The Hidden Curriculum in New Jersey Campus Discipline
In July 2025, Inside Higher Ed published an article on the so-called “hidden curriculum” of student conduct proceedings. The piece revealed what attorneys working with students in New Jersey already know: most undergraduates and graduate students facing disciplinary charges arrive at their hearings unprepared, uninformed, and entirely unaware of how much is at stake.
What begins as an allegation of plagiarism, a violation of a residence hall policy, or an accusation under Title IX quickly escalates into a formal proceeding that resembles a trial more than an academic conversation. The outcomes are severe—expulsion, permanent transcript notations, suspension of scholarships, loss of immigration status, and, for professional students, possible exclusion from licensing.
This article expands on that national discussion and places it in the context of New Jersey colleges and universities. It explores how the hidden curriculum of campus discipline operates, why it matters legally, and why students who appear without counsel take risks that can alter the trajectory of their lives.
The phrase “hidden curriculum” originated in educational sociology to describe the unspoken lessons students learn outside of formal teaching. In disciplinary settings, it refers to the opaque rules and procedural traps that students are expected to master instinctively, despite having no legal training.
Take, for instance, the case of a first-year college student who admitted during a meeting with his professor that he had “forgotten quotation marks” on a term paper. Believing he was demonstrating honesty, he expected leniency. Instead, the admission was sent to the Office of Student Conduct, where it became the foundation of a formal charge of academic dishonesty. By the time his family contacted an attorney, the student faced the possibility of a permanent transcript notation that could bar admission to graduate school. What he did not realize is that in the disciplinary context, even casual statements of fault are treated as binding admissions.
Another aspect of the hidden curriculum is the use of rigid and unforgiving deadlines. At some Ivy League schools, appeals are often due within five business days. Students assume they have weeks to decide, only to discover they are barred from review before they even meet with an advisor. The terminology of “informal resolution” or “alternative resolution” creates similar pitfalls. Students frequently believe such resolutions are non-binding conversations. In fact, they are often final dispositions that close off appeals entirely.
The hidden curriculum also takes the form of role confusion. Administrators frequently act simultaneously as investigators, adjudicators, and sanctioning authorities. Students experience these meetings as conversations with mentors or advisors, unaware that they are essentially testifying in front of a judge and prosecutor rolled into one.
Title IX Sexual Misconduct
No area demonstrates the stakes of campus discipline more clearly than Title IX proceedings. Title IX, codified at 20 U.S.C. § 1681 and implemented through the federal regulations at 34 C.F.R. Part 106, requires schools to investigate and resolve sexual misconduct allegations. Institutions often remind students that these processes are “educational, not legal.” Yet federal courts, including those in New Jersey, recognize their legal significance.
In Doe v. Univ. of the Sciences, 961 F.3d 203 (3d Cir. 2020), the Third Circuit held that even private universities may be bound by standards of fairness in disciplinary hearings. Similarly, in Doe v. Princeton Univ., No. 19-3762 (3d Cir. 2020), the court examined whether Princeton’s Title IX process met fundamental fairness obligations. These cases illustrate that when a student faces suspension or expulsion, the matter is not an academic exercise but a legally enforceable process.
The hidden curriculum is especially dangerous here. A Princeton junior accused of misconduct after an off-campus party initially assumed the school lacked jurisdiction. She later learned that Title IX extends to off-campus conduct that creates an educational impact. Because she participated in interviews without representation, her statements became decisive evidence against her. What she saw as cooperation was, in legal reality, a surrender of defense.
Academic Dishonesty
Accusations of plagiarism or cheating make up the largest share of disciplinary cases in New Jersey. While many assume these cases involve blatant dishonesty, the reality is often more complicated.
At California university, a student who used artificial intelligence software to generate brainstorming prompts for an outline was accused of “unauthorized assistance.” To the student, this felt like using a modern version of a thesaurus. To administrators, it was a violation severe enough to warrant suspension. At Western Pennsylvania school, a student who misapplied a citation format found herself facing charges of plagiarism. What she regarded as a formatting mistake was treated as evidence of dishonesty.
These scenarios illustrate how negligence and dishonesty are often blurred in practice. Without legal counsel to frame the facts, students face sanctions out of proportion to their intent. A clear explanation that distinguishes carelessness from calculated cheating can mean the difference between a warning and an expulsion.
Code of Conduct Violations
Many students underestimate the seriousness of non-academic code of conduct violations. A dormitory altercation after a football game may feel like a personal dispute. Yet at a Northern Texas university, one sophomore discovered that the incident resulted in disciplinary probation and a record that had to be disclosed when applying for internships. Another student accumulated several alcohol-related violations that individually seemed minor but collectively resulted in suspension.
Group misconduct presents another hidden trap. Hazing investigations in New Jersey fraternities and athletic programs often sanction all members of a group, regardless of their level of participation. A student who merely witnessed an initiation event, believing he had no obligation to intervene, was sanctioned alongside organizers. The unspoken rule is that silence can be interpreted as complicity. Students who do not understand this reality are blindsided when they find themselves facing punishment for the actions of others.
Professional Program Misconduct
The consequences grow even more serious for students enrolled in professional programs such as law, medicine, or nursing. In these programs, disciplinary findings are not confined to the university. They are reported to licensing authorities and can foreclose entire careers.
A nursing student who was accused of cheating during an exam faced not only university sanctions but also the possibility of being reported to the New Jersey Board of Nursing. Under N.J.A.C. 13:37-1.8, the Board evaluates the moral character of applicants, and a disciplinary record of dishonesty can result in denial of licensure. The student quickly realized that without representation, the risk was not suspension but the permanent inability to practice nursing.
The Legal Framework
Colleges may prefer to portray disciplinary hearings as informal educational conversations, but the law treats them as binding processes subject to constitutional and contractual oversight.
Federal regulations provide the baseline. The Title IX regulations guarantee equitable grievance procedures. The Clery Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1092(f), imposes obligations for reporting and transparency. The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act governs the disclosure of disciplinary records. Together, these statutes create a legal framework far more demanding than the “educational” label suggests.
Judicial precedent reinforces this point. In Doe v. Univ. of the Sciences, the Third Circuit made clear that contractual fairness applies to private institutions. In Doe v. Princeton Univ., the same court examined whether disciplinary procedures met obligations of fundamental fairness.
New Jersey case law has long recognized that students may enforce the promises contained in their university’s disciplinary codes. When those codes guarantee fairness, consistency, or the right to appeal, courts have treated them as binding contracts. This means students in New Jersey are not at the mercy of administrators alone; the law provides enforceable rights.
Why Students Lose Without Counsel
The most common reason students lose disciplinary cases is not the strength of the evidence but the failure to navigate procedure. Missing an appeal deadline, sometimes as short as five business days, can permanently close off review. Signing an informal resolution agreement without realizing its finality can lock a student into sanctions with no opportunity to contest them. Making seemingly harmless statements to administrators can create a record that becomes the backbone of a disciplinary finding.
One student accused under Title IX agreed to an “informal resolution” after being told it would allow everyone to “move forward.” Months later, when applying to graduate programs, he learned that the resolution was reported as a finding of responsibility. Because the agreement was binding, he had no right to appeal. What he thought was a compromise was, in fact, a permanent sanction.
Universities often limit the role of attorneys in these proceedings, allowing counsel to be present but not to speak. This structure leaves students advocating for themselves against administrators trained in procedure and policy. Without an attorney to prepare them, coach them, and preserve issues for appeal, students are simply outmatched.
The Stakes
The costs of mishandling a disciplinary case are profound. Expulsion ends an academic career abruptly. Transcript notations can shadow applications for graduate school and employment for decades. For professional students, disciplinary findings can bar licensure. For international students, a suspension may result in the automatic loss of visa status, forcing them to leave the country.
Even financial aid is jeopardized. State programs such as NJ STARS require students to maintain eligibility standards. A disciplinary suspension can render a student permanently ineligible, leaving families to bear the full cost of tuition or abandon higher education plans altogether.
The hidden curriculum is not simply about navigating a university bureaucracy. It is about preserving a student’s future.
How Counsel Levels the Playing Field
Attorneys experienced in student discipline defense translate the hidden curriculum into clear strategy. They ensure universities follow their own rules, identify violations of federal law, and preserve arguments for appeal. They negotiate outcomes that minimize long-term damage, such as avoiding transcript notations or reframing allegations in ways that do not threaten professional licensing.
For example, a sophomore accused of plagiarism for poor citation faced expulsion until counsel demonstrated that the conduct was negligence rather than dishonesty. The penalty was reduced to a warning, and his transcript remained intact. Another student accused of cheating risked being reported to the Board of Nursing. Counsel negotiated a confidential resolution that preserved licensure eligibility.
These accounts show how outcomes can be transformed when students have professional advocacy.
What This Means for You
The hidden curriculum of student discipline in New Jersey is not a theoretical concept. It is a lived reality that determines whether students graduate, whether they are admitted to professional schools, and whether they may pursue the careers for which they have trained.
Students who enter disciplinary hearings unrepresented risk their education, their careers, and their futures. They are held to rules they were never taught, governed by deadlines they do not understand, and judged by administrators who hold multiple roles in the process. The law provides protections, but those protections are only effective when asserted by skilled counsel.
If you or your student is facing disciplinary action—whether under Title IX, for academic misconduct, or for a code of conduct violation—do not wait until it is too late. Contact our firm today for immediate guidance. An informed and strategic defense is the best safeguard for a student’s future.
Unfair School Discipline in New Jersey? Know Your Legal Rights