Non-academic misconduct: up in numbers, down in seriousness

Though not every drunken disturbance in the Union or possession of illegal substances makes it to the ears of administration, the University of St Andrews likes to take note of instances of non-academic misconduct (after all, who hasn’t received an academic alert at some point..? Right..?), and the information doesn’t disappear. The Stand submitted an FOI request and here’s what we found out:

In the month of September 2012 alone, the University recorded 51 instances of non-academic misconduct. In the same month of 2011, there were 21 occasions of non-academic misconduct. THIRTY more no-gooders in 2012. Why the increase?

The University categorises non-academic misconduct into three categories:

1) ‘Health and Safety’

2) ‘Antisocial behaviour’ and

3) ‘Other misconduct’ (vague).

According to a Freedom of Information report issued by the University, ‘Health and Safety’ is defined as the ‘possession of any item using or requiring a naked flame, possession of any item considered a Health and Safety risk, significant evidence of smoking in residence, failure to comply with Fire Safety evacuation, [and] Other’.

In 2011, there were 16 instances of Health and Safety misconduct in September, whereas there were 43 in the same month of 2012. The University attributes this discrepancy to the fact that orientation week began 10 days earlier in 2012 than in 2011. Apparently, the change in the academic calendar meant that health and safety inspections occurred in September rather than in October. Or maybe people were so angry and distraught about their summer being cut short, they took up smoking indoors. Who knows?

According to the report, students are most likely to make non-academic violations for failure to follow health and safety regulations. This typically takes the form of possessing a banned item, which is confiscated on the first offense. Noise complaints, smoking in a room and covering fire detectors are repeat offenders – you know who you are…

One current 2nd year student (who wishes to avoid non-academic punishment, so will remain anonymous) was a smoke-detector-coverer, in-room smoker in Sallies last year. When we asked her how she felt about her actions now she said, ‘aaah, the good ol’ days.’

The report describes antisocial behaviour as, ‘Causing a disturbance/inappropriate behaviour, obstruction of, or interference with duties of staff, [and] excessive noise.’ Other misconduct includes ‘any behaviour that causes significant concern, breaking the law, [and] inappropriate communication (email)’. Unfortunately, we are unable to confirm whether ‘inappropriate communication’ includes sexting. Be careful.

Antisocial behaviour also rose in the month of September, from 3 to 7 counts. ‘Other misconduct’ (whatever that entails) declined ever so slightly—from 2 instances in September 2011 to 1 in September 2012.

The evidence might point toward a growing number of potential criminals roaming around the streets of St Andrews, right? Not according to the University.

‘It is also worth noting that in the majority of instances of the non-academic misconduct reported in [the data], only a small proportion required formal disciplinary procedures to be carried out—9 formal cases in 2011 compared to 2 formal cases in 2012. This supports the University’s view that there were less serious cases of non-academic misconduct [in 2012] than in [2011]’. Punishments for non-academic misconduct include banning, confiscation, a fine of £50, requirement to write a letter of apology, suspension from studies, a warning and ‘none’.

In September 2012, 81% of sanctions imposed were confiscations, all of which can be attributed to Health and Safety violations. This came as a 55% increase over the year before. 15% of cases were unsanctified in September 2012, whereas 30% were in 2011.

All graphs contributed by Devin Henderson

There was only one suspension from studies, which occurred in September 2011. Also in 2011, there were seven £50 fines, two requirements to write a letter of apology, and one ban. Naughty…  But none of these sanctions were imposed in September 2012, and the remaining 3% of sanctions took the form of a ‘warning’.

If the punishments are any measurement of the severity of the instances of academic misconduct, then September 2012 can be considered a more harmless month than the year before. Goody-two-shoes, rejoice. Or perhaps the university is going soft.

Headline Image courtesy of The Daily Mail