profession
psychotherapist who was named Carl

7. Rogers, who promulgated a theory that
asserts the following:
 human beings have an innate urge
towards socially constructive behavior
which is always present and always
functioning at some level.
 each person has a need for self-determination;
and
 the more a person’s need for self-determination
is respected, the more
likely their innate urge to be socially
constructive will take hold.
 personal growth occurs through
nurturing environments at home,
school, workplace and the therapy
room.
This theory, called Unconditional Positive
Regard, can be operationalized by valuing
the person – in this case, the accused
student – as doing their best to move

8. forward in their lives constructively. It is
imperative that when a meeting occurs
between me and any student, I diligently
respect the person’s right to self-determination
of their actions. We control
no one. No matter what they choose to do,
under UPR, it is the student who is in
control. What the student needs to know if
uncivil or unsafe behavior will face
consequences. Actions that are outside of
our accepted standards of behaviors must
be confronted. It doesn’t make the person
bad, but their actions are not congruent
with our values.
But, outside of action that is clearly
dangerous or clearly delineated as non-scholarly
or non-conducive to the
educational mission of Armstrong, it is not
mine to judge. It is the student’s to judge
for herself.
I suspect the primary motivation to select
“integrity” in this job title was about
holding students accountable to the

9. expected behavior, and draw and exude
judgment and guidance in those moments
where a student’s behavior did not have
integrity.
The second definition, of course, of
integrity is the one that engineers and
chemists and architects and physicists give
to structures – naturally or organically
existing or designed and built. I will buy
someone a mint julep for the Derby this
Saturday if they can – with a straight face –
tell me that when the title “Assistant Dean
for Student Integrity” was selected, those
responsible purposely chose the word
“Integrity” because it refers to two
different ways of looking at what a student
and an institution need to do.
Stable, indestructible structures have
“integrity,” and vulnerable structures lack
integrity. Bridges that don’t fall down and
boats that float correctly have integrity.

10. If there is anything I have learned in
twenty years of student affairs work, it is
this: students who need help find ways of
telling us they need help. Not all of them
come in the same door or tell the story the
same way, but they show up. And few of
them acknowledge they are “here” for
help, but if we’re looking, if we’re asking
the right set of questions, we can act. The
at risk students are walking in our door.
This is an exciting time for the institution.
As you likely know from my resume, we
recently completed our ten-year
accreditation self-study for the institution.
There were thirteen central committee
members preparing the chapters (small
groups) and editing the document
enmasse. Twelve members are tenured
faculty, representing six of our eight
degree-granting colleges, with me being
the thirteenth. I ask you to take notice
that I have gained the confidence and
developed relationships with the faculty at
the University. I believe I will have similar

11. success in earning the confidence of
faculty members at Armstrong, and
important aspect of the Student Integrity
role, as I understand it.
I currently work at a school that is trying
and nearing a move from the Carnegie
classification tier II level to the tier I level.
To that end, we keep our eye on certain
statistics, and one of the publicly available
and required-by-the-feds numbers is our 6-
year graduate rate. There is a formula for
this metric. Incidentally, there is no one
who works in education who thinks the
formula properly assesses the situation. In
calculating the ratio, you collect a full-time,
first-time freshmen cohort, and then
query the matriculating and graduating
students in the numerator, against the
original cohort in the denominator, at the
(three, four, five, and) six-year mark(s). If
a student transfers away and still
succeeds, more likely than not it still
“counts against” their first school. If a
student transfers here and graduates, we

12. don’t get credit for their success. If a
student takes seven years to graduate,
they either “don’t count” or count against
us in the ratio. It’s a tragically flawed
ratio, but the fact that all schools use the
same flawed formulate nonetheless
provides a common way for us to look at
schools. At UND that number is 54%.
A few years ago, I worked with someone in
Institutional Research to explore our
number with this caveat – did the student
have “a discipline record?”
(vamp here)
The graduate rate for this group was 42%.
Why a 12-point drop? Should we believe
this group is 25% less likely than the gen
pop to graduate?
(vamp): beer/sigma nu? minor/sports
event? or it is a student “showing up on
our door step” and we have the chance
to throw more attention upon them.

13. If we are going to have integrity – systemic
integrity – we need to figure out where the
boat is leaking. And one of the places
where my experience tells me at-risk
student gravitate is the Student Integrity
office.
I was asked to talk about “respect,” and I
think I have already shown my cards. No
one among us does our best when we are
being chastened, when we are taken to the
wood-shed. It’s not how I operate. My kids
would describe my job in the Dean of
Students Office as being about kicking
students out of school when they break the
rules, and that is a part of that job.
I have assembled, though, a collection of
students who more often than not, arrived
at my location because of a misbehavior
incident, but they found a person to whom
they could connect, from whom they
learned about resources. I have challenged
students to “do better,” to focus on their
goals. If college is important to these
students, their behavior will tell us it is

14. important. If it’s unimportant, they will
tell us that, too.
Just as I have students who have come to
rely on me as it relates to their navigation
of the university and their academic
programs – in conjunction, always, with
their academic advisor – I could produce a
list of faculty and academic management
people who will tell you I fully support an
academic record that is accurate, that has
integrity. The Dean of Students Office is
the gatekeeper for the mechanism on our
campus for a student to late-drop or after-the-
semester to drop a class, for medical
or exigent circumstances. I would assert
that the Registrar at UND will tell the
person who calls for a reference that I am
cautious with this responsibly. Protecting
the institution is an important part of the
work we do, and “feeling sorry” for a
student who simply didn’t do the work is
poor professionalism. There is a subjective
decision made – was this a circumstance in
which the student couldn’t perform the

15. work, or did they find a plausible excuse
after they didn’t perform? How do I
respect this person and manage the
integrity of the record? Such questions are
constantly present.
I pretty commonly say I would never want
to be remembered for the worst moment
I’ve had in my life, or for doing the
dumbest thing I’ve ever done. Having set
up that premise, the overwhelming number
of students I have met in the last decade,
I’ve met because they have violated our
Code of Student Life, or because they are
experiencing a terrible situation and
require action, aid, or guidance from the
University.
To treat the sensitive information I have
with anything other than respect is
irresponsible and unredeemable. Respect is
an important part of this work.
I have met with students who did not feel
respected by other students or by staff

16. members. These students have indicated
that a comment about their race or
heritage was made, one that felt to the
student to be discriminatory or demeaning.
And I have investigated and addressed
these situations.
I have met with students when they need
help navigating intimate portions of their
lives. I have issued temporary “No Contact
Directives” to people ending a dating
relationship or people in stalker-suspected
situations. It is not a place where “polite
distance” can be kept. But such action is
for the safety of the student and is the
responsibility of the school.
I have met with students who have made a
sexual misconduct allegation, or against
whom such an allegation has been made. I
have worked with the student in the
presence of a counselor, their attorney,
someone from our campus women’s center
or from the county Community Violence
Intervention Center. I have sat with

17. students at the courthouse while they wait
for an Order of Protection. I’ve displayed
respect in this situations – I have been
what I needed to be: to be empathetic, to
be supportive, to refer the student to
personal support structures and reflect
back that the person is more than the
situation in which they find themselves.
Such perspective and behavior on my part
is respect.
And I have met with students who wished
to file complaints of mistreatment or
grieve the grades received from faculty.
My role is this is almost always to refer – in
our campus environment, academic issues
are college-driven and my direct
involvement frustrates, not helps move,
the appropriate processes. I am, however,
a trusted and knowledgeable colleague
who knows to whom and in what fashion to
make such a referral for grievance
protocols. In this regard, one does the
work without regard to the personalities
involved. Kind but honest referrals into the

18. established protocols represent the only
way our students will feel they were
treated fairly.
Respect is thus demonstrated – respect for
the student, their rights, and their ability
to enter into grievance protocols
Additionally, respect is taught – talked
about, presented to students in sanctioning
scenarios following judicial case resolution.
I will constantly think of to help students
develop a sense of respect for themselves
and for the community and its members.
But mostly, respect is reflected in life – in
this case, my life and my work-interactions,
and through the rolemodeling
of respect, it will be furthered by the
students with whom I meet.
How?
[Slideshow – levels of relationship –
concentric circles.]

19. In coloring or categorizing these
colleagues, I may have missed on some of
these [acknowledge probability there are
some campus specific elements I could not
have known].
 Housing staff and “my boss” are daily-involved
relationships.
Common expectations, common use of
Code and sanctioning guidelines,
conversations about variation for
educational purposes. Trust,
deference, and student-centered.
 Slightly different in terms of level of
contact or influence, but no less
important
o police
o counseling center
o greek life
o key faculty members

20.  Next level is a slew of outside-of-student-
affairs staff with whom need to
develop relationship; for whom I need
to demonstrate a reason to trust me.
 In the same level, but approached
differently because the way we
interface is different, are student
affairs colleagues.
 Kind of the last level in the concentric
circles model are students who walk in,
parents who call or walk in, or info
from other colleges or from law
enforcement other than campus or
Savannah police. I’m mindful of a
stalking situation I received from a
private college approx. an hour away
from UND, in which I responded by
calling the student, doing the No
Contract Directive letter and starting
an investigation. I’m mindful of our
times the FBI has shown up for a
computer-crime situation, or our drugs

21. task force for a drug-trafficking
situation.
Actually, the people in this orbit – well,
the concentric circles model breaks
down. Protecting the safety of the
students and employees of the
institution make this a part of the job.
Although it’s “pluto” in this model I’m
visualizing, it’s more like Hale-Bopp or
Halley’s comet – it’s out there but
when it’s close, you pay attention to it.
In addition to “students in trouble,” and
again, most of these are non-safety related
opportunities to reflect to the student our
expectations and their own values systems,
provide some education and guidance, and
they will “be fine.” But sometimes the
work we do is either crisis-related or
involves a vulnerable student. I have been
at the ER and I have coached by phone
during countless situations in the middle of
the night, involving a student expressing
suicide ideation. I have responded to

22. alcohol overdose and drug overdose
situations, medical situations, and victims
of assault. I have served as a central part
of our “crisis coordination team,” or
recently rebranded “care team.” Getting
help for the student immediately and
providing required aftercare expresses
integrity, respect for the person, promotes
safety, promotes student success, and
encourages human, personal growth.
I have been at table, and at times have
convened and led, conversations about
students whose behavior is alarming,
concerning, disruptive, disturbed or
disturbing – all sorts of descriptors.
Although “we” have a playbook for much
of this, every case is different.
The Five Things all fit here – integrity and
respect; safety, student success, and
personal growth.
And a sixth thing: relationships. The
relationships I described in previous slides,

23. the relationship that I have with the
institution and with its values.
Finally, these six things are in the
Armstrong mission statement. Let’s take a
look at the values of the University and the
priorities I have described. This position is
a central part of the services we offer, and
the required skills for success in this
position are skills I have developed in my
professional life.
Thank you for your time.