Jill Creighton: Welcome to season two of the ACA Viewpoints podcast, the podcast where we talk about the student conduct profession in higher education. I'm Jill Creighton, your Viewpoints host. Hello, student conduct podcast listeners. Thank you again for bearing with us as Coleen and I do our best to try to create a good show for you. We're also trying to balance and maintain the full time jobs that we have been hired to do. So we have been experiencing some delays this year in our podcast production that we just hadn't anticipated, especially with me moving over to the West Coast and Coleen over on the East Coast. We really appreciate your grace and time as you continue to join us for the show, and I'm just going to put it out there that I think we are no longer going to be kind of releasing on a fixed Tuesday biweekly schedule. It just sounds more closely to us like it'll be a two weeks-ish schedule. So keep an eye on your podcast feed and we're going to continue to bring you the best podcast that we can. Today's episode features Laura Matthews, and Laura is the director of student conduct and community standards at Lynn University in Boca Raton, Florida. Laura has worked in the student conduct profession at both large public and small private institutions, and one of her areas of focus in the field has been in responding to student organization misconduct, including extensive experience working with fraternities and sororities. She's given a number of presentations and webinars for ASCA on related topics as well as on managing large scale hazing investigations. Laura has also worked with her own sorority, Pi Beta Phi, as a consultant, a chapter advisor, and as a regional specialist, and she continues to serve as a volunteer. Her experience with ASCA includes serving as the state coordinator for Florida, as chair of the Fraternity and Sorority Life Community of Practice, and she recently completed a term on the ASCA board of directors as the director of membership. Laura attended the University of Central Florida where she earned her bachelors degree in psychology as well as a masters in public administration with an emphasis in higher education. Laura, will be spending the bulk of our time today talking about the FEA/ASCA Joint Collaboration Guide on how to manage investigations involving student organizations. So I think you're in for a treat with Laura and here we go. Welcome to the podcast, Laura Matthews. Laura serves as the director of student conduct and community standards at Lynn University in Boca Raton, Florida. And she also was one of the co-creators and collaborators on the ASCA/FEA Collaboration Guide for investigating student organizations. Welcome, Laura. Laura Matthews: Thank you, Jill. Jill Creighton: And we're really looking forward to digging in on this technical guidance for investigating and adjudicating student orgs. But before we get into that we always love to start with our guest's journey. So can you tell us how you got to your seat as director at Lynn? Laura Matthews: Sure. So I guess my professional journey, like most others, started in college. I went to the University of Central Florida. Actually, funny story, I was a psychology major at the time. My career goal was to work as a therapist for children in the juvenile justice system. So I think it's kind of funny that obviously I took a different turn in life but you can draw some loose comparisons to the work I'm doing now in student conduct to I guess what my initial plan was, which I think is kind of ironic. But during my time at UCF as a psychology major sort of deciding what I wanted to do with that degree I was also pretty involved as a student leader in different organizations. At one point, I don't know if it was my sophomore, junior, maybe even my senior year, I'm not sure, but there were a couple of administrators in student affairs that actually pulled together, I don't know, maybe four or five of us students and had a very intentional meeting with us about the field of student affairs and encouraged us to consider a career in that field and talked to us about graduate school and what you could do with that type of degree. And so that was sort of what opened my eyes to I can make a job out of this. And at the time as an undergraduate student I guess my main areas of involvement were leadership and service, Greek life, and believe it or not student conduct. So when I was an undergraduate student I was on the student conduct board and I was actually working as a student worker in the conduct office. So I was exposed to this conduct work I think probably earlier than most professionals were. And so that's when I develop that interest in the field. So eventually I went down that path. When I graduated from UCF I actually had a job lined up to be a consultant for my sorority. So this ties back to what we're going to be talking about today, which is conduct in Greek life and how those have become sort of my two professional passions so to speak. I traveled as a consultant, as a leadership development consultant, for my sorority. But in the few months between graduating and starting that job I actually started working full time as a professional in the conduct office at UCF hearing cases. And so I was so fortunate to have been given that opportunity, that they trusted me to do that, and I think they were trying to pull me into the conduct realm. I think they were a little worried am I going to go into the Greek life realm or leadership and service, and they wanted to snag me, I think, into the conduct field and they did a great job with it. And I just really saw the value and the benefit in having those interactions with students. And I was really young. So I'm lucky that they trusted me to do that type of work so early on. And then when I was done with my year traveling with my sorority I came back to UCF. They hired me full time in the conduct office and I started my masters part-time, actually got my MPA while I was at UCF and stayed there for five or six years working in conduct. And then I eventually ... My next move was that the University of Florida working in the conduct office there. They really hired me I think intentionally because of my experience working with organizational conduct cases and Greek life conduct. And so while I was there I really focused my creativity on streamlining that process. And if you're familiar with the University of Florida they have a very large Greek system. So I had a lot of opportunities to work with the community there. So I stayed at UF for a number of years, cherish my time there, and then after several years I was offered the chance to come down here to Lynn, which was a big change for me having only ever worked at large public state institutions. Lynn is a very small private institution. It's actually smaller than the high school that I went to. But that appealed to me because I didn't want to pigeon hole myself just in into large state institutions. I like the idea of working at a different type of school. The VP at the time was looking for someone to really come in and make some changes to formalize the process, bringing some more conflict resolution into the process, ensure we were compliant with expectations regarding Title IX. And so it's really been a perfect fit, and I'm starting my fourth year here at Lynn. So I'm fourth year as the director and so far so good. So that's a little bit about my journey. Jill Creighton: And you've had some leadership roles with ASCA and some other organizations as well, yes? Laura Matthews: I have. Yeah. And I'll focus on ASCA. Like I said, I just had the best team of mentors when I was at UCF. They were really involved in ASCA, particularly at the state level. And so I think within months of me working there I was already helping to host a state drive in for the state of Florida. And so I like to say I pretty much grew up in ASCA at the local level. So I got really involved with our state leadership, eventually became the state coordinator. At some point I was also the chairperson of the Fraternity And Sorority Life MIC, which is now the COP Community of Practice for ASCA. So I did that for a few years. And then eventually became a member of the board as a director of membership for ASCA. Jill Creighton: And what is that MIC you referenced? Laura Matthews: I don't know, Jill. Help me remember. What did MIC used to stand for? Jill Creighton: I'm trying to think of that myself. I know we transitioned that. Laura Matthews: Member interests- Jill Creighton: Council. There we go. Laura Matthews: Member Interest Council. That's it. Yeah. Jill Creighton: Old terminology. Laura Matthews: So our former lingo back in the day. Jill Creighton: Sure. So I love that you really grew up in the association from a very grassroots perspective. You mentioned exceptional mentors. Do you want to give a shout out to anyone? Laura Matthews: Oh, my gosh. There's so many. I don't know that I could choose just one. In and outside of the field of conduct I was just lucky as a student who have already been exposed to the profession from the get go. But I guess if I were to say within the field of conduct, she's now retired, but Patty McCowen. She's the one that hired me to work as a student worker in the conduct office when I was at UCF. She was the director of student rights and responsibilities and had been so involved in ASCA at the state level for many years. Anyone who's worked in Florida for a number of years knows who Patty is. So I guess I really have to credit her for me even being in the conduct field. She's the one that drew me in from the beginning. Jill Creighton: Excellent. We always love to hear those connection points because none of us do this work alone. That's what sustains us as a profession is we have this amazing network of professionals, and you have this broader network outside of conduct into the fraternity and sorority life world. So can you talk a little bit about how you've bridged those two areas in your career? Laura Matthews: Sure. So when I was talking about my professional journey I sort of alluded to I was a little torn. So I knew I wanted to go into student affairs but couldn't quite decide what my niche would be. And I mentioned I didn't have a very traditional graduate student experience. So I was working full time in the conduct office when I started graduate school. So I did not have the traditional practicum or assistantship experience where I have the chance to dabble in different areas. So it was really drawing on the experiences that I had as an undergraduate student and then the professional experience I had working with my own sorority and then in the conduct office. And it's not like I chose one over the other. I liked them both. But just something about the conduct experience and having those unique conversations with students just ... I mean, every conduct professional knows what I'm talking about. It just appeals to some of us in a way that it doesn't to others. And so still having that background in [inaudible] ... And I should mention I was president of my sorority. When I was president of my sorority there was a big hazing case that happened within our community that sort of shook us all to the core. And so I learned a lot from that experience. I was a witness in another organization's case. My own chapter certainly had their own issues that they dealt with. So I feel like I got a good sense of how conduct would be best handled from the perspective of a member of a Greek organization. So I think that probably had something to do with my interest in making that one of my passions I guess in conduct. So when I was at UCF, again, I was really young when I started working there full time. So honestly there were times where there were peers of mine that were representing their own fraternity through the conduct process. And so I didn't initially handle those cases from the get go. But after a few years I was sort of the point person for some of those organizational conduct cases. And so that's when I really ... I was like, "Wow! I really like doing this. I really like being on the other side of it." I was very creative with the sanctions that I was giving. I was very thoughtful in my conversations with the advisors and helping them understand the ins and outs of the process because this is like a foreign language, then they didn't understand how it worked, but I knew their language. I knew how it worked because I had been on that side of the table as well. So I felt like I could make the process easier for them to comprehend. And so I really enjoyed doing that at UCF. And when I went to UF, like I said, that was the focus of the position that I was applying for. And so it was a perfect chance for me to really dedicate my time to that. And in fact when I was at UF we joked how I should have had my own office in the same building as a fraternity and sorority life staff because I got a lot of opportunities to work very closely with them. So I guess I care a lot about how those cases are handled because it's personal to me. So I guess that maybe speaks a little bit to why this is an important topic for me within the conduct field. Jill Creighton: I really love that you have personal experience being a witness and perhaps maybe even a respondent as a student in the fraternity and sorority life investigation as well as being the administrator, because I think that gives you a great well rounded perspective on kind of where these processes go well and where maybe they are hindered by too much bureaucracy or where they are necessarily kind of laborious in some ways too. Laura Matthews: Thanks. Yeah. I think so too. And that's not to say you have to have those experiences in order to do this work or to do it well or to understand it. That's certainly not the case at all. I just feel like that was to my benefit. It's helped me grasp this concept maybe a little bit more easily initially than others. Jill Creighton: And were having you on today to talk about ... the official title is Communication and Collaboration Guidance for International Fraternal Organizations and Campus Student Conduct Professionals. This was written in collaboration with the Association for Student Conduct Administration, so I said ASCA, as well as the Fraternity Executives Association, also known as FEA. And I do want to give credit to the entire author team because it is a large group. We have Justin Angotti, Michelle Horvath, Jack Kreman, Doug Landfur, Nikki Minnelli, Jay Tanner, Mark Intel, Laura Matthew. Help me with the pronunciation here. Lauck Walton, is that correct? Lock. Lauck. Laura Matthews: I think so. Jill Creighton: Karen [crosstalk]- Laura Matthews: Sorry. I don't have it in front of me. Yeah. Jill Creighton: Sure. Laura Whitney, Larry Weiss, and Julie Weissbock. So thank you for all of those individuals who helped to write this and to both boards of directors who put this on their websites for approval. If you want to follow along with us today you can find this on the ASCA website once you log in under the ASCA library tab and it's right there for your download. It's a 30 page PDF. So again, this guide is technical guidance for what a model student organization investigation could look like. So, Laura, can you tell us a little bit, just briefly, about the process of how this came to be and kind of actualization of that collaboration? Laura Matthews: Absolutely. Well, to start I can't take any credit for the idea. This all came to be as a result of a memo of understanding from several years back between ASCA and FEA, the fraternity, the executives' association. And one of the items agreed upon in that MoU was to collaboratively create a resource for professionals to refer to that would hopefully provide some guidance to those that work in the trenches to respond to these conduct cases involving fraternal organizations. And I want to clarify, this is not the individual student cases. This has nothing to do with the individual students that might be affiliated with a Greek organization. It's the organizational or the group case. And so the reason why this was important to create was the reality that on our campuses when we're dealing with a conduct case involving a fraternity or a sorority we have to recognize that it does affect that organization at a higher level, at a national or international level, the volunteer leaders, the regional leaders, the advisors, officers and professional staff if there is a headquarters. And so these groups also have their own standards, their own conduct process, their own point person that handles risk management for all their different chapters and conduct issues. So if you think about it, whether you have five Greek organizations or 50 on your campus, that's a lot of different groups to work with and different processes used to understand and to work with. But when you flip that and you think about the executive ranking staff and officers for the organizations, for those international fraternal organizations, they're trying to work with just as many campuses as they have chapters, which is upwards of maybe 100 or 200 different chapters. Some are closer to almost 300 chapters and universities that are having that have their own conduct process. And so when you put it in perspective that's a lot of different operations and processes that they're trying to understand. But when you think about it we all have the same shared goal in mind which is to support our students. We're just doing it in different ways, which is fine. So it's important to understand this guide was never intended to standardize the conduct process for fraternities at different institutions with any one size fits all approach or some best practice model. That's not at all what this is. It's just intended to provide some ideas and suggestions for how to handle these cases in a manner that both sides of the table feel offers a fundamentally fair process and encourages collaboration and partnership. So that's really the, I guess, intention behind this. So about two years ago a team from FEA took the first stab at creating the draft. From there we had members and leaders from ASCA. Our fraternity and sorority life community practice that I referenced earlier started working on it and collectively the team that you just named that authored that. And then there were others that contributed to this that aren't named on there. They weren't authors, but they contributed and provided input. So collectively that group represents all the different councils, all different institution types, and folks that have worn multiple hats. So we've got former fraternity and sorority life directors on there, current conduct directors, chief executive officers, volunteer leaders, officers. So we've got lots of different perspectives on the table of folks that contributed to this. So we hope to be thoughtful and inclusive and thorough with the approach. So that's sort of the background on how this was formed. Jill Creighton: And I'll let listeners know too this document is incredibly helpful, and it also assumes that the national organization or international organization that you're working with is equally as interested in being collaborative with the institution. So if you are working with a particularly difficult organization and their headquarter staff are not interested in collaboration this may not be an amazing fit. But for those of you who have national organizations who are ready to get in there with you this is a really fantastic guide. Laura Matthews: Right. And I'm glad that you said that because one of the things we mentioned was we never want anyone to references guide, like pull it out from their desk drawer and point out and say, "Hey, you're not doing what this guide says you're supposed to do." That's not the intention. Nothing in this says this is what you should be doing. It's just suggestions. And that's why we called it guidance. Jill Creighton: And it's broken down into a really user friendly format. So there are suggested methods for collaborating on notifying the organization, investigating the organization, applying disciplinary action and formal charges, what resolutions can look like, and then finally decision and sanctioning considerations. So, Laura, I'd like to kind of walk through each of these five areas of recommendation and they all also include timeline examples or suggestions in the appendices. So can you start with what an initial notification might or should include? Laura Matthews: Right. So that's really ... if you're looking at the guide, the nuts and bolts of this guide really is centered around communication and collaboration. And so that's the bulk of the text in this document. So the initial notification section really starts on just identifying how we inform the others when we receive a complaint. And so I want to clarify when we're talking about informing them or informing the others or the fraternity I'm talking about the international fraternal organization. And so I mentioned this is a partnership with FEA because of the MoU that we have with them, and for those that aren't familiar with FEA, the Fraternity Executive Association, those are the members ... that's the association that's comprised of the chief executive staff and other staff members at the headquarter level for these organizations, national and international organizations, and those high ranking officers of those organizations. So we're not talking just the chapter advisors and those local leaders. We're talking about the individuals that oversee all the chapters for a particular organization. But it's important for me to mention that throughout this document we also acknowledge another key player, and that is the director or advisor for fraternity and sorority life. So we have also representation from AFA, within the group that contributed to this guide as well. So there's a lot of mention for that, that Greek life advisor, that fraternity and sorority life advisor throughout this document. Jill Creighton: What is AFA? Laura Matthews: So AFA stands for the Association of Fraternity Advisors. So that group is comprised of the members that might serve on the staff at a university in the fraternity and sorority life office, maybe the director of fraternity and sorority life or the advisor for Greek life, whatever that office title might be. So that's what AFA stands for. Again, we did collaborate with them and brought them into the mix, but it's important to acknowledge that this document started because of our MoU with FEA. So we acknowledge the fraternity and sorority life director's role throughout this document. But since we're starting with notification that's why I brought that up because I think that's the crucial step in this process is who notifies who, who's the first to find out, and how do we inform the international organization, and how much do we tell them, and do we send them an email or do we pick up the phone and call. So we talk about that in the notification section and really deciding ahead of time who's going to be the point person. So at most institutions that I've worked at, and this is just me personally, the director of fraternity and sorority life or the Greek life advisor wants to be the first person to make the initial notification to headquarters and then eventually link the two of us up. They usually already have an established relationship with one another. That might not be the case at someone else's institution. So we just acknowledge that that model might look a little bit different depending on the relationships and the partnerships you have at your campus. So the initial notifications actually talk about who's the one who notifies the other, who the point person is, and what do you talk about in that email, how much you share, what do you discuss over the phone, how much can you tell them. And of course all of that changes depending on the nature of the incident and what the expectations are at your particular institution. And so we just give some suggestions. And ultimately the goal is to build trust and to provide transparency. So of course we're making some suggestions that some institutions might say, "Nope, not going to work for us." But hopefully there are some suggestions in there that would be considered. For example, why don't you copy the advisor on your correspondence that you send to the chapter. That might be a good initial first step to make. So that's really what we talk about in that initial notification section of the guide. Jill Creighton: One of my favorite practices that I have been able to work with at a couple of institutions is that when contact is made with the headquarter staff that it's always a joint conversation with the director of fraternity and sorority life and the person in the office of student conduct that will be leading the process. Laura Matthews: Absolutely. Jill Creighton: I think that's a really helpful practice to keep everyone on the same page and it's worked well for me. So if you're not doing that it'd be something that I would encourage everyone to maybe attempt if you've got those relationships. Laura Matthews: Absolutely. I love that idea. And I think that our friends and colleagues at FEA would probably agree with that as well. Jill Creighton: The next part of the guide I think is where most of our conduct staff would lose the most sleep, which is in the investigation process. And I can tell from my personal experiences that when I've worked with student organizations of all kinds as soon as one student in the organization finds out they all kind of clam up together or they get their stories all in a row. And so there are way too identical. So how does the guide address the investigation process and some of those challenges? Laura Matthews: Well, one of the things that we discussed as a group when we were working on this guide was that this is a section that deserves its own appendix, I suppose. I mean, to be honest this could be its own separate guide in and of itself just on investigations. So what you'll find in this particular document is we really just offer surface level guidance on investigations. We don't dive too deeply into those sticky situations that we have all encountered from time to time. We do talk about the benefit of joint investigations and how that might lead to some more honest responses from students. So sometimes we'll find that the campus professional who's investigating might be able to compel a student to be more honest and forthright. Then again that might be the chapter services coordinator who comes and flies to your campus to do an investigation. He or she might be more likely to get some more details from the students. And so we talk about leveraging one another's roles and being a benefit of the joint investigation, but we also talk about how independent investigations might be the best approach if that's what your institution expects or if given the nature of the violation that's what's most appropriate. And then we do address how there are ways that you can tweak that. So maybe you're not doing a joint investigation but you're not doing a completely independent investigation but something in between where you're doing your own thing but you're sharing information to a certain extent with the others. I don't know that we go into the level of detail that you might be referencing, Jill, in the guide when it comes to investigations, but I think it's a good start, and hopefully that will be a future project for our two groups to work on later on down the road. Jill Creighton: What advice can you give campuses that are struggling with whether to joint investigate or independently investigate because maybe their general council is concerned about FERPA rights of the students. Laura Matthews: Sure. So we do address that to a certain degree in the guide simply when it comes to sharing reports actually. Some institutions guide that information very closely and aren't comfortable sharing reports or giving copies of reports and for good reason. There are definitely reasons why that's appropriate and we discuss in the guide why that would be the case. And so that might make a joint investigation pretty hard to do. But we do offer suggestions. If that's the case and there's a police report then there's usually a way that that report can become available to the international fraternal organization if you just simply let them know what agency conducted that law enforcement investigation. So we offer some suggestions on how to work around that, and we do talk about how there are some types of violations, so maybe something that involved sexual misconduct. That might be not be something that we would be able to jointly investigate that the institution might be doing solely on their own. So we do provide reasons why an institution, even with the best of intentions to partner, just simply cannot consider doing a joint investigation. But when it comes to FERPA we do provide in the guide the possibility to provide a report and maybe redact any personally identifiable information, and that might seem like it's difficult for the organization to figure out how to move forward but there's a good chance that the students are going to fill in those blanks for them anyway. And so most groups that I've worked with are very happy to receive a redacted report and find that to be absolutely enough information for them to work off of if they're doing either an independent or a joint investigation. So don't minimize the value in doing that if that's something that your institution and your supervisors would allow you to do. So yeah. So there are some restrictions on how much we can share, but there are benefits to providing the information, at least the violation itself, the details without identifying the students. Sometimes that's perfectly sufficient for our partners at the international level to continue to move forward and work off of. Jill Creighton: That's fantastic advice. I think that redaction is really a helpful tool to get the information where it needs to go without having to be concerned about student records. So the next section goes into campus disciplinary action and formal charges. Can you talk about that context? Laura Matthews: Sure. So in that section that addresses the disciplinary process we do spend some time again discussing sharing of reports, why you might or might not do that, but we also discuss that charge letter or the allegation letter or other correspondence that might be sent to the chapter, who you might copy on that letter, what you might want to include in that letter. So when we were working on this guide one thing that was very interesting for me is hearing the experiences that some ... I keep referencing the chapter services coordinator. That's just simply a title that is a pretty common title of a staff person at the headquarters office for some of our fraternities and sororities that are fortunate to have a staff of that size. And so the chapter services coordinator is just a generic name for the person that might be the one who's tasked with addressing risk management and other issues at a chapter level, so conduct issues. And so I keep referencing them as a person that we would identify as our point person. And so when we're talking about the disciplinary process we discuss what you might want to include in that charge letter. And so some of the folks that were on the phone when we were discussing this guide that have served as chapter services coordinators shared interesting experiences how they would get copied on the letter that simply said that there was a meeting that a chapter president had with a conduct office but no details whatsoever, no information on the charge, no information on the allegation. So they got this letter and they know their chapter has a meeting. They have no idea what it's about. And so it was just thinking from their perspective what harm is there in sharing that information versus what is the benefit in providing a bit more detail so that they can be prepared, so they can talk to the chapter, and ultimately help us out, share the burden, share the load. So if they find out more information and they're willing to share that with us that makes our jobs all a lot easier. So that's some of the stuff that we talk about in this section, is just sharing some of that information. And then we also talk about the meeting for a very formal conduct process. A traditional format might involve a hearing officer meeting with the chapter president and maybe the chapter president has an advisor. Well, in this guide we talked about who else might be in that room and if your process allows some wiggle room for you to include some other folks. For example, one of the suggestions that we offer is to allow that chapter services coordinator or other point person to at least listen in to that meeting over the phone if they're physically on campus, if this is a serious violation that they're flown down to your campus for. Maybe invite them to come to that meeting also and sit in the room, and maybe that means the chapter advisor can't be there but there's benefit and allowing them both to be in that room. So if there's wiggle room in your process to allow for that our guide just offers that as a suggestion. And so this is challenging some campuses maybe to rethink their procedures, and maybe that's not a change that they're going to make. It's just worth considering and thinking about. But if you're going to do that think about what role that representative is going to play. So for example, if you're going to let them listen in over the phone to that meeting are they going to be allowed to speak on behalf of the organization or answer questions, or are they simply there silently to listen in, or are they allowed to ask questions of the chapter president like you are. So you need to identify what their role is going to be in the meeting. So that's a little bit about what we address in that campus disciplinary action formal charges section. Jill Creighton: And then you move forward to talk about the campus application of sanctions and considerations for sanctions. I think this is an interesting area because we are all over the board as a profession in terms of outcomes I've seen everything from multiple year suspensions, to permanent dismissal from a campus, to educational engagement, and even philanthropic requirements for a chapter. And I've also seen things like required membership reviews come out. So what was the discussion and decision making around this section? Laura Matthews: Right. So you mentioned a lot of different examples. We also talked a lot about the partnership process. So it's more of a joint approach to adjudicating conduct cases where you talk about infusing conflict resolution into the process. So there are so many different models. And so when we talk about the sanctions and the decision really what we're doing here is just identifying if there is an opportunity for the international organization to provide any input on the chapters or ... I'm sorry. On the campus' final decision. Is there room, is there a space, is there a place, is there a time for them to do that, who do they communicate that with, and might even be the chance of a joint decision letter. So those are some of the things to consider in that section. A couple of suggestions that I can just share based on my own personal experiences and then learning from others that were a part of this group is ... So one example would be to invite the chapter services coordinator to send some possible educational sanctions that they might also be considering on issuing to the chapter. And so this is assuming that the chapter maybe is accepting responsibility. So we know that they're going to be sanctioned. So I have seen some really phenomenal suggestions that I never would have thought of on my own that were offered to me from a chapter services coordinator that I was working with on a particular case that they were already intending to assign to the chapter. And so I assigned the same educational sanctions. Maybe I added one or two of my own. And so then the students see a united front coming forward. So they see that we've obviously collaborated, we've agreed that these are the sanctions that are best to encourage the chapter to learn from this incident to move forward, to support them, to prevent future incidents from reoccurring. And so I found that to be really beneficial. So that's one idea is to have them just simply send some suggestions or to give you a copy of the letter that they're planning to send to the organization with their sanctions. Another suggestion would be with a partnered process involving the chapter president or the representative of the chapter, loop them in on the conversation, then collaboratively all coming up together with what that outcome would be and what will be required of them moving forward, what restrictions might be appropriate to put in place. And then on the more formal end of the spectrum if there is a hearing, and that looks different from campus to campus, sometimes that involves the board, sometimes that's a single administrator, when might there be an opportunity, if appropriate, to allow for those suggestions to be made. So there might be a point in time before deliberation were those suggestions can be given, maybe formally submitted to the hearing officer, maybe informally just shared ahead of time, "Here's some things that we're thinking that we can do." There's so many different ways that that can look, Jill, but we talk about really the benefit in doing that because ultimately, again, we all have the same goal in mind. But when we're able to bring our resources together and come up with some sanctions that we wouldn't have individually thought of it's usually just to the benefit of the students. So I think that's what you'll find that we discussed in that section. Jill Creighton: So for me as you walk through the guide the theme that I hear repeated over and over is that it's critical to have a trusting relationship between campus based staff, whether that be conduct or fraternity and sorority life and headquarters based staff. What suggestions do you have for helping to build that? Because I know that at a lot of campuses the relationships are excellent, but at other campuses there has been mistrust and those relationships that are in need of repair. Laura Matthews: Absolutely. I'm glad that you mentioned that because, again, that was one of the unique benefits to being a part of this group is hearing some of the stories that these colleagues have shared where they really tried to forge a relationship with the campus and were let down. But I could share just as any stories from a conduct professionals perspective times that I've tried to work with an international organization and it just didn't happen despite what I thought were my best efforts. And so I think we've all been there. And so that was important for us as a team to all just lay out on the table and acknowledge it happens. So this guide, I think, offers our best case scenarios, our hopes, our dreams, our goals, but the reality is that's not always going to happen. If you scroll towards the bottom of the document there's a section called commitment. And so this is what we came up with. We came up with a list of commitments for those international organizations, so items that they should commit to. And then we did the same for the institutions as well. And so throughout the guide you'll see a reference back to four main themes which are trust, communication, shared goals, and respect for the various processes. And we reiterate that throughout each section. And so when you look at the commitments and some of the examples listed there some of it is just very basic, like just being able to commit to returning phone calls and emails within a timely fashion for one another and identifying a point person so we know who to contact if we need to reach someone on the organization staff or at the campus. Committing to clarify what each individual's role would be, so if there's a chapter advisor what his or her role should be during the process. Maintaining a commitment to uphold the agreement made with the campus and being forthright and transparent with those. So for example, if we know 100% without a doubt that a chapter is going to close, that that's going to be the outcome no matter what I think it's fair to share that, to be honest with our colleagues about the ... or even if it's just a possibility, even if we don't know that it's going to happen, letting them know ahead of time that that's a possibility. So you've got to think that they need to decide where to spend their resources. And so I think when you talked about sometimes where we haven't had the best experiences working with organizations at that level some have shared because no one sent anyone down to campus, no one came down for the hearing, no one came down to the investigation. But did they know that there was a possibility of this chapter being suspended from the campus? Were they aware of that? Because maybe they didn't think that that was a likely outcome, and had they known that maybe they would have made more of a commitment to have a physical presence on campus. So those were some of the things that we talked about. And so if you look through that commitment section that's really what our hope is, is that we can commit to following through with some of these things And by doing that then we're starting to establish that trust with one another and hopefully reaching that ultimate goal of truly collaborating and partnering with one another when we are faced with these types of cases. Jill Creighton: One of the things I hear a lot from student conduct professionals who maybe didn't participate in Greek life on their own campuses as students is that they really struggle with insider baseball language when it comes to investigations or recruitment. For example, what is a rho gamma in this particular organization, or what does it mean to be the head of risk management for this org, etc, etc, or just even things like the basics of the Greek alphabet. So what resources could you point campus based professionals to that maybe need that education in order to understand and contextualize student behavior concerns in fraternity and sorority life? Laura Matthews: Yeah. I agree. We joke that it's the Greek alphabet soup. There's all these different terms and lingo and it's like learning a foreign language. Even when you are familiar with that at every campus there are slight differences in the terminology. So I would always first suggest that the best resource for a campus conduct professional is to go to that person or that team that is advising the council and the chapters on your campus. So that title might be director of Greek life or a fraternity and sorority life advisor or maybe it's a team or an office with multiple staff members, but I would always go to them first because, number one, they're your best resource because some of that lingo is unique to your campus, and if you don't know even the difference ... I know it can be confusing the difference between National Panhellenic Council Versus College Panhellenic Association or Council ... Those terms vary from campus to campus. That's your best resource right there. That's your start. So starting with them. And they most likely already have some resources available to you. So a lot of campuses have a website that actually has sort of a glossary and it's intended for incoming students that are considering going through recruitment, but it's helpful for all of us to look at. So it might be a pamphlet that they have in their office that you can grab a copy of and look through or maybe just looking at the website and perusing through the resources that they have. But that's where I would start. And also they're going to be an important partner for you as well through these cases. And so it's important to set aside the time to developing that relationship with that office or that person as well. So that would be the first resource that I would use. And certainly one of the things that we do talk about throughout this guide is to dedicate some time to educating the other about your process. And so we do suggest in the guide having a phone conversation between the campus conduct professional and the representative from the international organizations, fraternal organization, and to spend that time talking about your process, your language, your lingo. They are just as confused about our conduct process sometimes as we are about the phrases in the language that they're using. And so we talk about stepping them through the conduct process that we're going to be following. And so that's also a great time for them to talk to you about their organization and understanding the language and the terminology that their own members use. And so that's one of the suggestions that we make. There are lots of other resources available. I know through ASCA. I've been a part of a few different webinars and presentations at the conference when we talk about sort of fraternity and sorority conduct 101 and we talk about some of the common terms and phrases and language, and I know that there's information available online as well. But I would encourage keeping your eyes open for some of those resources. I know AFA has lots of information available on their website for free, so recording the webinars. And I'm quite certain that some of that information that you're referring to, Jill, is probably available on there as well. So lots of different resources for our conduct folks to turn to for help. Jill Creighton: And then my last question about the guide specifically is ... I'm not familiar with all of the individuals who contributed and you mentioned that there's representation from a lot of the councils. Does that include NPHC or is this more IFC, NPC focused? Laura Matthews: So yeah, we did have NPHC, MGC representation with some of the input that we received and FEA has representation from members from those councils as well. Unfortunately, those folks weren't able to commit the time to authoring the document but have provided input and suggestions, read over our content, provided some edits, so on and so forth. Jill Creighton: And just to clarify my own alphabet soup there what I was referencing is the IFC or Interfraternity Council really represents most of our traditional fraternities and our National Panhellenic Council typically represents many of our traditional sororities. And then there's the National Panhellenic Council, NPHC, and MGC, Multicultural Greek Council, which are more related to some of our fraternities and sororities that are identity based. For example, our Divine Nine organizations which typically represent black and brown professionals or black and brown students and some of those other organizations that also focused on a particular identity for recruitment. So I was asking because I think it's important that we're looking at it from a social justice lens as well. Laura Matthews: Yep. And it's important because ... So they typically identify themselves as being historically African American. Those are NPHC organizations. And so that's a deeply rooted into the values and the culture of their organizations, and MGC are organizations that are affiliated with the Multicultural Greek Council, that's MGC. It could be considered DGC. Again, like the acronyms might change from one campus to the other. They consider themselves to be culturally based organizations. And so not only are they different in that sense, some of our organizations have foundations that are rooted in that in a particular religion. So that's important to mention as well. So there's so many differences between the histories of these organizations and what the values and beliefs that they were founded upon. But also the leadership structure, Jill. These organizations is vary in many different ways. So that's why we use the phrase inter/national fraternal organization. I know it's a mouthful to say, but that's the most general broad, encompassing phrase we could come up with because not all of these organizations have full time professional staff. They don't all have a headquarters or essential office. Some of these organizations are truly volunteer based. And so that's the other, I think, important thing to keep in mind is we're not looking at the same leadership structure with all of these different organizations or all these different councils. That's something else that varies across the board as well. Jill Creighton: I really appreciate your technical expertise on today's episode because I feel like this is probably one of our most technically heavy episodes we've ever done of the podcast. And I hope that for folks especially who do not work full time in fraternity and sorority life this is helpful for you. But, Laura, we always like to end our episodes by asking our guests what you are currently reading. Laura Matthews: Sadly, I haven't read a whole lot of adult literature lately. As you might know, I had a baby earlier this year. So really the only reading that I've been doing lately is Goodnight Moon and Guess How Much I Love You and books like that. So nothing too exciting I think for the listeners. I will say I picked up, just out of curiosity, what is it called? The, I guess, last book from John McCain's trilogy. I think it's Riding the Wave or something like that. So I'll certainly report back to you once I get around to actually reading that, but it's been sitting on my nightstand for like three months now. So haven't been reading much besides these instant board books. Jill Creighton: Hey, some of our listeners are parents as well. I know one of our guests last year recommended I think Winnie the Pooh or something like that. So we are accepting of all genres of literature on the podcast. Laura Matthews: Yeah. And if anyone's got any books on sleep training babies I would appreciate your suggestions. Jill Creighton: I could hear that mini cry for help there, "Please help me get my baby to sleep more often." And then, Laura, if anyone has questions for you after the show airs how can they get a hold you? Laura Matthews: You can reach me here at Lynn University. My email address is lamatthews. It's important to remember it's LA Matthews, there's a lot of emails floating around in the universe for L Matthews, with two T's and an S @lynn, L-Y-N-N .edu. My office number is 561-237-7215 or you could hit me up on Twitter. I'm sort of a seasonal tweeter. I think my handle is at Laura NC Matthews. Jill Creighton: All right. And if you'd like to reach the podcast you can always find us on twitter at ASCA Podcast that's ASCA P-O-D-C-A-S-T or you can email us at ascapodcast@gmail.com. Thank you so much, Laura, for sharing your viewpoint today. Laura Matthews: Thanks for having me. Jill Creighton: Next time. In two weeks-ish on the ASCA Viewpoints podcast we're going to welcome Kateeka Harris. Kateeka serves as the Title IX coordinator for the Tarrant County College district in Dallas, Texas. Kateeka is also the director for diversity and inclusion on the ASCA board of directors and I'm looking forward to talking with her about her areas of expertise but also the values around DNI in the association. I hope you come back and join us. This episode was produced and hosted by Jill Creighton, that's me, produced, edited, and mixed by Coleen Maeder. Special thanks to New York University's Office of Student Conduct and Community Standards and to the University of Oregon's Dean of Students team for allowing us the time and space to create this project. If you're enjoying the podcast we ask that you please like, rate, and review us on Apple Podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts. It really helps others discover us and helps us become more visible in the general podcasting community. If you have suggestions for future guests or would like to be featured on the podcast yourself please feel free to reach out to us on Twitter at ASCA Podcast or by email at ascapodcast@gmail.com.