Washington State University Proposes Permanent Revisions to Student Conduct Code

Washington State University (WSU) is moving forward with proposed permanent revisions to Chapter 504-26 of the Washington Administrative Code (WAC), which governs the Standards of Conduct for Students. The proposal was presented during a public hearing held on February 12, 2026, at 4:00 p.m. via Zoom. The proposed changes were filed under WSR 26-02-073 with the Washington State Register and are expected to be adopted by April 20, 2026, under statutory authority granted by RCW 28B.30.150.

University officials stated that the revisions are intended to clarify procedures, update definitions, broaden participation in hearing boards, and align university policy with state law requirements.

Academic Integrity and Community Standards Board

One of the most significant structural changes replaces references to the “academic integrity hearing board” with the “community standards board.” Under the proposal, the written decision of the community standards board would become the university’s final order, rather than stating that there is no additional appeal beyond the academic integrity board.

The board now has specific authority to:

• Affirm, reverse, or modify an instructor’s academic sanction.
• Reverse a sanction if the respondent is found not responsible.
• Modify a sanction if it exceeds what is outlined in the instructor’s published syllabus or course policies.
• Assign remedies, including evaluating an assignment as if no academic violation occurred or changing a grade.

Decision letters must be issued within 30 calendar days of the hearing, unless an extension up to 90 calendar days is provided in writing. Letters are sent to the respondent, instructor, chair, and/or dean and must include the outcome, remedies, and notice that judicial review may be available.

Appeals Process Revisions

The amendments significantly detail the appeals process under WAC 504-26-420.

A conduct decision becomes final on the 21st calendar day after it is sent to the parties unless an appeal is filed within 20 calendar days. Except in extraordinary circumstances explained in writing, sanctions are stayed while an appeal is pending.

For brief adjudications, appeals are limited to review of the record and may address:

• Whether procedures were followed fairly.
• Whether the decision was supported by a preponderance of the evidence, meaning more likely than not that the violation occurred.
• Whether sanctions were appropriate.
• Whether new information exists that was not known at the time of the hearing.
• Whether the university had jurisdiction.
• Whether there was bias or conflict of interest affecting the outcome.

For full adjudicative proceedings, the appeals board must make a separate and independent decision and personally review the entire record while giving due regard to the presiding officer’s opportunity to observe witnesses.

The appeals board may affirm, reverse, or modify findings and sanctions. If procedural or policy compliance issues negatively impacted the outcome, the board may remand the case for a new hearing of the same type. When remanded, the original decision is vacated.

Appeals decisions must be sent within 20 days for brief proceedings and 30 days for full proceedings, unless an extension of up to 90 days is issued in writing. The appeals board decision becomes the university’s final order unless remanded.

Parties may request reconsideration within 10 calendar days of a final order, but such requests do not automatically stay the order’s effective date.

Sanctioning Guidelines and Expanded Factors

Under WAC 504-26-425, the university must publish sanctioning guidelines on its website in plain language. These guidelines must explain the types of sanctions students may face and the factors used to determine them.

Required sanctioning factors now include:

• Conduct record and prior violations.
• Malicious intent, particularly if a respondent intentionally selected a complainant based on protected characteristics such as race, religion, gender identity, disability, or veteran status. Such intent is considered an aggravating factor.
• Impact on the complainant or university community.
• Applicable local, state, or federal laws.

The list of available sanctions remains extensive and includes warnings, probation, loss of privileges, restitution, education requirements, community service (up to 80 hours), housing suspension or expulsion, university suspension or expulsion, revocation of admission or degree, withholding of degree, trespass orders, loss of student organization recognition, transcript or registration holds, no-contact directives, fines, and additional sanctions for hazing.

In hazing cases, individuals found responsible must forfeit eligibility for state-funded grants or scholarships for a specified period, and organizations found responsible must lose recognition.

Good Faith Exemptions

The proposal would retire the Good Samaritan policy “Good Faith Exemptions” under WAC 504-26-510, expanding and clarifying when Community Standards and Conduct Services (CCS) may elect not to initiate disciplinary proceedings.

Under the updated language, CCS may choose not to pursue conduct action for alcohol or drug violations against a student or registered student organization when that student is in the process of helping another person seek medical assistance. This exemption applies only if the unlawful possession or use of alcohol or drugs was for personal consumption and did not place the health or safety of any other person at risk. The rule specifies that CCS has discretion in these situations, meaning the exemption is not automatic but may be granted when the conditions are met.

The exemption also extends to complainants who admit to alcohol or drug possession or use in connection with a report made under this policy. This provision ensures that individuals reporting an incident will not automatically face conduct charges solely for personal substance use disclosed in the course of making the report.

In addition, the revisions address hazing. A person who witnesses hazing or has reasonable cause to believe hazing has occurred or will occur and makes a report in good faith may not be sanctioned or punished for hazing violations. However, the protection does not apply to individuals who were directly engaged in planning, directing, or carrying out the hazing activity. This distinction is explicitly stated in the rule and limits immunity to those acting as reporters rather than participants.

Together, these provisions are designed to encourage students to seek medical help in emergencies and report hazing without fear of automatic disciplinary consequences, while maintaining accountability for those who actively participate in misconduct.

Administrative Authority and Interpretation

Under WAC 504-26-504, amendments would grant the dean of students or designee is granted authority to interpret the Standards of Conduct and to develop policies, procedures, and guidelines necessary for administering the university’s student conduct system.

The rule specifies that these policies, procedures, and guidelines must be consistent with the provisions in Chapter 504-26 and must be published, at a minimum, on the university website. Additionally, during a party’s initial contact with Community Standards and Conduct Services (CCS), a link to the website containing these materials must be provided. This requirement formalizes how students are informed about applicable procedures and ensures public access to governing documents.

The amendments also state that definitions from the Standards of Conduct chapter are incorporated into university policy UPPM 10.60. By incorporating these definitions into the University Policy and Procedures Manual (UPPM), the university aligns administrative policies with the formal conduct code language, creating consistency across institutional documents.