To protect the welfare of students, staff, and other clients in housing and residence life (HRL), administrators must understand what behaviors are unacceptable. Professionals might make idiosyncratic and unconstrained decisions when there is no conduct code or set of informal rules. Informal rules may become norms comprising normative structures to guide professional actions. Members of ACUHO-I were surveyed to determine whether a normative structure for the administrative role performance of campus HRL professionals exists and, if so, whether there were differences in the level of objection expressed for admonitory norms based on personal and institutional characteristics. Admonitory norms are inappropriate behaviors deserving of less severe sanctions and are the focus of this article. Using principal components factor analysis we identified five admonitory norms: (1) Inattentive Administration, (2) Developmental Disregard, (3) Wielding Unfair Advantage, (4) Misleading Marketing, and (5) Inappropriate Personal Relationships. Regression analyses revealed differences in the level of objection expressed for the admonitory norms by gender, education level, years in the profession, and institutional type; there were no significant differences by race/ethnicity. Implications and recommendations for practice and research are provided. [Discussion questions from "Ethical Principles and Ethical Decisions in Student Affairs" (Kitchener 1985) are included.]