The following policy on undergraduate academic, scholarly, and professional integrity was originally formulated by the University’s Academic Integrity Taskforce. It was adopted by the University Senate on May 1, 2023.

This appendix of The Student Code describes the policy, the types of acts that shall be considered academic, scholarly, and professional misconduct by undergraduates, and it presents the process for resolving complaints of academic, scholarly, and professional integrity misconduct.

Purpose:

To ensure a commitment to academic, scholarly, and professional integrity in all levels of the university community.

Such a commitment ensures that:

1. all individuals accept full responsibility for their own work and ideas;
2. all academic/scholarly credit awarded to an individuals represents the work of that individual;
3. no student benefits from an unfair advantage;
4. faculty, staff, advisors and others who support the intellectual development of students are committed to fostering, guiding, and monitoring students for adherence to all principles of academic and scholarly integrity;
5. the grades earned, the degrees or certificate conferred were appropriately earned by the individual;
6. the reputation of the University with respect to academic and scholarly integrity are protected
7. faculty, staff, and students adhere to the professional standards of conduct specific to each program offered at the university;
8. this policy is used consistently across the University, including undergraduate and graduating students and schools/colleges.

Applies To:

This policy applies to all members of the University Community engaged in academic and scholarly efforts in, but is not limited to, the following contexts in undergraduate and graduate education:

1. courses, including online courses (e.g., assignments, exams, projects, thesis);
2. experiential and service-learning courses and activities;
3. study abroad programs;
4. clinical and practice placements, internships, and externships;
5. program assessments (e.g., comprehensive exams, thesis, program reviews);
6. research, including undergraduate, graduate, postdoctoral scholar, and faculty research; and
7. processes involving submitting information (i.e., admissions, for scholarships/fellowships, for competitions, for awards, or other university programs); and
8. professional events and conferences

All members of the University community are responsible for ensuring that the principles of academic and scholarly integrity are upheld. This policy applies to graduate students and postdoctoral scholars, with the exception of PharmD students in the School of Pharmacy and professional students with degrees conferred by the Schools of Dental Medicine, Medicine, or Law.

This policy does not apply to legal, regulatory, or compliance requirements that fall outside the Academic, Scholarly, Professional Integrity and Misconduct Policy. In addition, this policy does not remove any reporting requirements to the appropriate oversight authority in instances of noncompliance or alleged noncompliance.

Definitions:

Academic Integrity: a commitment by the University Community to uphold just and ethical behaviors, which includes truthfulness, fairness, and respect (ICAI, 2021).

Scholarly Integrity: a commitment by the University community to both research integrity and the ethical understanding and skill required of researchers/scholars in domestic, international, and multicultural contexts. It is also intended to address ethical aspects of scholarship that influence the next generation of researchers as teachers, mentors, supervisors, and successful stewards of grant funds.” (p. xix, Council of Graduate Schools, 2012).

Professional Integrity: Standards of behavior defined by the various professions in which students are prepared through their degree or certificate programs.

Academic, Scholarly, Professional Integrity and Misconduct: Academic, Scholarly, and Professional Misconduct is defined as unethical academic and scholarly behavior during a course (e.g., on an assignment or exam), as part of other degree requirements (e.g., requirements regarding placement, capstone or comprehensive exams, or placement exams), or at other times during undergraduate, graduate, or professional study and performance, including during engagement in fieldwork, clinical placements, or research. These behaviors include:

1. Cheating: Unauthorized acts, actions, or behaviors in academic or scholarly areas.Examples of cheating include, but are not limited to:
   1. providing or receiving help on an assignment or exam intended to reflect the individual student’s work product when not authorized to do so by the instructor.
   2. buying, selling, circulating, or using a copy of instructional materials, assignment or test, including uploading such information to online services, or using materials prepared by services that sell or provide papers or other course materials.
   3. asking someone to complete an assignment, exam, or other requirement on your behalf or completing an assignment, exam, or requirement for another student.
   4. Failure to disclose unauthorized assistance on work submitted for evaluation, i.e., assistance obtained outside channels approved by instructors, that is used to complete a course, program, or degree requirement. This includes assistance from other students, teaching assistants, Quantitative Learning Center, Writing Center, or mediated support from the Center for Students with Disabilities.
2. Plagiarizing: Using one’s own previously published, presented, or disseminated material, or another person’s language/text, data, ideas, expressions, digital/graphic element, passages of music, mathematical proofs, scientific data, code, or other original material without authorization of the originating source or proper acknowledgement, attribution, or citation of the originating source.Examples of plagiarism include but are not limited to:
   1. submitting as one’s own any work (in whole or part) completed by another individual, including any work that has been purchased from an individual, commercial research firm, or obtained from the internet.
   2. submitting for evaluation or credit any work that was previously used or submitted for credit in another course or as part of a degree requirement (e.g., a thesis or dissertation) without authorization to do so from the instructor. (This includes self-plagiarism in the form of re-using, in part or whole, the content of a paper from another class or context.).
   3. submitting any work prepared for or used in a previous publication, academic competition, clinic, or other activity (e.g., grant or application submission) without prior approval and full disclosure or when permitted by established editorial or other policy. (This includes self-plagiarism in the form of using, in part or whole, the content of a paper that was previously published without attribution).
   4. unauthorized use of previously completed work or research for a thesis, dissertation, or publication.
3. Misrepresenting: Deliberately knowing and providing false or misleading information, including information about oneself or others. Examples of misrepresenting include but are not limited to:
   1. engaging in “any omission or misrepresentation of the information necessary and sufficient to evaluate the validity and significance of research, at the level appropriate to the context in which the research is communicated” (D. Fanelli, Nature 494:149; 2013).
   2. making unauthorized alterations to any document or digital file pertaining to academic or scholarly activity, including assignments, exams, and research data.
   3. Page 2 making up information for the purpose of deception (e.g., fabrication of data in research).
   4. making false, inaccurate, or misleading claims or statements, including claims/statements made when asking for assistance (e.g., requesting an extension on an assignment), applying for admission to an undergraduate or graduate program, applying for a scholarship or an academic, scholarly, or research award, or submitting manuscripts for publications.
   5. allowing someone to use one’s identity or using someone else’s identity for academic or scholarly advantage (e.g., signing in electronically for an absent student).
   6. accepting credit for work for which the individual did not contribute (e.g., misrepresenting an individual’s role in a group assignments).
4. Noncompliance: Failure to conform with codified and publicly available academic, scholarly, or professional standards, processes, or protocols.Examples of noncompliance include but are not limited to:
   1. not attending to the professional standards governing the professional conduct of students in particular fields (e.g., pharmacy, nursing, education, counseling, and therapy).
   2. violating protocols governing the use of human or animal subjects.
   3. breaching confidentiality in academic and scholarly activity (e.g., disclosing the identity of study participants).
   4. disregarding the applicable university, local, state, or federal regulations that guide academic or scholarly activities.

Instructor: any faculty, teaching assistant, or any other person (e.g., lab supervisor, clinical supervisor, professional staff) authorized by the University to provide educational services (e.g., teaching, research, advising).

Policy Statement: All members of the university community, including administrators, faculty, staff, and students, have a shared responsibility to uphold the highest ethical standards of academic, scholarly, and professional integrity and to report any violations of those standards of which they are aware.

Instructor Expectations: To foster a culture of academic integrity, instructors are responsible for communicating the expectations for academic and scholarly integrity to students and for engaging in practices that mitigate violations of this policy. Specifically, instructors are expected to:

1. include a link to the Academic, Scholarly, and Professional Integrity and Misconduct policy as part of course syllabi or documentation for any other academic/scholarly activity and include any additional unit-specific expectations.
2. review academic and scholarly integrity policy and any other disciplinary- or activity-specific expectations.
3. provide clear guidance for all assignments, activities, and assessments, including noting what resources can be used and whether collaboration is permitted.
4. ensure individuals engaged in research, creative, or professional activities understand the standards, protocols, and guidelines to which they must adhere.
5. adhere to the University processes for reporting misconduct, engaging in the review process, and assigning consequences to address violations, which should include opportunities for education and remediation.

Student Expectations: To uphold the principle of academic and scholarly integrity in all aspects of their intellectual development and engagement at the University, students are expected to:

1. be responsible for their own work and their own actions related to all academic and scholarly endeavors.
2. assume they are to do independent work and seek clarification prior to collaborating with others or using outside resources.
3. understand and abide by the standards, protocols, and guidelines to which they must adhere in research, creative, or professional activities.

If students witness or become aware of a violation of academic or scholarly integrity, they are encouraged to communicate this to the appropriate university representative (e.g., faculty, staff, advisor).

A cumulative record is maintained of all academic or scholarly integrity violations and such record will be reviewed and considered as part of subsequent incidences. Individuals engaged in research are expected to follow all standards, rules and regulations that guide the proper conduct of research or creative activity.

Enforcement:

Violations of this policy and its related procedures may result in appropriate disciplinary measures in accordance with University By- Laws, General Rules of Conduct for All University Employees, applicable collective bargaining agreements, and the University of Connecticut Student Code.

Procedures:

I. Initial Conversation (between Instructor and Student(s))

If an instructor believes that a student has violated the Academic, Scholarly, and Professional Integrity and Misconduct Policy, the instructor is expected to have an initial conversation with the student (i.e., in person, virtually, or by email correspondences sent to a student’s university email address (i.e., name@uconn.edu) regarding the suspected or apparent violation to determine if any additional information is available that might be relevant to the determination of whether a violation has actually occurred and what might be an appropriate consequence. This initial conversation should take place as soon as practical after the alleged violation has come to the attention of the instructor (typically within one week). The instructor shall present the student with the apparent or suspected allegation and provide the student with an opportunity to respond and present evidence refuting the allegation if they wish.

Based on all available information, the instructor may find that the student is either:

• “not in violation” of the Academic, Scholarly, and Professional Integrity and Misconduct Policy. In such cases, no additional action is necessary, or
• “in violation” of the Academic, Scholarly, and Professional Integrity and Misconduct Policy.

When an instructor finds that a student is “in violation” of the Academic, Scholarly, Professional Integrity and Misconduct policy and intends to impose an academic consequence for the violation the instructor must follow the steps outlined below to ensure that the student’s due process rights are not violated.

1. The instructor must report this action, the nature of the violation, and the proposed academic consequence in writing using the Academic, Scholarly, Professional Integrity and Misconduct Report Form. A copy of this report, which will document the allegations and intended consequences, will be sent to the student via their official University email address. The email will also include instructions for seeking additional guidance through an Informational Meeting (described below) and the process to contest the findings, including specific deadlines to which they must adhere (also described below).
2. When the allegation occurs in the context of a course, the instructor may also bring the case directly to the Academic, Scholarly, Professional Integrity Hearing Panel if they believe a failing grade, the most severe academic consequence that the course instructor can impose, is too lenient given the nature of the offense.

Upon receiving official notification of an alleged violation, a student may contest the finding and/or the intended consequence(s) using the procedures outlined below. If the student contests the finding(s) and/or the intended consequence(s), the consequence(s) may not be formally applied until the process regarding the contestation has been completed.

If a finding of “in violation” is not contested by the given deadline, the notification will be considered a finding of responsibility for violating the Academic, Scholarly, Professional Integrity and Misconduct Policy and the intended academic consequence will be applied.

II. Informational Meeting

When an instructor notifies a student that they are in violation, the student and/or the instructor may request an informational meeting with a representative from the Office of Community Standards. These meetings provide an opportunity to obtain additional information and guidance about the Academic, Scholarly, and Professional Integrity and Misconduct Policy and student misconduct procedures. These informational meetings provide impartial information and guidance only and do not provide advice about a course of action that should be taken by either the instructor or the student. Guidance may be provided about the following:

• the Policy on Academic, Scholarly, and Professional Integrity and Misconduct and/or other policies set in School/College documents (e.g., syllabi, program handbook, school/college policies).
• the Procedures for Addressing Student Violations of the Academic, Scholarly, and Professional Integrity and Misconduct Policy
• instructor and student rights and responsibilities, including implications of multiple findings of “in violation”.
• information about consequences that may be levied, including academic and programmatic consequences and university sanctions.
• educative information or where additional information can be found about academic, scholarly, and professional integrity (e.g., library resources about plagiarism).

Students are encouraged to take advantage of an informational meeting to seek additional insights and obtain answers to questions prior to deciding whether to contest the finding(s) of the instructor and/or the intended consequence(s).

Note: The individual providing the guidance cannot be part of a subsequent hearing process.

III. Academic, Scholarly, Professional Integrity and Misconduct Hearing Panel Process

A student found “in violation” by an instructor may contest the finding(s) and/or the intended academic consequences. If the alleged violation involves a course and a grade for the student in the course must be submitted before the case can be decided, the faculty member shall record a grade of incomplete (I), pending a decision by the Hearing Panel or a final appeal.

1. All contestations must be submitted in writing through the Academic, Scholarly, and Professional Integrity Hearing Request Form no later than two weeks (i.e., 10 business days) after notification of the in violation finding. Upon receiving a student’s request to contest the finding(s) and/or intended consequences, the instructor will be notified, and the merits of the contestation will be reviewed by a Hearing Chair.
   • An exception to the 10-day deadline may be granted at the discretion of the Hearing Chair on a showing of good cause.
2. Students who contest an allegation for a course that is in progress should continue attending the class and complete coursework.
3. A contestation's merits will be reviewed by a Hearing Chair to determine if it should proceed with an Academic, Scholarly, Professional Integrity Hearing Panel. Contestations found to have merit are moved to the Hearing Panel process.
   • Lack of intentionality is not an acceptable basis to contest. Academic consequences cannot be contested in cases where the penalt(ies) are explicitly stated in the course syllabus and/or fall within standard recommendations set by the University. If the Hearing Chair decides not to convene an Academic, Scholarly, Professional Integrity Hearing Committee because the case does not have merit, a rationale will be provided, and the decision cannot be appealed.
4. The Hearing Panel may conclude that a student is:
   • in violation of the Academic, Scholarly, and Professional Integrity and Misconduct Policy and determine that the student will receive consequences as described below. These consequences may differ from the consequences recommended by the instructor.
   • not in violation of the Academic, Scholarly, and Professional Integrity and Misconduct Policy and determine that the student will not be subject to the consequence determined by the instructor (i.e., they will earn the grade or credit received for the assignment, experience, or course).
5. A student found in-violation of the Academic, Scholarly, and Professional Integrity and Misconduct Policy or the instructor may contest the Hearing Panel’s decision by submitting a final appeal (see section IV).

Note: A student who is found in violation of the Academic, Scholarly, Professional Integrity and Misconduct Policy is determined to have presented false evidence or false statements at the hearing may have a second violation brought against them by the Hearing Panel. This would constitute multiple violations and potentially more serious penalties, including status consequences, which may include suspension or permanent expulsion.

IV. Composition of the Academic and Scholarly Integrity Committee and Hearing Panels

A. Academic and Scholarly Integrity Committee

The Academic and Scholarly Integrity Committee is a standing committee of the Provost Office.

• Charge: This committee will be charged with the following:
  • Participate in annual training to be eligible to Serve on Academic, Scholarly, and Professional Integrity Hearing Panels
  • Serve on Academic, Scholarly, and Professional Integrity Hearing Panels
  • Represent their school/college on all issues related to academic, scholarly, and professional integrity.
  • Make recommendations to sustain a culture of Academic, Scholarly, and Professional Integrity at UConn.
    • Review the Academic, Scholarly, and Professional Integrity information (e.g., relevant policies, processes, and procedures, relevant systemic and structural processes, educative material, and annual reports).
    • Advise on needed programming (e.g., Academic, Scholarly, and Professional Integrity Awareness Week) or educational materials
• Members:
  • Co-Chairs
    • Assistant Director of Academic and Scholarly Integrity
    • Vice Provost for Faculty, Staff, and Student Development
  • Faculty Representatives
    • With the exception of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, each School/College governed by these procedures will select three faculty members to serve three-year staggered terms. At least two of the members must be members of the Graduate Faculty. Due to its size, the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences will elect six members to serve 3-year staggered terms. At least 4 of these members must be members of the Graduate Faculty. Schools/Colleges shall notify the Provost Office of their new representatives for the subsequent academic year by April 1.
  • Student Representatives
    • Three (3) students from each school/college. They may be elected by representatives of the study body at the Undergraduate or Graduate Level. When possible, student terms should be staggered. Otherwise, students will be appointed to serve on the Committee by the Dean or Dean’s designee, annually.
  • Ex Officio Members (One representative from each of the following)
    • The Graduate School
    • UConn Library

Note: To facilitate the transition to staggered elected terms, the inaugural members from each school/college will be appointed to a 1, 2-, or 3-year term. After that, each new member of the committee will be appointed to a 3-year term. In addition, when necessary, the Dean will appoint an alternate faculty member to replace a school/college representation for a short duration (e.g., sabbatical) or the remainder of an elected representative’s term (e.g., resignation from the University).

B. Academic, Scholarly and Professional Integrity Hearing Panels

The Hearing Panel will be comprised of the following:

• Hearing Chair
  • The Hearing Chair will be a non-voting representative from Academic, Scholarly, and Professional Integrity Committee from a school/college not represented in the hearing. The Hearing Officer will only vote in cases of a tie.
  • The Hearing Chair presides over the hearing to ensure that 1) the hearing procedures are followed, and 2) no party threatens, intimidates, or coerces any of the participants. They also keep clear and complete records of the proceedings and submit the Panel’s findings and a report of the proceedings.
• Two (2) faculty representatives from the Academic and Scholarly Integrity Committee.
  • For cases involving graduate students, these faculty members must be Graduate Faculty members.
  • If the infraction occurs during the summer session, the faculty representatives will be appointed by the Dean of the school/college where the incident occurred.
• Two (2) student representatives from the Academic and Scholarly Integrity Committee
  • For cases involving graduate students, the members must be graduate student members.

No member of the Hearing Panel may be a member of the program/department of either party to the hearing, nor may any Hearing Panel member have personal or professional associations with the parties.

C. Jurisdiction

The Hearing Panel shall hear all cases that come before it de novo. In addition, as part of the hearing process, the Hearing Panel will consider all academic, scholarly, and professional standards set in policy by the school/college or program (e.g., syllabi, program handbooks). The student shall have the right to present their case and to challenge the allegations or the evidence. While the Hearing Panel may recommend an increase in the intended consequence proposed by the instructor, it should consider raising the consequence only in the exceptional case, particularly when it is the student seeking the review.

V. Academic, Scholarly, and Professional Integrity Hearing Panel Procedures

The Academic, Scholarly, and Professional Integrity Hearing Panel shall convene as soon as practical after notification of a student contestation. Usually, a hearing will be conducted within fifteen (15) business days of the student being notified of the hearing. The Hearing Panel shall hear from all available parties and examine all the evidence presented.

• If the alleged violation involves a course and a grade for the student in the course must be submitted before the case can be decided, the faculty member shall record a grade of incomplete, pending a decision by the Hearing Panel or a final appeal.
• When a hearing involves more than one student, the Hearing Chair may permit the hearings concerning each student to be conducted separately or jointly.

A. The instructor and the student shall each have the right to:

1. Be notified of all alleged violations via the University's official email address, which will provide a link to the documentation and information about the hearing process.
2. Review any written allegation(s) and supporting documents.
3. A reasonable period of time to prepare for a hearing.
4. Request a delay of a hearing due to extenuating circumstances. The decision to grant or deny any such request is within the discretion of the Hearing Chair.
5. Submit a written account and/or a personal statement regarding the incident and/or any relevant evidence to be considered using the Academic, Scholarly, and Professional Integrity Hearing Request Misconduct Report Form.
   1. All documentary evidence should be clearly labeled, organized, and submitted at least 10 business days before the hearing. New evidence will be allowed at the hearing at the sole discretion of the Hearing Chair. The party seeking to introduce new evidence must provide copies of the evidence for review by the Hearing Chair. One complete copy of all submitted evidence will be maintained as part of the record.
   2. Failure to provide documentation by the established deadline will not be an acceptable reason for a final appeal.
   3. The decision to not present information by the student is not an admission of responsibility.
6. Provide the names and contact information of witnesses who have direct knowledge of the incident, a brief description of the evidence each will provide, and provide a list of recommended questions for any witnesses or the involved parties.
   1. This information must be provided by the date established by the Hearing Chair. Failure to provide witness information by the established deadline will not be an acceptable reason for an appeal. The Hearing Chair will make every effort to interview those witnesses with direct knowledge as part of the Hearing Panel process; however, the witness cannot be compelled to speak with the Hearing Chair.
   2. The list of any witnesses must be provided to the Hearing Chair at least three business days before the hearing. The Panel may decide not to permit one or more witnesses to participate in the hearing if the information they are expected to provide is not relevant to any material issue and is deemed unnecessary or repetitive of other information already in the record.
   3. The party proposing a witness is responsible for any communication with the witness regarding attendance at the hearing.
7. Be notified of the identity of witnesses who have been called to speak at the hearing or who have been asked to provide additional written information by the Panel.
8. Be accompanied by a support person and consult their support person throughout the hearing. However, the support person is not permitted to participate in the hearing directly. (Hearings are not rescheduled based on the availability of the support persons or the witnesses).

B. Those present at the hearing shall be:

• The student, who is entitled to bring a support person
• The instructor, who is entitled to bring a support person
• Approved witnesses identified by the instructor or student, including any third-party independent witness who observed the initial conversation between the instructor and the student.
  • Witnesses will be present in the hearing room only during the period in which their statement will be provided.

C. Should the student or instructor fail to appear before the Hearing Panel, the Panel shall have full authority to proceed in their absence.

D. The Hearing Panel members shall be present at every hearing. However, both parties may agree in writing to waive this quorum. Of those present, a simple majority shall decide the issue. The Hearing Chair shall vote only in the case of a tie vote. The Panel shall find the student in violation only if there is preponderance of evidence indicating that the student has violated the Academic and Scholarly Integrity policy.

E. Admission of any person into the hearing room shall be at the discretion of the Hearing Chair. The Panel shall have the authority to discharge or remove any person whose presence is deemed unnecessary or obstructive to the proceedings.

F. The hearing is not a court proceeding and will not be bound by the procedures and rules of evidence of a court of law. Therefore, formal rules of process, procedure, and/or technical rules of evidence, such as are applied in criminal or civil case, are not used in these proceedings. The hearing will occur in private and will be audio or video recorded (if held virtually).

1. The University will maintain the recording as required by Connecticut State law and it is the property of the University. Hearing participants are prohibited from making their own recordings.
2. Upon written request, an instructor or student may review the recording and make appropriate arrangements for it to be transcribed on University premises. Arrangements for a transcriber and all associated costs involved in the transcription will be the responsibility of the requesting individual(s).

G. The Hearing Chair will conduct the hearing in accordance with the following procedures:

1. The Hearing Chair will identify the instructor and all other persons involved in the hearing.
2. The Hearing Chair will state the issue, as set forth in the notification sent to both parties.
3. Each party will be offered the opportunity to make brief opening statements. Each opening statement should consist of a brief summary and should not involve lengthy discussion or presentation of evidence. The instructor will present their information first.
4. Each party will be offered an opportunity to present evidence to support their position to the Hearing Panel. Evidence shared may include written statements, personal oral statements, witness oral statements, and physical exhibits. The instructor will present their evidence first.
   1. The Hearing Panel shall provide for the exclusion of irrelevant, immaterial, or unduly repetitive evidence.
5. Witness(es) will be offered an opportunity to make statements. The Hearing Chair will determine the order in which the witnesses will provide their statements.
6. The Hearing Panel will be offered the opportunity to question both parties and all witnesses.
7. Both parties will have the opportunity to present a closing statement. The instructor will present their closing statement first.
8. At the conclusion of the closing statements, the hearing will conclude and immediately following the hearing, the Hearing Panel will privately deliberate and render a decision (see further details below). The Panel’s deliberations will not be recorded. The decision shall be made by majority vote.
9. The Hearing Chair will submit the Hearing Panel’s decision and rationale, and if appropriate, the consequence imposed through the Academic and Scholarly and Professional Integrity and Misconduct Reporting Form within seven (7) days of the conclusion of the hearing. The notice of the outcome will be sent to all parties via their official University email addresses, and if appropriate, by first class mail, postage paid, to the mailing address on file with the University.
   1. If the Panel affirms the finding of the instructor, or if the Panel decides a different consequence is warranted, the dean of the instructor’s college and the dean of the student’s college shall also receive the hearing outcome letter.
   2. When a graduate student is involved, a copy of the decision will be sent to the major advisor, the graduate program coordinator and/or department head, the Dean of the School/College in which the issue occurred, and the Dean of The Graduate School.

H. The Panel may act in one or more of the following ways

1. Find the student “Not in Violation” of the Policy of Academic, Scholarly and Professional Integrity and Misconduct policy.
   1. The Panel shall not impose any academic consequences, and the instructor must give the student full credit for the work produced.
2. Find the student “In Violation” of the policy on Academic, Scholarly and Professional Integrity and Misconduct policy.
   1. Affirm the instructor’s consequence decision, or
   2. Determine the consequence that shall be applied (e.g., a failing grade for the course or some portion of it.) In addition to the imposed academic consequence(s), the Hearing Panel may make recommendations for consideration as part of an administrative review process (see section VI).

I. Unless an appeal is filed under the guidelines established below, the Dean or Dean’s Designee of the student’s college/school shall ensure that the decision of the Hearing Panel is carried out and shall notify all parties of the implementation.

• Note: Changes to grades due to a violation of the Academic, Scholarly and Professional Integrity and Misconduct policy are not subject to the grade appeal process.

VI. Appealing the Hearing Panel Decision

Either the student or the instructor may appeal the Hearing Panel’s decision. This appeal is not a new hearing. It is a review of the record of the original hearing by a Vice Provost, specifically the Vice Provost for Graduate Education for cases involving graduate students and the Vice Provost for Faculty, Staff, and Student Development in cases involving undergraduate students. If the Board’s decision involves students from more than one college or students from more than one level, the Vice Provost(s) shall consult relevant individuals to support a comprehensive review.

To prepare this appeal, the student or instructor shall have the right to review the records of the hearing, including the audio or video recording. This review of records, including the recording, is limited to preparing the appeal only. Appeals may be sought for one of the following three outcomes:

• Appeal of a finding of “in violation”. A student who has received a finding of “in violation” from the Panel, or whose finding of “in violation” by the instructor was upheld by the Panel, may appeal on one or both of the following grounds:
  • Additional evidence that might have affected the outcome of the hearing became available following the hearing
  • A violation of procedure by the Hearing Panel that might have influenced the outcome of the hearing. The relevant Vice Provost may deny the appeal or send the case back to the Hearing Panel for reconsideration with specific instructions.
• Appeal of a finding of “not in violation”. An instructor can appeal this finding on one or both of the following grounds: o Additional evidence that might have affected the outcome of the hearing became available following the hearing
  • A violation of procedure by the Hearing Panel that might have influenced the outcome of the hearing. The relevant Vice Provost may deny the appeal or send the case back to the Hearing Panel for reconsideration.
• Appeal of a Academic Consequence. The student or instructor may appeal the findings of the Hearing Panel regarding penalties to determine whether any consequences imposed by the Panel were appropriate for the violation.
  • The appeal shall specify the reasons why the student or instructor believes the consequence is inappropriate.

A. The appeal request must be submitted in writing through the Academic, Scholarly, Professional Integrity Appeal Form, and shall include the Hearing Packet (i.e., all information used by the Hearing Panel to make its decision), as well as the new documentation and/or evidence, including any evidence of procedural error. The appeal must be submitted within seven (7) business days of notification of the Panel’s decision, but the Vice Provost may grant exceptions to this deadline on showing of good cause.

B. After consultation with the Hearing Panel, the Vice Provost may take one of the following actions:

1. Affirm the decision of the Hearing Panel
2. Modify the decision of the Hearing Panel (e.g., require that the academic or programmatic consequence be reduced or decline to carry out the recommended consequence; or alternately, increase the consequence).
3. Return the case to the Hearing Panel with instructions to guide additional deliberations.

The decision of the Vice Provost is final and cannot be appealed.