Graduate Studies AI Policy
Graduate Studies AI Policy
Graduate Studies AI Policy
Academic Integrity
Procedures and Rules
(Revised 1/8/2007; 9/6/2006)
The University’s research, scholarship, teaching, and community service are central to its
mission. In order to achieve that mission, it is critical that the highest standards of
academic integrity are articulated to all members of the University community: faculty,
students, and staff. All members of the community have an expectation to interact in a
professional manner in those endeavors that promote and facilitate the university’s
common mission. Adherence to professional Codes of Ethical Conduct can and does play
a central role in the matter.
PREAMBLE
Students, faculty and administrators share responsibility for the determination and
preservation of standards of academic integrity. Each must adhere to his/her own
personal code of integrity and must be prepared to educate others about the importance
of academic integrity, to take reasonable precaution to discourage violations of academic
integrity and to adjudicate violations.
For students, education about the importance of academic integrity begins during the
admissions process. The centrality of integrity to the academic enterprise is reinforced
during new student orientation when students engage in discussion about academic
integrity. Specific mention of academic integrity and course-specific guidelines also may
be presented in all classes. Programs and instruction about academic integrity guidelines
are available throughout students’ graduate school career.
A. Prohibited Conduct.
Academic misconduct is any activity that tends to compromise the academic integrity
of the University, or subvert the educational process. Examples of academic
misconduct include, but are not limited to:
1. Violation of course rules as contained in the course syllabus or other information
provided to the student; violation of program regulations as established by
departmental committees and made available to students;
2. Providing or receiving information during examinations such as course
examinations and candidacy examinations; or the possession and/or use of
unauthorized materials during those examinations;
3. Providing or using assistance in the laboratory, on field work, or on a course
assignment, unless such assistance has been authorized specifically by the course
instructor;
4. Submitting plagiarized work for an academic requirement. Plagiarism is the
representation of another's work or ideas as one's own; it includes the
unacknowledged, word-for-word use and/or paraphrasing of another person's
work, and/or the inappropriate unacknowledged use of another person's ideas;
5. Submitting substantially the same work to satisfy requirements for one course
that has been submitted in satisfaction of requirements for another course,
without permission of the instructor of the course for which the work is being
submitted;
6. Falsification, fabrication, or dishonesty in reporting laboratory and/or research
results;
7. Serving as, or enlisting the assistance of a substitute for a student in the taking of
examinations;
8. Alteration of grades or marks by a student in an effort to change the earned grade
or credit;
9. Alteration of academically-related University forms or records, or unauthorized
use of those forms; and
10. Engaging in activities that unfairly place other students at a disadvantage, such as
taking, hiding or altering resource material, or manipulating a grading system.
11. Scientific misconduct as described/defined by federal standards or existing
university policies is considered a violation of this academic integrity policy. In
addition to the process under this and other University policies, appropriate
response and handling of scientific misconduct also will be handled in
accordance with the prescribed federal guidelines.
12. Professional schools are expected to respond to allegations/violations of academic
integrity in the manner prescribed in their policies and procedures and/or this
academic integrity policy.
1. If a faculty member suspects or has been advised by a third party that a graduate
student is suspected of having violated academic integrity standards, the faculty
member shall consult with the Dean of Graduate Studies about the appropriate
course of action. Before speaking with the student, the faculty member may also
choose to consult with the chair or dean about academic integrity standards.
2. If the faculty member, in consultation with the chair or dean, determines that the
evidence is not adequate to charge the student with a violation, the matter will be
dropped.
3. In some instances, allegations/violations of this policy may require a joint
investigation (e.g., Office of Research Administration (ORA) & the Dean of
Graduate Studies investigate professional conduct and scientific misconduct).
The ORA will determine the manner in which joint cases are handled.
4. First Violations.
a. If the faculty member and the chair/dean agree that a violation has occurred,
and the student agrees that a violation has occurred and the violation is
determined to be a First Violation (the university has no record of previous
violations by the student of the university’s Standards of Conduct), the faculty
member may choose to sanction the student with either failure in the work in
question or failure in the course. In such cases, the faculty member will be
provided with a reporting form signed by both the student and faculty
member and placed in the student’s official file in the School of Graduate
Studies.
b. The faculty and the chair/dean will refer the case to the Dean of Graduate
Studies for possible board action if:
i. The student claims not to have violated academic integrity standards or
the student disagrees with the sanction imposed by the professor.
ii. The faculty member and the chair/dean agree that the seriousness of the
first offense warrants presentation to the academic integrity board.
iii. The faculty member, after consultation with the Dean of Graduate
Studies, prefers to have the academic integrity board investigate or
adjudicate the alleged violation, or prefers that the board sanction the
student.
iv. If the alleged violation is one for which the penalty would be separation
from the University (Level Three and Level Four), the dean of the degree-
granting School automatically will forward the case to the Dean of
Graduate Studies to be heard under the University Academic Policies and
Procedures.
5. Subsequent Violations. If the student’s file indicates that the student suspected
of a violation has been responsible for one or more previous violations of the
university’s Standards of Conduct, the case will be referred to the Dean of
Graduate Studies or for academic integrity board action.
6. Students may continue to participate in a course or research activities until the
case has been resolved unless their continued presence poses a risk to the course
or research activity. Under no circumstances should a student be offered a choice
of either dropping a course or facing disciplinary action.
C. Notice of Charges.
2. Hearing Procedures.
a. The accused student shall appear before the AIB at the scheduled time and
place. The faculty member and the faculty member’s chairperson/dean need
not appear at the hearing, although each may, with the approval of the Dean
of Graduate Studies, attend the hearing and address the AIB.
b. The hearing shall be conducted in a university facility and shall be closed to
the public. Attendance at hearings is limited to those directly involved or
those requested by the Dean or AIB to attend. The Dean or AIB will take
reasonable measures to assure an orderly hearing, including removal of
persons who impede or disrupt the proceedings.
c. Formal rules of evidence shall not apply. The Dean may in her/his absolute
discretion, admit or exclude evidence and admit or exclude witnesses during
the testimony of other witnesses. In any case in which the charge does not
rest exclusively on documentary evidence, the complainant shall be a witness
at the hearing.
d. The accused student may have an advisor throughout the hearing. The
advisor may only counsel the student and may not actively participate in the
hearing, unless clarification is needed as determined by the Dean or the AIB.
This person should be a member of the university community (current faculty
member, administrator, staff member, or student). Any advisor, so
designated, who is also an attorney-at-law will not be considered to be
appearing as counsel.
e. The accused student may submit a written statement, may invite relevant
witnesses to attend, may ask questions of witnesses called by others, and will
be notified of potential witnesses to be called. The University may present
witnesses as well as question those presented by the accused. The accused
student must direct questions to witnesses through the Dean of Graduate
Studies.
f. The accused student may review any evidence that may be introduced prior to
the hearing.
g. In cases requiring special expertise, the Dean or AIB may appoint individuals
with appropriate expertise to serve as consultants to the AIB. The consultants
may be present and provide information as called upon during the hearing
but will not vote.
h. Students are entitled to a presumption of innocence. Therefore, a student will
not be found in violation unless a preponderance of the evidence supports the
charge(s).
3. Attendance
Because the most accurate and fair review of the facts can best be accomplished
when all parties are present, the accused is expected to attend and participate. If
an individual does not choose to attend a hearing, the charges will be reviewed as
scheduled on the basis of the information available, and a decision will be made.
Although no inference may be drawn against a student for failing to attend a
hearing or remaining silent, the hearing will proceed, and the conclusion will be
based on the evidence presented. No decision shall be based solely on the failure
of the accused student to attend the hearing or answer the charges.
4. Record of Proceedings
5. Findings
F. Sanctions
Recommended sanctions for Level One Violations are listed below; one of these
may be chosen in each case:
Records of students who commit Level Two offenses will be maintained in the
respective Chair’s/Dean’s Office. A copy of the complaint and its resolution will
be placed in the student’s official graduate file.
Level Three Violations are those that go beyond Level One or Two and that, in the
opinion of the Dean of Graduate Studies require adjudication at the university
level. Level Three Violations include dishonesty that affects a major or essential
portion of work done to meet course requirements, involves premeditation, or is
preceded by one or more violations at Levels One and Two. Cases involving Level
Three Violations are heard under the School of Graduate Studies Academic
Integrity Policies and Rules. Examples of Level Three Violations include but are
not limited to:
a. Copying on examinations;
b. Plagiarizing major portions of a written assignment;
c. Acting to facilitate copying during an exam;
d. Using prohibited materials, e.g., books, notes, or calculators during an
examination;
e. Collaborating before an exam to develop methods of exchanging information
and implementation thereof;
f. Altering examinations for the purposes of re-grading;
g. Acquiring or distributing an examination from unauthorized sources prior to
the examination;
h. Presenting the work of another as one’s own;
i. Using purchased term paper or other materials;
j. Removing posted or reserved material, or preventing other students from
having access to it;
k. Fabricating data by inventing or deliberately altering material (this includes
citing “sources” that are not, in fact, sources); or
l. Using unethical or improper means of acquiring data.
The sanction typically to be sought for all Level Three Violations or repeated
violations of Level One and Two offenses is a minimum of a one semester
suspension from the University.
Level Four Violations represent the most serious breaches of intellectual honesty.
Such cases are heard under the School of Graduate Studies Academic Integrity
Policies and Rules. Examples of Level Four Violations include but are not
limited to:
The typical sanction for all Level Four Violations and a repeat infraction at Level
Three is permanent expulsion from the university. In addition, faculty members
retain the right to fail the student, place a letter in the student’s permanent
graduate file, which is not removed upon graduation or other action as deemed
appropriate by the Dean of Graduate Studies. Such cases are heard under the
School of Graduate Studies Academic Integrity Policies and Rules. Notation of
“academic disciplinary separation” and notification will be placed on a student’s
official record in the School of Graduate Studies.
G. Appeal Process
1. Right to Appeal
A student found in violation has the right to appeal the original decision. An
appeal of a decision must be submitted in writing and postmarked or hand
delivered to the Provost or the Provost’s designee, within ten (10) calendar days
after the date on which written notice of the decision is sent to the student. Each
student shall be limited to one appeal. The decision of the appeal officer is final.
An appeal may be based only upon one or more of the following grounds:
a. Procedural error;
b. Misapplication or misinterpretation of the rule alleged to have been violated;
c. Findings of facts not supported by a preponderance of evidence;
d. Discovery of substantial new facts that were unavailable at the time of the
hearing; or
e. That the disciplinary sanction imposed is grossly disproportionate to the
violation committed.
3. Appeal Proceedings
a. The appeal officer shall dismiss the appeal if the appeal is not based upon one
or more of the grounds set forth in Section (B) above.
b. The appeal officer may decide the appeal based upon a review of the record.
c. The appeal officer may request additional written information or an oral
presentation from any relevant person(s) and then decide the appeal based
upon the enhanced record.
The appeal officer may, after a review of the record, uphold the original sanction,
dismiss the original sanction, or impose a lesser sanction. An appeal officer may
also remand the case to the original hearing body or refer the case to a new
hearing officer or panel to be reheard. If possible, the new hearing officer or panel
should be different from the one that originally decided the case. If a case is
reheard by a hearing officer or panel, the sanction imposed can be greater than
that imposed at the original hearing.
5. Minor Deviations from Procedure
A student and hearing officer may agree in advance to minor deviations from
procedure. Such deviations are not then subject to appeal. Other minor
deviations are acceptable as long as such deviations are not found upon appeal to
be unreasonably harmful to the student.
H. VIOLATIONS REPORTED AFTER VOLUNTARY WITHDRAWAL OR
ACADEMIC SEPARATION
J. MAINTENANCE OF RECORDS