Jeffrey Lamoureaux

When a university determines that a student has violated its misconduct policies, the investigation may be complete, but an equally important responsibility remains. The institution must decide what consequences are appropriate, considering the seriousness of the conduct, its impact on those involved, and the need to prevent similar incidents.

 

Jeffrey Lamoureaux, owner of CIXE Investigations, is a nationally recognized Title IX and civil rights investigator, hearing officer, and trainer who has conducted more than 1,000 investigations. His experience includes investigating allegations of sexual harassment, sexual assault, discrimination, retaliation, and other institutional misconduct. Through his investigative and training work, Lamoureaux has developed a detailed understanding of how disciplinary decisions affect students, institutions, and campus communities.

 

According to Lamoureaux, one of the most concerning mistakes universities can make is imposing sanctions that do not adequately reflect the seriousness of a substantiated violation.

 

“When a student is found responsible for serious sexual misconduct, the conversation cannot focus exclusively on how a suspension or expulsion might affect that student’s future,” Lamoureaux explains. “The institution also needs to consider what happened to the complainant, the seriousness of the violation, and what an inadequate response could mean for the broader campus community.”

 

Why Sanctioning Requires More Than Choosing a Punishment

 

Universities generally have several disciplinary options available when a student is found responsible for violating institutional policies. Depending on the misconduct and applicable procedures, these may include written reprimands, required counseling, restrictions, probation, suspension, or expulsion.

 

However, Lamoureaux emphasizes that these options are not interchangeable.

 

A student found responsible for making an inappropriate sexual comment presents a different disciplinary situation from someone found responsible for sexual assault involving penetration or a person who was incapacitated and unable to consent.

 

In his professional view, serious sexual assault findings generally warrant substantial disciplinary consequences, potentially including expulsion, depending on the circumstances and applicable institutional policy.

 

“An educational assignment or warning might be appropriate for certain lower-level violations, but I would not consider writing an essay an adequate response to a substantiated sexual assault,” Lamoureaux says. “Institutions need to recognize the difference in severity and make decisions that reflect that difference.”

 

He believes universities must avoid treating sanctioning as a routine administrative step after an investigation. Instead, the decision should involve a careful assessment of the violation and its consequences.

 

Seven Factors That Should Guide Campus Sanctioning Decisions

 

In his professional training materials, Lamoureaux identifies seven considerations that can help institutions evaluate appropriate sanctions.

 

These include the nature and severity of the violation, the circumstances surrounding the conduct, the respondent’s disciplinary history, and the need to stop discrimination, harassment, or retaliation.

 

The framework also considers preventing future misconduct, remedying the effects on the complainant and community, evaluating the impact on the parties, and reviewing other relevant information.

 

Together, these factors encourage decision-makers to examine the full circumstances rather than relying on a predetermined punishment.

 

For example, two cases involving the same general policy violation may differ in severity, surrounding circumstances, or disciplinary history.

 

“Consistency does not necessarily mean giving every student the exact same sanction,” Lamoureaux explains. “It means applying the same decision-making standards and being able to explain why a particular consequence is appropriate based on the facts of that case.”

 

This approach lets institutions consider individual circumstances while maintaining a clear, defensible disciplinary process.

 

The Impact on Complainants Must Be Part of the Discussion

 

One of Lamoureaux’s strongest concerns involves disciplinary conversations that place disproportionate emphasis on the respondent’s future.

 

University administrators may worry that suspension or expulsion could interrupt a student’s education, affect career opportunities, or have lasting personal consequences.

 

Those considerations may be relevant, but Lamoureaux believes they should not overshadow the harm of substantiated misconduct.

 

“The argument that we do not want to ruin a student’s life can become very one-sided,” he says. “What about the student who experienced the misconduct? How has their education been affected? Do they feel comfortable attending classes, participating in campus activities, or remaining at the institution?”

 

He encourages decision-makers to consider the impact on both parties while recognizing that serious misconduct can have lasting consequences for complainants.

 

This is particularly important in cases involving sexual assault, where the effects may extend beyond the immediate incident and influence a student’s educational experience and sense of safety.

 

What National Campus Safety Data Tells Us

 

The seriousness of campus sexual misconduct is reflected in national research.

 

The Association of American Universities’ 2019 Campus Climate Survey found that 25.9% of undergraduate women surveyed reported experiencing nonconsensual sexual contact involving physical force or an inability to consent since enrolling at their university.

 

The survey included responses from more than 181,000 students at 33 participating universities. Although these findings are not representative of every American college, they illustrate the scale of sexual misconduct concerns within higher education.

 

For Lamoureaux, statistics like these reinforce why universities need meaningful processes to investigate allegations and determine appropriate sanctions.

 

An institution’s responsibility should not end with establishing whether misconduct occurred. It must also consider whether its response addresses the violation and helps prevent future harm.

 

Why Inconsistent Sanctions Can Undermine Campus Accountability

 

Lamoureaux also raises concerns about institutions imposing substantially different sanctions for similar misconduct without a clear explanation.

 

Inconsistent decisions can confuse students about institutional expectations and raise questions about whether policies are applied fairly.

 

For example, if one student receives a lengthy suspension for serious misconduct while another receives a relatively minor educational assignment for comparable conduct, the institution should be able to explain the relevant differences.

 

Otherwise, students may question whether disciplinary outcomes depend on factors unrelated to the actual violation.

 

“Universities need to be able to explain their sanctioning decisions,” Lamoureaux says. “If two cases appear similar but the outcomes are dramatically different, there should be legitimate reasons grounded in the evidence, policy, and circumstances.”

 

He recommends that institutions maintain clear sanctioning guidelines, train decision-makers, and document the reasoning behind disciplinary outcomes.

 

Accountability Must Remain Central to the Process

 

Determining sanctions requires professional judgment, consistency, and a careful understanding of institutional responsibilities.

 

Lamoureaux recommends that universities establish clear procedures for reviewing disciplinary factors, consult appropriate institutional officials when policy requires it, and ensure final decisions reflect the seriousness of substantiated misconduct.

 

He also emphasizes that decision-makers must remain impartial and follow applicable procedures rather than letting public pressure, institutional reputation, or personal sympathy determine an outcome.

 

Ultimately, he believes appropriate sanctioning is essential to maintaining confidence in campus accountability.

 

“A university can conduct a thorough investigation and reach a well-supported finding, but the response still matters,” Lamoureaux says. “If the sanction does not adequately address the seriousness of what occurred, the institution risks undermining the purpose of the entire process.”

 

For universities, the challenge is not simply deciding what punishment is available. It is determining what response is fair, proportionate, consistent with policy, and appropriate for the misconduct established through the investigative process.