John Brown University Student Defense Lawyer
John Brown University students who contact me are often responding to a charge that rests on the community covenant rather than on anything academic. JBU is a private, interdenominational Christian university in Siloam Springs, founded in 1919, and while it does not require students to sign a statement of faith, it does require every student to commit to a community covenant — the undergraduate covenant for traditional students, and separate expectations for graduate and online students. That document is the source of much of the University’s disciplinary authority, and it is also, in a real sense, the source of the University’s obligations, because a private school is measured against what it published.
Overview
JBU is private, so there is no Fourteenth Amendment due-process claim available against it. Arguing one wastes the appeal. The relationship is contractual: the community covenant, the student handbook, the catalog, and the academic standing policies are the promise, and the question is whether the University kept it. That framework is developed on my breach of contract against universities page. A covenant can be broad in what it asks and still be enforceable only through the procedure the school committed to follow.
Federal law applies regardless. Title IX reaches sexual-misconduct proceedings at any school taking federal funds, Section 504 and the ADA govern accommodations, and FERPA gives you the right to inspect most of what sits in your education record. Those obligations do not turn on public or private status, and they do not evaporate because a policy has religious roots.
The academic-deference principle carries over in substance too. Courts have long declined to second-guess genuine academic evaluation, and Board of Curators of the University of Missouri v. Horowitz, 435 U.S. 78 (1978), and Regents of the University of Michigan v. Ewing, 474 U.S. 214 (1985), remain the reference points. A separation described as an academic decision is harder to unwind than the same separation described as discipline.
Where JBU cases come from
Three streams dominate. The first is academic integrity — similarity and AI-detection referrals from courses with online components, and collaboration disputes where the syllabus rule was unstated. The second is the covenant and community-life side: allegations about conduct that a public university could not reach at all, including behavior off campus and outside the semester, decided under the covenant’s own procedures. The third is academic standing and program progression, including in JBU’s graduate and online programs, where students are frequently working adults and a standing decision can carry employment consequences.
The covenant cases are where students most often misjudge the risk. Because the standard feels moral rather than legal, students assume the process will be informal and forgiving, and they walk into the first meeting intending to be candid and contrite. That meeting is where the record is made, and candor about matters not in the report frequently expands the case. The right posture is not resentment about the covenant; it is precision — what the covenant actually says, whether it was applied consistently, and whether the published procedure was followed. Handbook-based conduct matters are defended the way I describe on my student conduct and code-of-conduct defense page.
Which process you are in matters
Integrity allegations, covenant and community-life matters, Title IX complaints, and academic standing decisions run on separate tracks with different decision-makers, deadlines, and appeal routes. The track controls what you are entitled to and what a written response should accomplish. Identify yours before you write anything: academic misconduct and honor code, Title IX and sexual misconduct, or academic dismissal and suspension.
What to do first
Pull the current community covenant and student handbook from JBU’s own site rather than relying on any summary, including this one — and pull the version that applies to your status, because the expectations for traditional undergraduates differ from those for graduate and online students. Documents are revised between academic years, and the one in effect for your matter governs.
Then calendar the deadline in writing, request your file, and preserve messages, photographs, drafting history, version records, and email before they age out. Do not sit for an interview or submit a written statement until you understand what the University claims to have. In covenant cases the initial conversation is often framed as care rather than accusation, and students routinely supply the evidence that makes the case.
What I can help with
- Reading the governing policy against the charge or decision letter
- Helping you prepare your account, your documents, and your questions
- Testing whether JBU followed its own published procedures
- Scrutinizing software-based evidence, including AI-detection and similarity reports
- Assisting with the written response and appeal, to the extent the policy permits
- Serving as your advisor where the process allows it
- Negotiating sanction terms, notations, and disclosure language
What a lawyer may actually do in your case depends on that school’s policy. Some tracks allow counsel to participate directly, some allow a non-participating advisor, and some allow no outside person at all. Reading the current policy is the first step, because it determines what form the assistance can take.
Common questions
I agreed to the covenant. Does that mean I have no argument?
No. Agreeing to a standard is not agreeing to any process the school chooses to use. The covenant and handbook describe how allegations are investigated, who decides, what notice you receive, and how appeals work, and those commitments are enforceable in substance. The productive questions are whether the conduct alleged falls within the policy, whether it was applied consistently, and whether the procedure was followed.
I am a graduate or online student. Do the same rules apply to me?
Not necessarily — JBU maintains separate expectations for graduate and online students, and applying the wrong document to your matter is itself a procedural problem worth raising. Confirm in writing which policy the University says governs your case, and keep the answer.
Will a covenant finding follow me?
It can. Transfer applications, graduate and professional programs, and licensing questionnaires ask about disciplinary history broadly enough to capture a community-standards finding whether or not anything appears on a transcript. That is why the wording and classification of a resolution deserve as much attention as the sanction. A flat-fee record review is described on the fees and scope of services page.
Related Arkansas pages: Harding University, Hendrix College, University of Arkansas, and Alice L. Walton School of Medicine. The full list is on the Arkansas student defense index.
This is general information about the matters I handle and the law that applies to them. It is not legal advice about your situation, and the law in this area can change. For advice on your matter, start with the Full Read + Game Plan — your entire file read, straight answers, and exactly what to do next, in what order.
This page is informational and is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or sponsored by the institution named on it.
Attorney advertising. Zachary Gaynor is admitted in Florida and its federal courts, not in Arkansas; Arkansas matters are handled through the framework described on the nationwide practice page — federal-law assessment, campus-process support where the school’s policy permits an advisor, and association with local counsel or pro hac vice admission where required.