journal_vol49no3 - 76

instead posits that specific personality traits- " commitment, control, and challenge "
(the 3Cs; Maddi, 2006, p. 160)-can be learned. Also related to resilience, hardiness
provides the " courage and motivation " (Maddi, 2006, p. 161) for people to engage in
healthy, problem-focused coping processes and allows them to appraise an event as
less stressful. It is of note that control, the understanding that one can have influence
over various aspects of life by means of exercising creativity, imagination, choice, and
knowledge, has been cited as a key factor in women's stress levels (Grönlund, 2007).
Dual Role Housing/Conduct Staff and the Possibilities of Critogenic Harm
Conduct and Community is an extensive, curated work on the intersections of managing
student residential behavior, staff preparedness, and conflict resolution (Hudson
et al., 2018). Within this book, Nestor and Lowery (2018) allude to the fact that incidents
within residence halls require " minimal procedural due process " (p. 65) because
their outcomes are not likely to impact a student's enrollment status. These cases,
which may include matters like burning candles or moving furniture out of common
areas, typically result in minor sanctions (e.g., reflection paper, apology letter, written
warning) and therefore may be less stressful for residence hall staff to adjudicate. Certainly,
the type of disciplinary cases that dual role housing/conduct staff adjudicate
varies from institution to institution, which could generate more exposure to critogenic
harms for some of these staff than others. It may also be that, because such cases
are typically less formal, residence life staff receive less training on student conduct
adjudication; these cases typically result in sanctions that are educational in nature
and not likely to result in a contested finding, thereby lessening the chance for attorney
involvement and the possibility of litigation or critogenic harms.
Because residence hall staff, who typically live among their students, are responsible
for building community, they should be the institution's designees to respond
to such behavior as described above with educational, holistic strategies (Meyer &
Redington, 2018). And since conduct adjudication is only a portion of their job portfolio,
more egregious and disruptive behavior can be investigated by full-time conduct
officers. But despite outcomes that are rarely argued, it is still possible that legal
matters arising within student living communities could involve residential conduct
staff, thereby generating the potential for critogenic harm. One such example could
be a student who contests their removal from a residential community, arguing that
such a sanction is a violation of their housing contract with the institution. Most guidance
for residential staff who adjudicate allegations of misconduct, such as how to
avoid lawsuits (Bryant et al., 2018), does not discuss how such attention to detail and
focus on providing due process can impact residence life staff with dual role housing/
conduct responsibilities.
The opportunities to engage students in conversation to promote moral
and ethical development have been overwhelmed by the responsibility
to strictly adhere to written policies and procedures.
Volume 49, No. 3 * 2023 73

journal_vol49no3

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of journal_vol49no3