Our policy does not require a specific standard.  I have certainly
been involved in conversations where the matter of standard of proof
(preponderance of evidence vs. beyond a reasonable doubt) was discussed.  I
am not a lawyer nor legal expert so can not address the legal definition of
this debate.  However, I was involved one time as a juror for a trial
lasting 8 weeks & still feel uncertain about the truth of the case even
though I feel that the legal process was followed carefully.  Even if you
state in your policy which standard is to be followed, there will often
still be debate over whether or not that standard was followed in making a
decision.  I feel Universities will be sucked into this issue among others
as more cases go to litigation.  I believe we should continue to focus on
trying to determine the truth vs. implementing a process which often fails
to lead to the truth.  We will ultimately end up arguing about the process
and not the facts of the case.  Besides, how can we put in place a process
that carries strong legal meaning and definition while the definition of
misconduct still is contentious?

Terry A. May, Ph.D.                       Voice:    520-523-6788
 Director of Research Administration     FAX:      520-523-1075
 Office of Grant & Contract Services     INTERNET: xxxxxx@nauvax.ucc.nau.edu
 100 Babbitt Admin. Ctr., Box 4130
 Northern Arizona University
  Flagstaff, AZ  86011-4130