ALLEGATIONS OF ACADEMIC DISHONESTY

If a faculty member suspects that a violation has occurred, the faculty member will meet with the student(s) to inform him/her of the allegation. The faculty member and student will discuss the allegation, and agree to either pursue student/faculty resolution or to refer the case to the Honor Council. If the student does not admit responsibility for the violation or the student disagrees with the sanction to be imposed by the faculty member, the student may request that the case be referred to the Honor Council. Faculty members are responsible for informing students of their option to refer the incident to the Honor Council for review at any time during the student/faculty resolution.

If a student is either unwilling or unable to meet with the faculty member within two weeks of notification, then the case is automatically referred to the Honor Council for review by a Hearing Board.

If a student suspects that a violation of the code of academic integrity has occurred, the student should take some form of action. Ideally, the student will report that violation to the Honor Council using the form for student reports. In this report, the student should describe any action that they have taken, such as talking with the person involved, or with a faculty or staff member. Every effort will be made to preserve the anonymity of the student reporting the incident, however confidentiality cannot be guaranteed. Students might also report anonymously to the instructor with or without naming individuals, or confront the individual(s) believed to be in violation of the code.

STUDENT FACULTY RESOLUTION

If the student and faculty member agree to student/faculty resolution, then they discuss the case and the sanction to be imposed by the faculty member. If both student and faculty agree to the student’s responsibility for the violation and to the sanction to be imposed by the faculty member, then the faculty member writes a report to the Honor Council describing the incident giving rise to the allegations and informing them of

1. the date, time, location of meeting or meetings with the student,
2. the nature of their conversations,
3. the student’s admission of responsibility for the violation,
4. evidence and relevant supporting information,
5. and the sanction to be imposed on student

Copies of the report will be sent to the student, the Honor Council faculty adviser, and the Office of the Assistant Provost for Academic Services as the office of record.

All reports of academic dishonesty will be reviewed by the Faculty Adviser, or, in the absence of the Faculty Adviser, the chair of the Honor Council, to verify that no reports have been received indicating that the student has been found responsible for any other act of academic dishonesty. If the Faculty Adviser or Chair of the Honor Council finds that the case is a repeat offense, the case is automatically referred to the Honor Council for review by an Honor Council Hearing Board.

HONOR COUNCIL RESOLUTION

Cases not resolved through student/faculty resolution will be referred for a hearing. A hearing is initiated when the Honor Council receives a report of an allegation of academic dishonesty.

COMPOSITION OF HEARING BOARDS

A hearing is conducted by a Hearing Board. The panel will normally consist of seven persons, six of whom will be voting members. Hearing Boards are made up of three students, two faculty members and one administrator selected from the membership of the Honor Council. Determinations of the board will be by a majority vote (four votes or more). The chair or vice chair of the Honor Council will serve as the Hearing Board chair and may vote in the event of a tie. In the event that the chair or vice-chair are unavailable or the caseload becomes unmanageable, the Faculty Adviser will appoint another member of the Honor Council as chair of the Hearing Board.

PRELIMINARY PROCEDURES

The initial report of an allegation of academic dishonesty will be reviewed by the Honor Council Chair and the Faculty Adviser, who will then appoint a Hearing Board, and designate a chair of the Hearing Board, either the chair or the vice chair of the Honor Council. Following this, the chair of the Hearing Board will inform the student of the allegation in writing, including the faculty member’s report. The chair of the Hearing Board will request a written statement from the student in response to the allegation, and, if the student so desires, he or she can submit a list of witnesses to appear at the hearing on the student’s behalf. Witnesses are limited to individuals who can present evidence that bears directly on the allegation. The student’s written statement will become part of the case to be reviewed by the hearing Board in preparation for hearing the case, but will not take the place of the student’s presence at or comments within the hearing.

The chair will select the date, time and place for the hearing and notify the referring faculty member, and the student by personal delivery or campus mailbox a minimum of five (5 ) business days prior to the hearing. Either the chair or vice chair (whichever one is not presiding at the hearing) the faculty advisor, or the Dean of Students will meet with the student to review hearing procedures and process. He/she will also meet with the student following the hearing to discuss the ramifications of the findings and options for appeal if the student desires an appeal and appeal is appropriate.

Students have the right to object to any member of the Hearing Board believed to be biased in the case, and members of the Hearing Board also have the responsibility to recuse themselves from cases in which there is a conflict of interest. In cases where the student objects to a member of the Hearing Board, the chair of the Honor Council and the Faculty Adviser will decide whether or not to act on that objection.

THE HEARING BOARD PROCESS

The purpose of a hearing is to explore and investigate the incident giving rise to the appearance of academic dishonesty, and to reach an informed conclusion as to whether or not academic dishonesty occurred. All persons at a hearing are expected to assist in a thorough and honest exposition of all related facts. Honor Council Hearing Board proceedings are not a court of law, and attorneys are not permitted to be present in any fact-finding or appeals hearings.

The sequence of a hearing is necessarily controlled by the nature of the incident to be investigated and the information to be examined. It lies within the judgment of the presiding officer to determine the most reasonable approach. The following steps are generally recommended.

1. The referring faculty member or the individual reporting an alleged violation, and then the student, will briefly summarize the matter before the honor board, including any relevant information or arguments. The faculty member may recommend a sanction.
2. Witnesses will be called who have knowledge of the incident and can offer documents or other materials bearing on the case.
3. Members of the Hearing Board may request additional material or the appearance of other persons, as needed.
4. The referring faculty member or individual reporting the allegation and the student may make brief closing statements.
5. The Hearing Board will meet privately to discuss the case, and determine whether a violation has taken place based on a preponderance of the evidence.
6. If the student is found in violation, the Hearing Board will determine an appropriate sanction. When determining the sanction, the Hearing Board will be informed of any other violations of academic integrity on the part of the student.
7. The Hearing Board chair will provide the referring faculty member of the reporting individual, the student and the Assistant Provost for Academic Services with a written report reciting the facts found identifying the parts of the policy that have been violated, and describing the sanction, if any, to be imposed.

The Hearing Board chair will ensure the following rules and points of order are observed:

1. The student may be assisted by a support person of their choosing, provided that the support person is not a parent, an attorney, or a party to the case.
2. Hearings will be tape recorded for the purposes of the Hearing Board’s deliberations or for any Student Appellate Board action.
3. Presence at a hearing lies within the judgment of the Hearing Board chair. A hearing requires a deliberative and candid atmosphere, free from distraction. Accordingly, it is not open to the public or other “interested” persons. The Hearing Board chair may cause to be removed from the hearing any person, including the student, who disrupts or impedes the investigation, or who fails to adhere to the rulings of the chair. The Hearing Board chair will direct that person, other than the student, who are to be called upon to provide information, be excluded from the hearing except for that purpose. The members of the Hearing Board may conduct private deliberations at such times and places as they deem proper.
4. Failure to appear before a Hearing Board will not preclude the Hearing Board from hearing evidence and determining outcomes.
5. It is the responsibility of the person desiring the presence of a witness before a Hearing Board to ensure that the witness appears. Because experience has demonstrated that the actual appearance of an individual is of greater value than a written statement, the latter is discouraged and should not be used unless the individual cannot reasonably be expected to appear. Any written statement must be dated, signed by the person making it, and witnessed by a University employee. The work of a Hearing Board will not, as a general practice, be delayed due to the unavailability of a witness.
6. A hearing is not a trial. The Hearing Board will consider all relevant, probative, and credible evidence. The Hearing Board chair will determine what evidence may be considered.

If the Honor Council Faculty Adviser or the Dean of Students determines that Hearing Board cannot be convened within a reasonable period of time after an accusation is made, two students and one faculty will be appointed as an ad hoc Hearing Board. Members of the ad hoc Hearing Board shall be current or former members of the Honor Council. A non-voting presiding officer will also be appointed.

HEARING BOARD OUTCOMES

If the Hearing Board determines that the allegations of academic dishonesty are unfounded, then no record of the allegation and/or hearing appears on the student’s record and no sanctions are imposed.

SANCTIONS

Sanctions available to faculty members for informal resolution include:

Warning (The violation is reported and no other sanction is imposed.)
A reduction in grade for the assignment and/or an additional reduction in the grade for the course.
A failing grade for the assignment and/or an additional reduction in the grade for the course.
A failing grade in the course (XF).

Sanctions available to Hearing Boards include:

Warning (The violation is reported and no other sanction is imposed).
A reduction in grade for the assignment and/or an additional reduction in the grade for the course.
Community work assignment.
A failing grade for the assignment and/or an additional reduction in the grade for the course.
A failing grade in the course (XF).
Removal of the privilege of representing the University in extracurricular activities including athletics, as well as the privilege of running for or holding office in any student organization that is allowed to use University facilities, or receives University funds.
Suspension from the University for one to two semesters, excluding summer semester.
Dismissal from the University.

THE GRADE OF XF

An XF will be recorded on the student’s transcript with the notation “failure due to academic dishonesty.” The grade of XF shall be treated in the same way as an F for the purposes of grade point average, course repeatability, and the determination of academic standing.

A student may file a written petition to the Honor Council to have the grade of XF removed and replaced with the grade of F. The decision to remove the grade of XF and replace it with a grade of F requires a majority of a quorum of the council (quorum for the Honor Council is five students and three faculty members), provided that:

1. at the time the petition is received, at least twelve months shall have elapsed since the grade of XF was imposed; and,
2. at the time the petition is received, the student shall have successfully completed a non-credit seminar on academic integrity; or, for the person no longer enrolled at the University, an equivalent educational activity; and
3. the Assistant Provost for Academic Services certifies that no reports have been received indicating that the student has been found responsible for any other act of academic dishonesty or similar disciplinary offenses at the University, or another institution.

Prior to deciding a petition, The Honor Council will review the record of the case and consult with the Honor Council adviser, and whenever possible, the faculty member who originally reported the violation. Both the Honor Council adviser and the faculty member serve in an advisory capacity only, and do not have voting rights. If the Honor Council denies the petition, the student cannot submit another petition for four years, unless the Honor Council specifies an earlier date.

SUBSEQUENT ALLEGATIONS OF ACADEMIC DISHONESTY

In the event of a subsequent allegation of academic dishonesty, the case is automatically referred to the Honor Council and reviewed by an Honor Council Hearing Board. Ordinarily, a second substantiated allegation of academic dishonesty results in either suspension for one or two full semesters (excluding summer semester), or permanent dismissal from the University. In the event of extraordinary or extenuating circumstances the Hearing Board has the right to assign a lesser sanction.

APPEALS

A student can appeal a decision of the Hearing Board to the Student Appellate Board. Appeals must be based on one of three conditions:

1. new and significant evidence can be introduced which may further clarify and support the defense of the students involved, at which point the case will be referred back to the original Hearing Board for reconsideration;
2. there is clear reason to believe that the sanction is not consistent with the seriousness of the violation. In cases where the Student Appellate Board determines that the seriousness of the sanction is consistent with the behavior, they may issue a different sanction.
3. the student presents substantial credible evidence that the initial hearing was not fair and impartial. If the Student Appellate Board determines the process was unfair or that the established process was not followed, the Appellate Board will request that a new Hearing Board be selected from the Honor Council and the case be reheard.

Appellate board decisions may not be appealed.

The Honor Council will review the policies and procedures described in the Code of Academic Integrity at least bi-annually and will recommend any revision to students and faculty.

The Committee for Academic Integrity is indebted to the Center for Academic Integrity for key ideas found within this Code of Academic Integrity. Please refer to their web site at http://www.academicintegrity.org/. We also owe a debt of gratitude to Gary Pavela who provided us with a model code of academic integrity, a copy of which can be found in the following: Pavela, Gary. “A Model code of academic integrity” in Synthesis: Law and Policy in Higher Education, 9:1 (Summer 1997), p. 640.