Student involvement in disciplinary adjudication is advocated in two of the primary sources guiding judicial affairs practice (the Council for the Advancement of Standards' "Guidelines for Student Conduct Programs" as well as Stoner and Lowery's "Model Student Conduct Code"); however, previous studies examining campus conduct systems have failed to specifically focus on student involvement when resolving collegiate misconduct infractions. This study sought to fill in critical gaps by examining student involvement in the adjudication of misconduct infractions at American four-year colleges and universities at a new level of detail. Using a Web-based survey instrument designed by the researcher, the Survey of Student Disciplinary Adjudicators (SSDA), this study gathered data from one judicial affairs administrator at 656 individual American four-year institutions of higher education represented in the membership database of the Association for Student Judicial Affairs (ASJA). Potential participants were contacted directly by the ASJA central office, and their involvement was both voluntary and anonymous; the total response rate was 45.3%. The SSDA asked respondents to answer six identical questions dealing with the extent of student involvement, the percentage of cases resolved by a process involving students, and the composition of disciplinary hearing boards for each of the four infractions examined in this study (underage possession of alcohol occurring in campus residence halls, underage possession of alcohol not occurring in campus residence halls, sexual assault, and academic dishonesty). This study revealed that student involvement in the administration of collegiate disciplinary issues is more symbolic than substantive. Although processes for student involvement in disciplinary matters existed at nearly half of the responding institutions, students had little decision-making authority in misconduct issues, and only a low percentage of total disciplinary cases were resolved by a process involving students. An examination of student involvement within elective systems demonstrated that, in situations where there is a choice between having a disciplinary case resolved by either administrators or peer-review hearing boards, the vast majority of cases were adjudicated administratively. Significant differences in campus adjudicative processes were found based on the type and severity of the infraction being resolved. Findings from this study showed that institutional control and campus enrollment levels had little impact on student involvement in disciplinary administration. Finally, by comparing the present results with the few similar data points available in previous studies, this study did not reveal any dramatic shifts in disciplinary practice over the past 30 years. Conclusions, recommendations for practice, and suggestions for future research were made based on this study's findings. [The dissertation citations contained here are published with the permission of ProQuest LLC. Further reproduction is prohibited without permission. Copies of dissertations may be obtained by Telephone (800) 1-800-521-0600. Web page: http://www.proquest.com/en-US/products/dissertations/individuals.shtml.]