Skip to content Skip to navigation

4.3 Statement on Faculty Discipline

This Statement on Faculty Discipline was approved by the Senate of the Academic Council on December 2, 1999 and by the Board of Trustees on December 14, 1999. It replaces both the Statement on Faculty Discipline approved by the Senate of the Academic Council on May 18, 1972 and by the Board of Trustees on January 9, 1973, and the Rules for the Conduct of Hearings promulgated by the Advisory Board in 1973.

Handbook Pages

(1)  In order to maintain the integrity of its teaching and research and to preserve academic freedom, Stanford University demands high standards of professional conduct from its faculty. In the case of a serious violation of these standards, a faculty member may face disciplinary charges under the following procedures.
(1)  Charges will be brought on behalf of the University by the Provost, following whatever factual investigation he or she deems appropriate. If a conflict of interest prevents the Provost from being involved, the President will act in the Provost’s place. When charges are to be brought against a faculty member, he or she must be notified of the charges in confidence, and given an opportunity to reply.
(1)  At least five weeks prior to the commencement of the Evidentiary Hearing, each party must provide the Hearing Officer and the other party with copies of the exhibits it intends to introduce as evidence and with a list of the witnesses it expects to call, along with a detailed summary of the testimony expected from each witness.  
(1)  After the Hearing Officer has submitted the findings of fact to the Advisory Board, the Board will schedule a Final Hearing. (2)  Each party has the opportunity to file a written brief, not later than one week before the scheduled start of the Final Hearing. This brief may include any or all of the following matters: a.  Challenges to rulings of the Hearing Officer or the Advisory Board, except that a ruling of the Hearing Officer during the Evidentiary Hearing can be challenged only if an objection was recorded at the time;
(1)  The Advisory Board will affirm those of the Hearing Officer’s findings of historical fact that it concludes are supported by substantial evidence, and such findings will thereafter be final and binding upon the President and Board of Trustees. (2)  A finding of professional misconduct requires that a majority of the members of the Advisory Board concludes that the faculty member has committed professional misconduct in the respect or respects charged.
(1)  If the President does not accept the decision of the Advisory Board, he or she will resubmit the case to the Board for reconsideration with a statement of questions or objections. The Board will then reconsider the case in the light of such questions or objections, hold (if necessary) further hearings and receive new evidence, and either render a new decision or state the reasons for its decision to reaffirm its original decision.
(1)  The Advisory Board may delegate to a subcommittee of its members any of its functions except deciding if there should be an Evidentiary Hearing, what material issues of historical fact are in dispute, whether the Hearing Officer’s findings of historical fact are supported by substantial evidence, whether professional misconduct has occurred, and, if so, what sanctions are appropriate.