When Universities Can Still Discipline Students

Many families are shocked to discover that a university can punish students for conduct that takes place miles away from campus. A fight at a bar, an arrest at a music festival, or allegations from a private party can all trigger a university investigation, even if the student is off the clock, off the grounds, and seemingly outside of school authority. For students and parents, this reality is confusing and frightening. The stakes are high: suspension, expulsion, loss of scholarships, and permanent disciplinary records that can derail careers and futures.

Our firm represents students nationwide in university disciplinary matters. In New Jersey and Pennsylvania, we also defend against related criminal charges, providing seamless representation when the university and the courts are both involved. What happens in one system often affects the other. This dual representation can make the difference between protecting a student’s future and living with consequences that last a lifetime.

This article explains how and why universities discipline students for off-campus behavior, the legal frameworks at play, and what students and families can do to protect themselves.

Understanding Off-Campus Jurisdiction

Universities once limited their authority to conduct within dormitories, classrooms, or campus grounds. Today, they claim far broader power. Most modern codes of conduct extend to off-campus behavior that allegedly harms another member of the university community, threatens the reputation of the institution, or violates law in a way the school deems relevant.

Federal law has fueled this expansion. The Clery Act requires schools to report certain crimes occurring near campus. Title IX requires investigations into sexual misconduct that could create a hostile environment for students, even when incidents occur at fraternity houses, bars, or apartments not owned by the school.

The message is clear: universities assert jurisdiction wherever they see a nexus to their community or mission. That means a student’s personal life, social events, private housing, even online interactions,can all become university matters.

New Jersey and Pennsylvania Universities’ Reach

Colleges and universities in New Jersey and Pennsylvania have some of the broadest codes of conduct in the country.

At Rutgers University, jurisdiction extends to conduct occurring off campus that affects the university community. Princeton University investigates off-campus incidents when they create a hostile campus environment or impact the institution’s reputation. Similarly, Rowan University reserves the right to discipline students for off-campus conduct when it adversely affects the community or undermines the university’s mission.

Pennsylvania institutions take an equally broad approach. Penn State University extends its jurisdiction off campus if student behavior threatens health, safety, or the broader university community. Temple University asserts authority over conduct regardless of location when institutional interests or safety are at stake, applying its Good Neighbor Policy to incidents outside campus boundaries. In the same way, Villanova University includes off-campus behavior within its code when it poses a threat to the health, safety, or welfare of the community.

For students in NJ and PA, there is no doubt: off-campus conduct can—and often does—become a university disciplinary case.

The Federal Overlay: Title IX and Off-Campus Conduct

Title IX adds a powerful overlay to university jurisdiction. In 2020, regulations narrowed Title IX’s reach to misconduct in “education programs or activities.” That seemed to exclude purely private, off-campus events. In practice, however, the line is far from clear.

Consider these examples:

• A sexual assault at an off-campus fraternity house remains covered.
• Misconduct during a study abroad program is covered.
• Allegations from a large off-campus party attended by many students may still trigger jurisdiction.

The Biden administration’s 2024 updates signaled broader interpretations of Title IX coverage, expanding institutional responsibility. Universities, fearful of liability, often err on the side of inclusion rather than exclusion. For accused students, this means that location is rarely a defense. What matters is whether the university can argue a connection to its community or programs.

Common Off-Campus Scenarios Leading to Discipline

University codes of conduct frequently cover:

• Criminal arrests. A student charged with DWI in New Jersey or drug possession in Pennsylvania may face university hearings long before their court case concludes.
• Sexual misconduct allegations. Off-campus parties, apartments, or trips are frequent sources of Title IX complaints.
• Hazing and Greek life incidents. These often occur in private houses off-campus but remain subject to university enforcement.
• Social media and online misconduct. Posts or private messages created from home can trigger discipline.
• Academic integrity. Take-home exams or plagiarism using personal devices count as off-campus but remain within jurisdiction.

The speed and scope of these proceedings often leave families blindsided.

Legal and Procedural Risks for Students

When off-campus conduct leads to university discipline, accused students face an unusually dangerous mix of risks.

First, there are often parallel proceedings. A student may be investigated criminally while simultaneously facing a university hearing. Statements in one process can harm the other. Second, the standard of proof is far lower at universities. Most use a “preponderance of the evidence” standard, meaning administrators need only believe an allegation is slightly more likely true than not. Criminal court requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Third, accused students encounter limited due process. Rights to cross-examination, discovery, or legal representation are often curtailed. And finally, universities have broad discretion. Phrases like “conduct affecting the university community” give administrators sweeping authority with little accountability.

For families, this means even a minor off-campus allegation can escalate into a career-altering case.

Defending Against Off-Campus Allegations

Effective defense depends on challenging the university’s assumptions and procedures. Families should:

• Examine the code of conduct to determine if the school has exceeded its jurisdiction.
• Challenge jurisdiction when conduct is remote or unrelated to institutional mission.
• Demand fairness and hold schools accountable to their written procedures.
• Coordinate university defense with any criminal defense to avoid self-incrimination.

In New Jersey and Pennsylvania, we provide both criminal and disciplinary defense under one strategy. Nationally, we represent students in disciplinary hearings across the country while coordinating with local criminal counsel as needed. This integrated approach is critical for protecting both the immediate case and the student’s long-term future.

Case Examples and Precedent

Courts have reached different conclusions when it comes to a university’s ability to address off-campus conduct. In Brown v. State of Arizona (9th Cir. 2023), the court allowed a Title IX claim to proceed after a University of Arizona football player assaulted another student at an off-campus house, holding that the university’s authority over its athletes and prior knowledge of risk created a sufficient connection to campus life. Similarly, in Farmer & Weckhorst v. Kansas State University (10th Cir. 2019), the court rejected the university’s categorical refusal to investigate fraternity-house assaults, ruling that misconduct at off-campus fraternity events could still fall within Title IX when it affected a student’s ability to access educational opportunities. Earlier, in Simpson v. University of Colorado Boulder (10th Cir. 2007), the court held that assaults connected to an official football recruiting program—even though they occurred off campus—could support liability under Title IX.

Other courts have drawn clearer limits. In Yeasin v. University of Kansas (Kan. Ct. App. 2015), the court overturned discipline imposed for off-campus, online conduct because the university’s code at the time did not authorize jurisdiction beyond campus boundaries. Likewise, in Roe v. St. Louis University (8th Cir. 2014), the court found no Title IX liability where a sexual assault occurred at an off-campus apartment, reasoning that the university did not have control over the location. At the same time, courts have sometimes upheld discipline for off-campus behavior when codes or professional standards clearly applied. In Tatro v. University of Minnesota (Minn. 2012), for example, discipline for off-campus social media posts by a mortuary-science student was upheld because the conduct violated professional program rules.

Taken together, these cases show that courts generally give universities wide latitude when off-campus conduct is closely tied to the institution’s programs, student organizations, or safety concerns. But where the connection is more remote, or where a university’s code does not clearly extend beyond campus, courts have been more reluctant to uphold jurisdiction.

Why Families Should Take These Cases Seriously

Parents sometimes dismiss university hearings as internal matters with limited impact. That is a mistake. Off-campus allegations can cost students scholarships, housing, and enrollment. They can lead to disciplinary notations on transcripts, making graduate school admission difficult. They can jeopardize professional licensing in fields such as law, medicine, or teaching. And they can follow students into employment background checks.

Because universities move faster than criminal courts, families must respond quickly. The disciplinary process often unfolds within weeks, not months.

We represent students nationwide in disciplinary hearings, with special focus on cases involving off-campus conduct. In New Jersey and Pennsylvania, we also defend against parallel criminal charges. We:

• Handle university hearings from investigation to appeal.
• Coordinate with criminal defense in NJ and PA.
• Anticipate and challenge jurisdictional overreach.
• Protect students’ long-term educational and professional futures.

Our boutique litigation focus means we are not a volume practice. We take on the cases where the stakes are highest, bringing the experience and resources necessary to stand up to universities and protect families.

If your student is facing allegations related to off-campus conduct, contact us today. Early and strategic defense can be the difference between dismissal and expulsion, between a clean record and a lifelong stain.

Universities increasingly claim the right to discipline students for off-campus behavior. Federal law, state law, and expansive codes of conduct combine to create a high-stakes environment where families often feel overwhelmed. The risks are real—but so are the defenses.

Our firm defends students nationwide in university disciplinary cases. In New Jersey and Pennsylvania, we also provide integrated defense in criminal court. We know the systems, we know the law, and we fight to protect both your student’s rights and their future.

Contact us today to schedule a confidential consultation and take the first step toward safeguarding your student’s future.

 

Unfair School Discipline in New Jersey? Know Your Legal Rights