CG 00.04

TO: Bob Rich, Chair of Senate Council
FROM: Nicholas Burbules, Chair, Conference on Conduct Governance
DATE: April 11, 2000
RE: Changes to Rule 33 on academic misconduct

Deletions marked with a strikethrough; additions underlined.

33. Academic Integrity-All Students

Preamble

The University has the responsibility for maintaining academic integrity so as to protect the quality of education and research on our campus and to protect those who depend upon our integrity. It is the responsibility of the student to refrain from infractions of academic integrity, from conduct that may lead to suspicion of such infractions, and from conduct that aids others in such infractions. It is the responsibility of the faculty to establish and maintain an environment that supports academic integrity. An essential part of this faculty responsibility is the enforcement of existing standards of academic integrity; where faculty do not discourage and act upon violations of which they become aware, this has the effect of undermining respect for those standards. Faculty members should provide students with a clear statement of their expectations concerning academic integrity. In these regulations, "faculty" includes an instructor or authorized staff member who supervises any academic endeavor.

Students have been given notice of this rule by virtue of its publication. Regardless of whether a student has actually read this rule, a student is charged with knowledge of it. Ignorance of a rule is never a defense.

This rule applies to course-based infractions by both undergraduate and graduate students, except as noted under section III. It does not apply to infractions of academic integrity in organized research (which includes funded research, research intended for publication, work performed as a research assistant, or theses and dissertations). Infractions committed as part of organized research activities are addressed by the campus Policy and Procedures on Academic Integrity in Research and Publication.

• I. Infractions of Academic Integrity-Definitions ⁸

  • A. Cheating
    Using or attempting to use in any academic exercise materials, information, study aids, or electronic data that the student knows or should know is unauthorized.
    Comments: ⁹
    • 1. Faculty members need to make in advance a clear statement of their policies and procedures concerning the use before examinations of shared study aids, examination files, and related materials and forms of assistance. Such advance notice is especially important in the case of take-home examinations.

    • 2. During examinations, students should assume that external assistance (e.g., books, notes, calculators, conversation with others) is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the instructor.

    • 3. Students must not allow others to conduct research or prepare any work for them without prior authorization from the instructor. This includes, but is not limited to, the services of commercial term paper companies.

    • 4. Substantial portions of the same academic work may not be submitted for credit more than once or by more than one student without authorization.

    • 5. Special exams and tests. Infractions of academic integrity that occur "outside the classroom" during proficiency tests taken after enrollment shall be dealt with in the manner described in this regulation. (Cases of pre-enrollment violations are covered by Rule 11 on bases for discipline and Rule 14 on falsification.)

  • B. Fabrication
    Unauthorized falsification or invention of any information or citation in an academic endeavor.
    Comments:
    • 1. "Invented" information may not be used in any laboratory experiment or other academic endeavor without notice to and authorization from the instructor or examiner. It would be improper, for example, to analyze one sample in an experiment and covertly "invent" data based on that single experiment for several more required analyses.

    • 2. Reliance upon the actual source from which cited information was obtained must be acknowledged. For example, a writer should not reproduce a quotation from a book review without indicating whether the quotation was obtained from the review or from the book itself.

    • 3. Fabrication also includes altering the answers given for an exam after the examination has been graded.

    • 4. Fabrication also includes submitting false documents for the purpose of being excused from a scheduled examination or other academic assignment.

  • C. Facilitating Infractions of Academic Integrity
    Helping or attempting to help another to commit an infraction of academic integrity, where one knows or should know that through one's acts or omissions such an infraction may be facilitated.
    Comments:
    • 1. Allowing another to copy from one's work during an examination would be committing a breach of academic integrity.

    • 2. Taking an exam by proxy for someone else is an infraction of academic integrity on the part of both the student enrolled in the course and the proxy or substitute. (See Rule 14.)

    • 3. Unauthorized removal of an examination or quiz from a classroom, faculty office, or other facility would be committing a breach of academic integrity.

  • D. Plagiarism
    Representing the words or ideas of another as one's own in any academic endeavor. This includes copying another student's paper or working with another person when both submit similar papers to satisfy an individual, not a group, assignment.
    Comments:
    • 1. Direct Quotation: Every direct quotation must be identified by quotation marks or by appropriate indentation and must be promptly cited in a citation. Proper citation style for many academic departments is outlined in such manuals as the MLA Handbook or K. L. Turabian's A Manual for Writers of Term Papers, Theses and Dissertations. These and similar publications are available in the University bookstore or library.

      Example: The following is an example of an uncited direct quotation from a case in which the student in question was found guilty of plagiarism.

      Original Source: To push the comparison with popular tale and popular romance a bit further, we may note that the measure of artistic triviality of works such as "Sir Degare" or even "Havelok the Dean" is their casualness, their indifference to all but the simplest elements of literary substance. The point is that high genre does not certify art and low genre does not preclude it. (From Robert M. Jordan, Chaucer and the Shape of Creation, Howard University Press, 1967, page 187.)

      Student Paper: To push the comparison with popular tale and popular romance a bit further, you can note that the measure of artistic triviality in some works of Chaucer's time period is their casualness. Their indifference to all but the simplest elements of literary substance. The point is that high genre does not certify art and low genre does not preclude it.

    • 2. Paraphrase: Prompt acknowledgment is required when material from another source is paraphrased or summarized in whole or in part. This is true even if the student's words differ substantially from those of the source. To acknowledge a paraphrase properly, one might introduce it with a statement such as "To paraphrase Locke's comment . . ." and conclude it with a citation identifying the exact reference. Or the concluding citation might say, "The last paragraph (two paragraphs, etc.) paraphrases statements by . . ." and then give the exact reference. A citation acknowledging only a directly quoted statement does not suffice as an acknowledgment of any preceding or succeeding paraphrased material.

      Example: The following is an example of unacknowledged paraphrase that could warrant a charge of plagiarism.

      Original Source: The era in question included three formally declared wars. The decision to enter the War of 1812 was made by Congress after extended debate. Madison made no recommendation in favor of hostilities, though he did marshal a "telling case against England" in his message to Congress of June 1, 1812. The primary impetus to battle, however, seems to have come from a group of "War Hawks" in the legislature. (From W. Taylor Reveley III, "Presidential War-Making: Constitutional Prerogative or Usurpation?" University of Virginia Law Review, November 1969, footnotes omitted.)

      Student Paper: During this period three wars were actually declared by Congress. For instance, in 1812 a vehemently pro-war group of legislators persuaded Congress, after much discussion, to make such a declaration, despite the fact that Madison had not asked for it, though, to be sure, he had openly condemned England in his message to Congress of June 1, 1812.

    • 3. Borrowed Facts or Information: Information obtained in one's reading or research that is not common knowledge should be acknowledged. Examples of common knowledge might include the names of leaders of prominent nations, basic scientific laws, etc. Materials that contribute only to one's general understanding of the subject may be acknowledged in the bibliography and need not be immediately cited. One citation is usually sufficient to acknowledge indebtedness when a number of connected sentences in the paper draw their special information from one source.

  • E. Bribes, Favors, and Threats
    Infractions of academic integrity include bribing or attempting to bribe, promising favors to, or making threats against any person with the intention of affecting a record of a grade or evaluation of academic performance. This includes a student who conspires with another person who then takes the action on behalf of the student.

  • F. Academic Interference
    Tampering with, altering, circumventing, or destroying any educational material or resource in a manner which deprives any student of fair access or reasonable use of that material or resource.
    Comments:
    • 1. Educational resources include computer facilities, electronic data, required/reserved readings, reference works, or other library materials.

    • 2. Academic interference would also include the situation where the student committing the infraction personally benefits from the interference, regardless of the effect on other students.

  • G. Computer-Related Infractions
    Computer-related infractions defined by applicable laws, contracts, or University policies (such as unauthorized use of computer licenses, copyrighted materials, intellectual property, or trade secrets).

  • H. Unauthorized Use of University Resources
    Unauthorized student use of University resources for noneducational, private, or commercial purposes.

  • I. Failure to Comply with Research Regulations
    Infractions of academic integrity include failure to comply with research regulations such as those applying to human subjects, laboratory animals, and standards of safety.

• II. Penalties for Infraction of Academic Integrity

  The variety of academic settings encountered in the University precludes establishing uniform penalties for all infractions of academic integrity. The faculty member makes this judgment in light of the nature of the class, the kind of tasks assigned to other students, the student's behavior during the semester, prior warnings to the student, etc. Students have the right to an appeal of findings and/or penalties for infractions of academic integrity. (Such an appeal cannot be filed as a grievance unless a condition specified under Procedures for Grievances and Complaints exists.)

  • A. The faculty member is viewed here as having the dual role of fact-finder and determiner of penalty. In the role of finder of fact, the instructor has broad powers to determine whether an infraction has occurred (through collecting relevant evidence, questioning other students, etc.). As the determiner of penalty, the faculty member should feel certain that an infraction has been committed by the student. This decision may be based not only on the facts revealed by the investigation, but other factors that are relevant in the best judgment of the faculty member.
    • 1. In judging whether an academic infraction has occurred, the existence of specific knowledge and intent to cheat, plagiarize, etc., is not necessarily a factor; for example, quoting work without citation is inappropriate whether or not one intended to plagiarize, or even knows what "plagiarism" is. Furthermore, sometimes an infraction may be the result of carelessness or neglect, rather than specific intent.

    • 2. A lack of knowledge or intent shall be a factor in determining whether an infraction should be penalized, or what sort of penalty is appropriate. In cases where a violation of the rules has been brought about by circumstances that a student did not know about, and could not have been reasonably expected to know, no penalty shall be assessed against that student.

    • 3. In determining an appropriate penalty, the instructor shall also take into consideration aggravating circumstances, such as whether the student's conduct was designed not only to advance his or her own grade, but to hinder the academic performance of others.

  • A. B. The instructor may impose one or more of the following penalties for an infraction of academic integrity:
    • 1. a written notice of warning with a copy to the student's file in the office of the college in which the student is enrolled and to the Senate Committee on Student Discipline;
    • 2. a reduced grade on the assignment;
    • 3. a failing grade (zero if graded numerically) for the assignment;
    • 4. a reduced grade for the course;
    • 4. 5. a failing grade for the course;
    • 5. 6. a denial of credit for the proficiency exam; or
    • 6. 7. any other penalty negotiated and agreed to, in writing, by both parties (not subject to appeal)

  • B. C. The instructor may recommend to the department or unit executive officer (hereafter abbreviated DEO ¹⁰) that the student be suspended or dismissed from the University. Such a recommendation would be made in addition to penalties imposed by the instructor.
    • Comments:

    • 1. In judging whether an academic infraction has occurred, the existence of specific knowledge and intent to cheat, plagiarize, etc., is not necessarily a factor; for example, quoting work without citation is inappropriate whether or not one intended to plagiarize, or even knows what "plagiarism" is. Furthermore, sometimes an infraction may be the result of carelessness or neglect, rather than specific intent.
      A lack of knowledge or intent shall be a factor in determining whether an infraction should be penalized, or what sort of penalty is appropriate. In cases where a violation of the rules has been brought about by circumstances that a student did not know about, and could not have been reasonably expected to know, no penalty shall be assessed against that student.
      
    • 2. In determining an appropriate penalty, the instructor shall also take into consideration aggravating circumstances, such as whether the student's conduct was designed not only to advance his or her own grade, but to hinder the academic performance of others.

• III. Procedures

  The college or equivalent academic unit in which the course or examination is conducted shall be the body of adjudication for findings involving penalties pertaining to course grades. (In cases where the course is cross-listed, this refers to the controlling department.) If the penalty is a failing grade for the course, this is also the college to which an appeal of the decision should be made. The college or equivalent academic unit in which the student is enrolled is the body of adjudication for findings involving a penalty of suspension or dismissal. (Whenever reference is made to the "dean" in this or subsequent sections, it shall refer to the dean or the dean's designee.)

  These rules and procedures concerning course-based infractions of academic integrity apply in all colleges except where specified otherwise by the bylaws of a college (for example, in the Graduate College and some professional colleges which operate under rules and procedures governing infractions of academic integrity which have been approved by the Senate Committee on Student Discipline).

  • A. An instructor who believes a student guilty of one or more infractions of academic integrity listed in this rule shall notify the student in writing of the basis for the belief and then allow the student eight working days to respond to the allegation.
    • 1. If the final deadline for reporting grades occurs prior to the time the instructor allows for the student response, the instructor should, with the permission of the student's college, assign the student an EX, to be changed after the case has been resolved. After such written notification, the student may not drop the course until after the case has been resolved.

    • 2. If the student is found guilty of an infraction and the penalty is a lowered or failing grade within the course, the student may drop the course before the usual deadline for dropping the course. The student may drop the course after that date only if the infraction occurred before the deadline but the case was resolved after the deadline. After the usual deadline for dropping a course, a student may not withdraw from the course. In either instance, of dropping or withdrawing from the course, a permanent record of the infraction will remain in the student's file. If the penalty is a failing grade for the course as a whole, the student may not drop or withdraw from the course.

  • B. When two or more students have been accused of cooperating in an academic infraction, their cases should be handled separately. Any fact-finding inquiries should establish their independent guilt, and the penalties for each individual should be decided separately. When one or more of the parties to an infraction is not enrolled in the course affected, their cases should be forwarded to the Senate Committee on Student Discipline for appropriate action.

  • C. B. If, after the student has had an opportunity to respond to the allegation, the instructor concludes that the student is not guilty of an infraction, the instructor shall inform the student in writing of this conclusion within eight working days. The instructor shall also notify any other individuals who were notified of the instructor's original claim that the infraction had occurred. The student shall be permitted:
    • 1. to be reinstated in the course and be given whatever grade the student is entitled to without regard to the charge of an infraction of academic integrity;
    • 2. to drop the course at any time of the semester; or
    • 3. to change sections in the course, if possible.

  • D. C. If, after the student has had an opportunity to respond to the allegation, the instructor concludes that the student is guilty of an infraction, the instructor shall decide which of the penalties listed in section II.B is warranted. After a penalty has been determined, the instructor shall promptly notify the student and the DEO in writing of the penalty imposed and the reasons for it, within eight working days. After all avenues of appeal have been exhausted, if a finding of an infraction is upheld, the DEO shall forward a report of the infraction and penalty, including the student's name and social security number, to the college or equivalent academic unit in which the student is enrolled and to the Senate Committee on Student Discipline (see section V.B). Consistent with other university policies on student discipline, these records will be kept on file for a period of six years, and then expunged.
    Comments:

  • The faculty member is viewed here as having the dual role of fact-finder and determiner of penalty. In the role of finder of fact, the instructor has broad powers to determine whether an infraction has occurred (through collecting relevant evidence, questioning other students, etc.). As the determiner of penalty, the faculty member should feel certain that an infraction has been committed by the student. This decision may be based not only on the facts revealed by the investigation, but other factors that are relevant in the best judgment of the faculty member.

  • E. Upon receipt of a letter describing a student's first breach of academic integrity, the executive director of the Senate Committee on Student Discipline shall send a letter to the student explaining that repeated violations of this rule may result in further disciplinary actions, including possible suspension or dismissal from the University. If a letter is received describing an additional breach of academic integrity for the student, the executive director will refer the case to the Senate Committee on Student Discipline for appropriate action. This could include the initiation of a hearing within the disciplinary system and the possibility of disciplinary action up to and including suspension or dismissal. A student's college may also refer students who have been found to have repeatedly violated this rule to the Senate Committee on Student Discipline for appropriate action. Hearings on such cases will be conducted in accordance with the procedures of the Senate Committee on Student Discipline.

  • D. When two or more students have been accused of cooperating in an academic infraction, their cases should be handled separately. Any fact-finding inquiries should establish their independent guilt, and the penalties for each individual should be decided separately. When one or more of the parties to an infraction is not enrolled in the course affected, their cases should be forwarded to the Senate Committee on Student Discipline for appropriate action.

  • H. E. The student may appeal a finding and/or penalty by indicating this desire in writing to the DEO within fifteen days of notification of the right to appeal.
  • I. If the student does not appeal, the matter shall be closed unless the penalty is suspension or dismissal, in which case section III.K I below applies. In a case in which the penalty is a failure for the course, the DEO shall notify the dean, and the dean will forward a request to record a failing grade for the course to the Office of Admissions and Records.

  • F. F. The procedures for appeal and the requirement for review of a finding , recommendation, and/or penalty beyond the level of the instructor shall depend upon whether the penalty falls within one of three levels of severity: .
    • 1. c Categories 1 - 34 in section II.B (a penalty of less than a failing grade for the course) : .

      For penalties less than a failing grade for the course, appeals of the finding and/or the penalty shall be heard within the department according to the procedures established by that department. A copy of these procedures shall be available to the student in the department office. In no case shall this departmental appeal result in a harsher penalty than the one originally assessed by the instructor.

      If the department consists of nine or fewer full-time faculty members, the appeal will be directed to a similarly constituted committee of the school or college. If the instructor of the course is a member of the committee, that instructor shall be disqualified from the consideration of that appeal.

    • 2. c Categories 45 and 56 (a penalty of a failing grade for the course or denial of credit for the proficiency exam) : . or

      If the penalty to be recommended by the instructor is a failing grade for the course, or if the penalty is a denial of credit for a proficiency exam, appeal of the finding and/or the penalty shall be heard at the college (or equivalent academic unit) level in accordance with section III.G below.

    • 3. s Suspension or dismissal from the University (II.B).

    • In a case deemed sufficiently serious to warrant suspension or dismissal from the University, the instructor shall notify the DEO and submit to the officer evidence of the violation of academic integrity. The DEO, after separate discussions with the instructor and the student, shall decide whether to recommend to the dean of the college in which the student is enrolled that the penalty be assessed. In cases of repeated violations, a review for possible suspension or dismissal can also be initiated by the student's college or the Senate Committee on Student Discipline. All cases recommending suspension or dismissal are automatically appealed within the student's home unit and include a formal review by the Senate Committee on Student Discipline (see section III.I below).

      Comments:

    • 1. Note that the seventh penalty (II.B.7), which is one negotiated and agreed to by both instructor and student, is not subject to appeal. For the others, the appeal or review procedures can be summarized as follows: Categories 1 - 4 are appealed through the procedures of the department in which the course or exam is conducted (III.F.1); categories 5 and 6 are appealed within the college in which the course or exam is conducted, through the procedures spelled out in section III.G; cases involving suspension and dismissal are heard within the student's home unit, through the procedures spelled out in section III.I, including final review by the Senate Committee on Student Discipline.

    • 2. In cases where a penalty on a course, exam, or assignment is accompanied by a recommendation for suspension or dismissal, the appeals are treated separately: the appeal of the penalty on the course, exam, or assignment is reviewed within the college in which the course or exam was offered; the appeal of the recommendation for suspension or dismissal is reviewed by the student's home unit. These appeals are independent, and each could be upheld or overturned regardless of the other.

  • G. The following appeal and review procedures correspond to the three categories presented in section III.F:
    • 1. For penalties less than a failing grade for the course, appeals of the finding and/or the penalty shall be heard within the department according to the procedures established by that department. A copy of these procedures shall be available to the student in the department office. In no case shall this departmental appeal result in a harsher penalty than the one originally assessed by the instructor.
    • 2. If the penalty to be recommended by the instructor is a failing grade for the course, or where the penalty imposed results, de facto, in a failing grade for the course (such as a failing grade on an exam that effectively determines the final grade), or if the penalty is a denial of credit for a proficiency exam, there must be consultation with the DEO prior to written notification of the penalty to the student. For penalties of a failing grade for the course, a penalty that effectively results in a failing grade, or a denial of credit for a proficiency exam, appeal of the finding and/or the penalty shall be heard at the college (or equivalent academic unit) level in accordance with section III.J below.
    • 3. In a case deemed sufficiently serious to warrant suspension or dismissal from the University, the instructor shall notify the DEO and submit to the officer evidence of the violation of academic integrity. The DEO, after separate discussions with the instructor and the student, shall decide whether to recommend to the dean of the college in which the student is enrolled that the penalty be assessed. As noted in section III.E, in cases of repeated violations, a review for possible suspension or dismissal can also be initiated by the student's college or the Senate Committee on Student Discipline. All cases involving suspension or dismissal shall be reviewed in accordance with section III.K below.

  • H. The student may appeal a finding and/or penalty by indicating this desire in writing to the DEO within fifteen days of notification of the right to appeal.

  • I. If the student does not appeal, the matter shall be closed unless section III.K below applies. In a case in which the penalty is a failure for the course, the DEO shall notify the dean, and the dean will forward a request to record a failing grade for the course to the Office of Admissions and Records.

  • J. G. If the student notifies the DEO of a desire to appeal a finding and/or penalty, in cases where the penalty is a failing grade for the course or denial of credit for a proficiency exam, the procedure will be as follows:
    • 1. The DEO shall gather all relevant information from the instructor and student and transmit the information to the dean of the college in which the department is located course was offered.
    • 2. The dean shall convey the appeal information to the hearing committee formed in accordance with guidelines in section IV.
    • 3. The hearing committee shall deliberate the appeal according to the hearing guidelines outlined in section IV.
    • 4. The hearing committee shall render a recommendation on the appeal to the dean.
    • 5. If the hearing committee agrees with the action taken by the instructor, the dean shall so inform the instructor and the student in writing, and the matter shall be closed.
    • 6. If the hearing committee agrees that the student has committed an infraction of academic integrity but believes that a milder penalty should be imposed, the dean shall so inform the instructor and attempt to reconcile the differences.
      • a. If the instructor accepts a compromise, the student shall be notified and the alternative penalty imposed.
      • b. If the instructor refuses to compromise, the dean shall notify the student and permit the student to withdraw from the course. However, a record of the infraction in accordance with section V.A shall be made a part of the student's permanent file.
      • c. In no case shall the committee be empowered to levy a harsher penalty than the one originally assessed by the instructor.

    • 7. If the hearing committee concludes that the student is not guilty, the dean shall permit the student:
      • a. to be reinstated in the course and be given whatever grade the student is entitled to without regard to the charge of an infraction of academic integrity;
      • b. to drop the course at any time of the semester; or
      • c. to change sections in the course, if possible.

    • L. H. All reviews and appeal processes within a college concerning findings and/or penalties should be completed in a timely manner; a final decision should be rendered, if possible, within eight six working weeks after the instructor's original written notification to the student filing of the appeal.

    • K. I. In all cases initiated by a student's college and involving possible suspension or dismissal, except those initiated by the Senate Committee on Student Discipline:
      • 1. The DEO shall discuss the finding separately with the instructor and the student. If the DEO decides that suspension or dismissal is warranted, the DEO shall so recommend to the dean of the college in which the student is enrolled.
      • 2. The dean of the college shall charge the hearing committee to consider the merits of the recommendation. The hearing committee shall deliberate according to the hearing guidelines in section IV. The hearing committee shall inform the dean of its decision. If the hearing committee concurs with the recommendation, the dean shall forward the recommendation to the Senate Committee on Student Discipline. The decision of the college on the facts of the breach of integrity shall be final. The sole question before the Senate Committee on Student Discipline is whether the breach of integrity in question is of such a nature as to warrant suspension or dismissal from the University.

    • M. J. If a course or proficiency exam is offered directly under the auspices of a college or equivalent unit rather than a department, the dean shall perform the procedural role otherwise performed under these rules by the DEO.
      • 1. If a proficiency exam is not administered under the auspices of a college or department, the dean of the college in which the student is enrolled shall perform the DEO's role.
      • 2. If in performing that role the dean recommends suspension or dismissal, the dean shall designate an independent person to perform the dean's role as presiding officer under section IV.

• IV. Appeal Hearing Guideline¹¹
  • A. Each college or equivalent unit shall appoint annually a standing academic disciplinary committee composed of at least four faculty members and at least two students. The faculty and student members of hearing committees to consider individual academic disciplinary cases under section IV.B below shall be selected from the members of the standing committee (unless conflicts of interest or other exigent circumstances require the special appointment of others).
    Comments:

    In these appeal procedures, "dean" refers to the dean of the college in which the course was offered, except in hearings involving possible suspension or dismissal, in which case it refers to the dean of the student's college.

  • B. The chairperson of the standing academic disciplinary committee of the college or equivalent unit shall select a hearing committee to consider an appeal concerning a course offered by that unit or any cross-listed course for which the instructor is affiliated with that unit. The hearing committee shall consist of four members. The dean or designee shall serve as the presiding officer, but shall be a nonvoting member. The dean of the college shall charge the hearing committee to consider the merits of recommendations. The presiding officer will gather all documents and/or depositions and will conduct the hearing. One of the three voting members shall be a student, and a final recommendation shall require the majority of voting members. If the alleged offense occurred in a college other than the student's, a representative of the student's college shall be one of the voting members. In such a case, the chairperson of the standing committee of the student's college or equivalent academic unit shall choose that representative from among the members of that unit's standing committee.

  • C. Those persons entitled to a hearing shall be informed of the hearing date at least five working days in advance.

  • D. The hearing committee shall be convened by the dean of the college or unit in which the infraction occurred or, in cases of suspension and dismissal, in the college or unit in which the student is enrolled.

  • E. Both the student and the instructor shall be entitled to be present throughout the hearing and to present any evidence, including testimony by other persons, relevant to the matter in dispute. Both the student and the instructor shall have an opportunity to question or refute any evidence presented. The confidentiality of all evidence shall be preserved. The student and the instructor may each be accompanied by a person to assist them in presenting evidence. Prospective witnesses, other than the instructor and the student, may be excluded from the hearing during the testimony of other witnesses. All parties shall be excluded during hearing committee deliberations. The session shall not be open to the public.

  • F. Any person who disrupts a hearing or who fails to adhere to the rulings of the presiding officer may be excluded from the proceeding.

  • G. Should additional oral testimony be useful, the presiding officer may invite appropriate witnesses. Formal rules of evidence shall not be applicable.

  • H. The final recommendation of the hearing committee to the dean must include a summary of the testimony and shall be sufficiently detailed to permit review.

  • H. I. For cases involving an appeal of penalties in categories 5 and 6 in section II.B, the The hearing committee may concur with the instructor's finding and imposed penalty, it may recommend a different interpretation of the facts and/or a different penalty, or it may recommend that the student is not guilty. The committee may find the student not guilty only if the student proves to the committee that the finding of the faculty member is erroneous.
    Comments:
    • 1. The intent of this section is to formalize the following view: A student is considered innocent until the instructor has determined that an infraction has occurred and has communicated the evidence for this determination and the reasons for the penalty to the student. If the student appeals, the burden of proof that the finding of the faculty member is erroneous is on the student.
    • 2. This section intentionally does not establish a formal standard of proof. Deference is paid to the instructor's right to have discretion over his or her own classes.

  • I. The final recommendation of the hearing committee to the dean of the instructor's college must include a summary of the testimony and shall be sufficiently detailed to permit review.

  • J.If all parties concur with the final recommendation to the dean of the instructional unit or college, the case will be closed. In cases involving an appeal of penalties in categories 5 and 6 of section II.B, if the hearing committee agrees with the action taken by the instructor, the dean shall so inform the instructor and the student in writing, and the matter shall be closed. In cases involving suspension or dismissal, dean shall so inform the instructor and the student in writing, and the matter shall be forwarded to the Senate Committee on Student Discipline for review (see IV.M).

  • K. In cases involving an appeal of penalties in categories 5 and 6 of section II.B, if If the hearing committee agrees that the student has committed an infraction of academic integrity but disagrees with the action taken by the instructor, recommends a different interpretation of the facts and/or a different penalty, or recommends that the student is not guilty, the dean shall so inform the instructor and attempt to reconcile the differences.
    • 1. If the instructor accepts a compromise, the student shall be notified and the new penalty, if any, imposed.
    • 2. If the instructor refuses to compromise, the dean shall notify the student and permit the student to withdraw from the course. However, a record of the infraction in accordance with section V.A shall be made a part of the student's permanent file.
    • 3. In no case shall the committee be empowered to levy a harsher penalty than the one originally assessed imposed or recommended by the instructor.

  • L. In cases involving an appeal of penalties in categories 5 and 6 of section II.B, if If the hearing committee concludes that the student is not guilty, the dean shall permit the student:
    • 1. to be reinstated in the course and be given whatever grade the student is entitled to without regard to the charge of an infraction of academic integrity;
    • 2. to drop the course at any time of the semester; or
    • 3. to change sections in the course, if possible.

  • M. In cases involving an appeal of a recommendation of suspension or dismissal, the sole question before the hearing committee is whether the facts of the case support that recommendation; this should include an investigation into the facts of the case as well as a judgment on whether suspension or dismissal is warranted. If the hearing committee concurs with the recommendation that the student be suspended or dismissed from the University, the dean shall forward the recommendation to the Senate Committee on Student Discipline. The decision of the college on the facts of the breach of integrity shall be final. The sole question before the Senate Committee on Student Discipline is whether the breach of integrity in question is of such a nature as to warrant suspension or dismissal from the University.

  • N. If the hearing committee or the Senate Committee on Student Discipline do not concur with the recommendation of suspension or dismissal, the dean shall inform the instructor and DEO of the unit in which the infraction occurred of this decision.

• V. Following All Reviews and Appeals
  • A. Records for any case of infraction of academic integrity will be forwarded to the student's college and to the executive director of the Senate Committee on Student Discipline by the DEO and held on file for the period required by the University statutes or regulations. These records are available for inspection in accordance with state and federal regulations.

  • B. Once a violation of academic integrity has been found and a penalty assessed, and after all appeal procedures have been completed (or the time limit for appeals has expired), the DEO (in consultation with the other participants) shall prepare a report of the violation. This report shall describe: (a) the nature of the alleged breaches of academic integrity; (b) if applicable, the appeal procedures followed and the recommendation of any hearing committee; and (c) the ultimate penalties imposed. The DEO shall send a copy of this report, including the student's name and social security number, to the college or equivalent academic unit in which the student is enrolled and to the executive director of the Senate Committee on Student Discipline. Consistent with other university policies on student discipline, these records will be kept on file for a period of six years, and then expunged.
    Comments:

    This report is necessary in order to maintain a record of whether a student has been found guilty of repeated instances of academic misconduct.

  • C. Upon receipt of a letter describing a student's first breach of academic integrity, the executive director of the Senate Committee on Student Discipline shall send a letter to the student explaining that repeated violations of this rule may result in further disciplinary actions, including possible suspension or dismissal from the University. If a letter is received describing an additional breach of academic integrity for the student, the executive director will refer the case to the Senate Committee on Student Discipline for appropriate action. This could include the initiation of a hearing within the disciplinary system and the possibility of disciplinary action up to and including suspension or dismissal. A student's college may also refer students who have been found to have repeatedly violated this rule to the Senate Committee on Student Discipline for appropriate action. Hearings on such cases will be conducted in accordance with the procedures of the Senate Committee on Student Discipline.

  • C. D. At the end of each academic year, the executive director of the Senate Committee on Student Discipline shall compile an annual report to the senate on the number and severity of such infractions of academic integrity, without identification of the individuals involved, and make that report available for open distribution and publication across campus.

Footnotes:

⁸ Most of these definitions were adapted from a model code of academic integrity found in 8 School Law Journal 55 (1978).

⁹ Comments provide explanations and illustrative material but do not necessarily exhaust the scope of any section.

¹⁰ The DEO may choose to designate another department or unit administrator to represent him or her in these matters. In all instances in this rule, "DEO" should be read as "DEO or designee," and refers to the DEO of the faculty member's primary academic appointment.

¹¹ See Rule 26 on procedures for review of alleged capricious grading.