Annual Report Academic Year 2025-2026
Year in Review This year, Community Standards received 809 unique reports that resulted in 1552 Cases Accountability Meetings by Type 21 11
Report Breakdown by Type
11
15
11 40
123
100
400 220
391
Educational Conferences
Restorative Conversations
Health and Safetys
Conduct
Amnesty
Administrative Hearings
Academic
Amnesty
Info Only
Bias
Hearing Boards
Highlights and Trends o o o o o o
We had 23 separable level cases. 13 were adjudicated as Hearing Boards, whereas 10 were adjudicated as Administrative Hearings in lieu of a Hearing Board. About 10 resulted in separations, 9 of which were upheld upon appeal. Last year, we had 6 hearing board cases by the same time. The cases were more severe and complex. Last year, we processed 0 expulsions whereas this year we have processed 3. Last year, we processed 0 hazing cases. This year we processed 2. We had an increase in bias cases that resulted in a formal Community Standards process. Last year, we had two cases. This year, we had four cases that were formally processed, including one that went to a hearing board. Our new resolution method, Restorative Conversations, was highly successful. We conducted 100 Restorative Conversations to address low-level, first-time behavioral conduct. Students were highly complementary about the process and its impact. We also streamlined our process for separable level cases. Rather than having a duplicative process with an educational conference step, a hearing board step, and an appeal step, students select whether to have an administrative hearing or hearing board. This process is more efficient and has worked well for students. Our office did significantly more workshops and trainings with campus partners throughout the year, including trainings with student organization advisors, meetings with student organizations, and anti-Hazing trainings and risk mitigation trainings with student athletic teams. Annual Report | Academic Year 2025-2026
Making Meaning of the Accountability Process At the end of the Fall 2025 semester, we sent a survey to all students who had been through a Restorative Conversation or an Educational Conference. While only about 25 students completed the survey, the data presents a look into how students make meaning of the accountability process after they have engaged in it. • 94% of surveyed students felt that the staff member facilitating their meeting took time to explain the student accountability process and policies to them. • 94% of surveyed students agree that in their meeting, they had the opportunity to reflect on the impact their actions and behavior had on others/the community. • 87% of respondents said that the staff member they met with listened to their perspective (even if the ultimate decision was not what they hoped for). • 70% of respondents agreed that the student accountability process was not as bad as they thought it would be. Testimonials from Students After Restorative Conversations or Educational Conferences • “Thank you for providing space to share my perspective. I don’t have any additional feedback beyond appreciating the openness of the conversation.” • “I believe the process was good and helpful. I really wouldn’t change anything.” • “Amazing person, created a very open space to have a conversation with, overall, no notes” • “Feeling understood and allowed to speak honestly and freely.”
We asked what was one key piece of learning that the students experienced due to the student accountability process: • “The conversation with staff member of community helped me better understand my emotions and actions” • “I never used to consider that I would be more likely to make bad decisions if I was in a worse place mentally and physically.” • “It helped me learn from my mistakes and prevented me from repeating them. I also learnt that when under pressure don’t make, think carefully, and don’t make quick decisions that can turn out for the worse later on.” • “I think that I learned more about the responsibility that I have toward myself and my community.” • “I think what I really learned is that Babson isn’t against you, it works with you.” • “I learned that accountability isn’t just about accepting consequences—it’s about recognizing patterns, understanding why something happened, and figuring out how to do better. The process helped me develop clearer strategies to avoid repeating the mistake and to communicate more responsibly in the future.” Students also shared some suggestions for improvement: • Clearer Communication o “Be less intimidating and mysterious when we are called in to talk.” o “I would suggest incorporating a brief summary at the end of the conversation to ensure we both have the same understanding of what was discussed and what the next steps are.” • Faster Turnaround Times o “Faster turnaround times please. I had extreme anxiety during the 2 weeks between my mistake getting the email” Annual Report | Academic Year 2025-2026
Behavioral Conduct in Review 1227 required procedural follow up
1367 Case Files
379 required additional review process
Charges 731 Non-Fire/Health and Safety charges were assessed for behavioral conduct in total. Charges Assessed over 25 Times for Non-Health and Safety Reports Charge Count Charge Alcohol-Possession/Consumption 118 Failure to Comply Damage 90 Drugs-Paraphernalia Disruptive Behavior 81 Drugs-Use/Possession Violations of Published College Policies 66 Endangering Behavior
Count 35 34 34 27
Noteworthy Trends Charges with high recidivism percentages over past 4 years include Noise (15.2%), Damage (10.7%), Disruptive Behavior (7.2%), and Alcohol-Possession/Consumption (6.0%). A High percentage of male students are represented in allegations (65.4% of alleged individuals). The top three locations on campus for reports were McCullough Hall, Park Manor West, and Woodside.
Responsibility Findings
156
228
123
35% of students took responsibility when there were responsibility findings. While this is significantly lower than last year’s near 60% rate of accepting responsibility, we suspect that the new Restorative Conversations process which involves acknowledging responsibility but does not generate reportable responsibility findings makes this difference make sense.
224
Accepted Responsibility
Found Responsible
No Findings (RC or Amnesty)
Not Responsible
When the no findings numbers are added to the data, the accepted responsibility rate jumps to 61%.
Common Behavioral Sanctions o 123 Wellness & Prevention Referrals o 102 Administrative Warnings o 92 Restorative Worksheets o 27 Restitutions o 22 Disciplinary Probations o 5 Suspensions o 3 Expulsions Annual Report | Academic Year 2025-2026
Demographics Classification Case Percentage Count First Year 450 31.5% Sophomore 257 18.0% Junior 267 18.7% Senior 411 28.7% Graduate 45 3.1% Student TOTAL 1430 100%
Academic Conduct in Review In the past academic year, 124 academic reports were processed, generating 160 cases Demographics Classification Case Percentage Count First Year 28 17.5% Sophomore 48 30.0% Junior 31 19.4% Senior 19 11.9% Graduate 34 21.2% Student TOTAL 160 100% High representation of international students (45.6% of alleged individuals)
Academic Report Count by Month 25
22 19
20
18
16 15
13 9
10
10 7 4
5
4
1
1
0
Findings & Outcomes o 317 academic charges were assessed. o 70% of academic charges resulted in responsibility findings. This is down from 85% last year. o 27.9% of responsibility findings were due to students accepting responsibility. This is lower than what we see for behavioral conduct overall but closer to on par with behavioral conduct responsibility findings when we exclude the cases that do not generate reportable findings for behavioral conduct. o 142 academic penalties were processed ( i.e. grade penalties, course failures, or transcript notations). 60 academic penalties were grade reductions rather than assignment or course failures. This reflects work our staff has done with faculty to encourage a learning approach rather than a punitive approach. We have updated our policies to reflect the practices both faculty and staff are looking for when addressing low-level, first-time academic integrity issues.
• • • •
Common Academic Sanctions 125 internal academic integrity seminars assigned 8 external academic integrity seminars assigned 138 status sanctions 0 separations for academic integrity cases
• • • •
Recidivism Over Past 4 Years 14.9% Participating in Academically Dishonest Activities 10.9% Cheating 4.4% Plagiarism 2.2% Fabrication
Annual Report | Academic Year 2025-2026