Menu
If your university is investigating you for misconduct, academic dishonesty, harassment, Title IX allegations, or another disciplinary violation, what you say during the investigative interview can significantly affect the outcome. Many students assume that if they simply tell the truth and explain themselves thoroughly, everything will work out.
Unfortunately, investigations do not always work that way. Even a student who has a strong defense can damage credibility by accepting an inaccurate premise, talking too much, speculating about facts they do not know, or changing an accurate answer simply because an investigator appears skeptical.
This does not mean that university investigators are necessarily acting dishonestly or deliberately trying to trick students. Many of the techniques discussed below are ordinary investigative techniques. The problem arises when students do not recognize what is happening and inadvertently make a defensible case look suspicious.
https://youtu.be/5Ce0x1yF91s
In the video above, I discuss five questioning techniques that students should recognize before participating in a university investigation. Understanding these techniques can help you answer questions accurately, avoid unnecessary speculation, and protect your credibility throughout the investigative process.
Some of the most dangerous investigative questions contain an assumption within the question itself. Consider an investigator who asks, “Why did you continue contacting her after she told you to stop?”
A student might instinctively respond, “I wasn't trying to bother her. I was only trying to explain myself.” The problem is that the answer may implicitly accept two important facts: that the other person told the student to stop communicating and that the student knowingly continued communicating afterward.
But what if those facts are disputed? Perhaps the other person never asked the student to stop. Perhaps the communication occurred before that request. Perhaps the student reasonably understood the communication differently. By immediately explaining why the conduct occurred, the student may inadvertently accept a premise that should have been challenged.
Before answering a question, listen carefully to what the question assumes. If the premise is inaccurate, say so before answering the substance of the question. You should not accidentally admit something simply because an investigator incorporated it into the wording of a question.
Silence can be remarkably effective during an investigative interview. An investigator asks a question, the student answers it, and then the investigator simply waits.
The student begins to feel uncomfortable. After several seconds, the student may assume that the answer was insufficient and start talking again: “Well, actually, there was one other thing,” or “What I really meant was . . .”
That is often where problems begin. The student starts providing information that was never requested, speculating about details, qualifying a previously accurate answer, or introducing facts that create additional questions.
If you have completely and truthfully answered the question, you do not necessarily need to say anything else merely because the investigator remains silent. Silence is not another question, and you should not interpret every pause as an invitation to keep talking.
Suppose an investigator asks, “Did you make that statement?” You answer, “No.”
The investigator then asks, “Are you sure?” You respond, “Yes.” The investigator follows up again: “You're absolutely certain you didn't say anything like that?”
At this point, some students begin doubting themselves. They may change the answer to, “Well, I don't remember saying it,” even though their original answer accurately reflected their memory.
That change can become significant. “I did not say that” and “I don't remember saying that” are different statements, and the investigator may reasonably want to understand why the answer changed.
An investigator is entitled to test a student's recollection and credibility. But the investigator's skepticism does not change your memory. If you genuinely do not remember something, say so. If you are certain about something, do not manufacture uncertainty merely because the investigator asks the question repeatedly or appears unconvinced.
Another potentially dangerous question is deceptively simple: “Why would this person lie about you?”
The natural impulse is to provide an explanation. Perhaps the student says the complainant was jealous, angry, vindictive, obsessed, or seeking revenge. But unless the student has evidence supporting that assertion, the answer may be little more than speculation.
Worse, an aggressive answer about another person's motives can make the student appear hostile or retaliatory. The student has now created a new issue without necessarily doing anything to disprove the original allegation.
There is nothing wrong with acknowledging that you do not know what another person was thinking. A perfectly legitimate response may be: “I can't tell you what that person was thinking. I can tell you what happened.”
During an investigation, distinguish carefully among what you know, what you believe, and what you are merely assuming. Facts are generally much more useful than speculation about another person's state of mind.
Some of the most damaging statements can occur after the formal questioning appears to have ended. The investigator closes a notebook, relaxes, and says something like, “Okay, I think that's everything.”
The student relaxes too. Then comes another question: “Actually, just between us, there's one thing I've always wondered . . .” Because the interaction suddenly feels informal, the student may answer differently than during the formal interview.
That can be a mistake. A statement does not necessarily become irrelevant simply because it was made casually or near the end of the conversation. If you are speaking with the person responsible for investigating allegations against you, remain careful and accurate until the conversation has actually concluded.
Do not confuse an informal tone with an irrelevant conversation. If something you say bears on the allegations or your credibility, it may become important regardless of when during the conversation you said it.
None of this means that students should refuse to participate in university investigations or automatically decline to answer questions. Depending on the university's procedures and the nature of the allegations, participating meaningfully in the process may be extremely important.
The better lesson is that more talking does not necessarily produce a better defense. Your objective should be to understand the allegation, listen carefully to each question, answer truthfully and accurately, and distinguish facts within your personal knowledge from assumptions or speculation.
Students also should review the university's applicable policies before an interview. Procedures differ significantly among institutions and may depend on whether the matter involves academic integrity, student conduct, Title IX, harassment, professional-school requirements, or another disciplinary process. Understanding the rules governing the investigation can be as important as preparing for the underlying factual questions.
Credibility can become one of the most important issues in a university investigation, particularly when the evidence consists largely of conflicting accounts. Small mistakes during an interview can therefore assume significance far beyond what the student expected.
Listen for assumptions embedded in questions. Do not fill silence simply because it feels uncomfortable. Do not change an accurate answer merely because the investigator appears skeptical. Avoid guessing about another person's motives, and remain careful even when the conversation begins to feel informal.
Most importantly, remember that an investigator does not necessarily need a confession for an interview to damage your case. Sometimes, the greatest danger is simply continuing to talk after you have already answered the question.
If you are facing a university investigation, disciplinary proceeding, academic-integrity allegation, Title IX matter, or other serious campus misconduct allegation, consider obtaining advice early in the process. Decisions made before and during the investigative interview can affect the evidence, your credibility, and the ultimate outcome.
Lamparello Law, Education, and Advocacy assists students and others facing higher-education investigations and disciplinary proceedings. Every matter is different, and the appropriate strategy depends on the allegations, evidence, applicable university policies, and governing law.
This article is provided for general educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
© 2026 Adam Lamparello, Esq.
| View Our Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
Law Firm Website Design by The Modern Firm