Skip to Main Content

Academic Honesty

Principles of Academic Integrity

Academic honesty is essential to the educational process and the upholding of high ethical standards. All work submitted—including tests, papers, and computer programs—must represent the student's own work as generated within the specific guidelines of the course syllabus. Cheating–including plagiarism, fabrication, the unauthorized use of technology (including artificial intelligence (AI)), or any kind of unethical or dishonest behavior–may subject a student to severe penalties, up to and including dismissal.

Responsibilities of Faculty and Students

  • Faculty Responsibilities: Instructors must include an Academic Honesty statement in their syllabi that aligns with the course's delivery method. This statement must outline the instructor’s class policy for acceptable uses of AI and specify penalties for misconduct, such as zero credit for an assignment or failure in the course. In all cases of alleged academic dishonesty where a consequence has been delivered, instructors must submit a report (as outlined in the Standard Process below) within five business days of discussing the issue with the student.

  • Student Responsibilities: Students are responsible for understanding and abiding by the Academic Honesty requirements for each course. If a student is unsure about the propriety of outside assistance or AI use, they must consult the instructor before work commences.

Standard Process

  1. Identification and Discussion: When a faculty member identifies potential academic misconduct, they must first address it directly with the student, consistent with the individual course's syllabus policy. If other parties have evidence of a student’s academic dishonesty, they may report this to the instructor of the impacted course who will initiate this process, keeping the reporter’s identity confidential to the best of their ability. If the circumstances of the incident or in the course of subsequent review, the identity of the reporting individual becomes known, the guidelines for non-retaliation as described in the Community Standards Manual apply.

  2. Delivery of Consequence: Instructors should indicate specific penalties for academic dishonesty in their course syllabi. Penalties, appropriate to the severity of the infraction, may include resubmission of the same or a modified assignment, reduced or zero credit for the assignment, or failure in the course. If a student withdraws from a course after academic misconduct has taken place, a course grade of F instead of W may be assigned at the faculty member’s discretion.

  3. Reporting: In all cases where a consequence has been delivered for academic dishonesty, the faculty member must submit a report (via the Maxient reporting system) within five (5) business days of discussing the issue with the student. This report includes the nature of the infraction, the conversation details, and the consequence(s) delivered. The full report will be kept private and is accessible by the Dean of Students’ Office, the academic Associate Deans, and, only if applicable, individuals comprising the substantive review panel or University Conduct Board (UCB), as outlined in those processes below.

  4. Notification: The student will receive an automated email containing the faculty member’s description of the infraction and the sanction, along with information regarding the appeals and review process. The Department Chair and Associate Dean are also notified.

  5. Holding Period: The Associate Dean will hold the case for five (5) business days to allow the student time to respond.

Appeals and Substantive Review Process

If a student wishes to contest the finding of academic dishonesty or the sanction, they have five (5) business days from the date the notification email was sent to them to submit a written request for one of the following:

Appeal on Administrative Grounds

A student may file an administrative appeal for Associate Dean review if they believe the syllabus policy should be interpreted differently, the instructor delivered a sanction inconsistent with the syllabus policy, or they did not receive notification within five (5) business days.

  • Investigation: The Associate Dean will collect the syllabus, contact the instructor, and investigate the claim.

  • Outcome or Resolution: The Associate Dean will communicate the outcome or resolution to the student and instructor within ten (10) business days of receipt of the appeal. Outcomes may include, but are not limited to, changing the sanction to align with the syllabus, moving the case to a substantive review (described below), or denying the appeal and affirming the instructor’s determination. The Associate Dean’s determination on an administrative appeal is final.

Request for Substantive Review

If a student contests the original determination of dishonesty (i.e., does not accept responsibility for misconduct), they may request a substantive review. Alternatively, the Associate Dean also may request a substantive review as an outcome of an Administrative Appeal. The substantive review process will only determine whether the student is to be held responsible for academic misconduct. Subsequent sanctions may be delivered by the Associate Dean or University Conduct Board as outlined in the final sanctions section below.

  • Substantive Review Panel: The Associate Dean convenes a panel chaired by themselves (non-voting) and composed of two faculty members and one student.

    • The faculty members will be selected by Faculty Council. One will be selected from the same academic division as the class affected, though not the same department, and the other may be selected from any division at the University.

    • The student panel member may either be a peer resolution facilitator–an employee of the Dean of Students’ office–or a volunteer recruited in collaboration with the undergraduate student government or graduate student association and approved by the Dean of Students’ Office. Students who have a personal relationship to or significant knowledge of the student seeking review are not eligible to serve on the panel.

  • Panel Responsibilities: The panel reviews the report and the student's appeal, meets separately with the faculty member and student, and may request additional statements from others (though character witnesses are not accepted).

  • Standard of Evidence: The panel makes a determination based on a "preponderance of evidence" standard—meaning it is more likely than not that the dishonesty occurred. The panel may not use a student's previous history of misconduct (academic or non-academic) to determine responsibility in the current case.

  • Determination: The panel communicates its determination of the student’s responsibility for academic dishonesty in writing to the Associate Dean, who will then communicate the decision to both the student and instructor.

Grading

For appeals or substantive reviews unresolved at the end of the semester due to the pending process of this Academic Integrity policy, the student will select between receiving the course grade calculated with the penalty or an incomplete (I) for the course until a final outcome of the substantive review or appeal is determined.

Final Sanctions and Recurrence Review

Once responsibility is established—either through the student’s acceptance of responsibility or the conclusion of a substantive review—the Associate Dean will cross-reference the incident against the student's previous records.

  • Additional Sanctions: Based on frequency (recurrence) or intensity (egregiousness) of academic dishonesty violations, the Associate Dean may impose further actions, such as educational programs, meetings with chairs/deans, or referral to the University Conduct Board. The Associate Dean’s assessment of additional sanctions is final and cannot be appealed.

  • University Conduct Board (UCB): If the student’s academic dishonesty violation could result in a sanction of suspension or dismissal on the grounds of academic misconduct, the Associate Dean refers the case to the UCB. The UCB reviews the student’s entire academic and non-academic conduct history to determine the final sanction, which may include conduct-based suspension or dismissal. The UCB will follow the procedures outlined in the Community Standards Manual, including any appeal rights under those policies.

  • Professional Impact: For academic dishonesty violations that could impact licensure or professional standing, the Associate Dean may notify the relevant program coordinator or chair, who may be obligated to notify other licensing boards or agencies, as permitted by law. A flag may also be added to the student’s internal dashboard for advisors and deans to view.