UC San Diego announced the implementation of new interim policies from the University of California Office of the President regarding student conduct and discipline in an email sent by the vice chancellor for student affairs and campus life to students on Dec. 23. Any policy violation reported to a campus’ Office of Student Conduct on or after Thursday, Jan. 1, will be subject to the updated policy, regardless of when the violation occurred. UCOP has not issued any statements relating to these policy changes. 

PACAOS, which stands for Policies Applying to Campus Activities, Organizations, and Students, articulates regulations regarding hazing procedures, student organization conduct, and expressive activity relating to time, place, and manner. 

Prior to the policy changes, students had to either accept or deny responsibility for a violation. Now, a student conduct administrator will determine whether a student is responsible for conduct violations. The final authority for administration of student discipline rests with the chancellor.

The updated policy is known as PACAOS 100.00. A new amendment, Appendix H: Student Conduct Investigation and Resolution Framework, establishes several frameworks for investigating alleged conduct violations. Under Appendix H, a campus’ student conduct office must approach student conduct violations with one of three resolution pathways. 

Student conduct administrators select which pathway to use on a case-by-case basis. The first resolution pathway — closure of the student conduct violation — is used when the administrator finds that a student is not responsible for a violation or that no violation occurred. 

The second resolution option is called an administrative resolution. If a student conduct administrator determines a student has violated a policy and the student does not appeal the decision, the punishment determined by the administrator is final. Students are given the option to submit a written appeal within 10 days of receiving the administrative resolution, in which case the outcome may be reviewed by an appeal body before the review office issues a final decision. 

The third resolution pathway is called an alternative resolution. Student conduct administrators can offer an alternative resolution for a conduct violation, and if the student accepts responsibility for the violation or does not dispute the violation, the student may not be required to attend a hearing. Examples of alternative resolutions listed in the amendment include educational agreements, mediated dialogue, and restorative justice. 

According to Appendix H, the only students who will have access to a formal hearing for their student conduct violations are those facing suspension or dismissal. This new process is called a student conduct review. Previously, any student who contested the findings of their initial administrative conduct review was given a formal hearing, regardless of their punishment. The process has been changed to allow only a written appeal in all cases unless the student faces suspension or dismissal.

The changes outlined in Appendix H also include defined timelines for assessing violations, investigations, and resolutions of violations. Appendix H states that the Office of Student Conduct must determine the legitimacy of the alleged student conduct violation within 30 business days of the conduct violation report. 

The UC has previously used PACAOS to handle sanctions against students involved in protests, especially those at the Gaza Solidarity Encampments across the university system in Spring 2024. 

Varying from campus to campus, students have been subject to seemingly arbitrary charges, sanctions, and hearing processes — with some lasting over a year from the report date. At UCSD, for example, all students except one were found guilty and issued identical sanctions despite each being accused of different sets of violations.

The UCSD Guardian spoke to San Diego-based human rights attorney, Annie Rios, who defended 58 student protestors arrested at UCSD, on the possible motivations behind the policy change. 

“Everything that UCSD is doing is to stifle student dissent, especially when you have students that are at risk of losing a scholarship, their job, et cetera,” Rios said. 

For all amendments to systemwide policies, the UC president must consult with chancellors, vice presidents, the Office of the General Counsel, and a universitywide advisory committee. University chancellors must also consult with students, faculty, and staff to discuss the amendment under review.

The last time UCOP revised the Student Conduct Investigation and Resolution Framework was in September 2025.