Year End Report to the Faculty Senate from the
Academic Standards Committee
April 9, 2007
For the last two years, and particularly last year, the 101 Committee (Academic
Standards) was charged with examining a range of issues regarding the policies and
procedures relevant to academic dishonesty among students. We were asked to conduct a
review of the methods used by faculty in the application of sanctions for cases of
academic dishonesty; to review the policies, processes and functioning of the Office of
Student Judicial Affairs; and to make appropriate recommendations for how the
University should identify and sanction cases of plagiarism and other forms of academic
dishonesty. This resulted in an 85 page report to the Faculty Senate complete with a set of
more than a dozen recommendations (attached later in this report). All were adopted.
This year we were asked to take up additional actions meant to supplement and complete
this work. All of the charges were in fact formally noted in the Academic Standards
Committee’s 2005-06 report as remaining matters that we thought should be concluded:
Draft an honor code for the University.
In the University Code of Conduct and Policies (section IV, “Academic
Standards”) lay out explicitly in separate sections the nature of possible
academic and administrative sanctions, and distinguish these two types of
sanctions clearly.
Make recommendations for a comprehensive and consistent set of guidelines for
disciplinary action in both the academic and administrative sanction area.
These should involve progressively more severe disciplinary actions based
on the degree of academic dishonesty. In the administrative sanction area,
repeated instances should be treated very seriously.
To accomplish this charge the committee organized itself into three subcommittees:
1. Honor Code
Chair: John Mahaffy; Members: Pat Ragains, Jill Wallace
This sub-committee was asked to draft on honor code for the University.
2. Academic sanctions
Chair: Duane Karna; Members: Banmali Rawat, Anna Keniston
This sub-committee recommended a set of guidelines for disciplinary action in the
academic sanction area that involve progressively more severe disciplinary
Academic Standards Committee Year End Report
Spring 2007
2
actions based on the degree of academic dishonesty and the number of repeated
instances and suggested wording for the University Code of Conduct and Policies
(section IV, “Academic Standards”) that specifies the nature of possible academic
sanctions, as is distinguished from administrative sanctions.
3. Administrative sanctions
Chair: Gwen Hullman; Members: Louis Marvick, Mark Pingle
This sub-committee recommend a set of guidelines for disciplinary action in the
administrative or disciplinary sanction area that involve progressively more
severe disciplinary actions based on the degree of academic dishonesty and the
number of repeated instances and suggested wording for the University Code of
Conduct and Policies (section IV, “Academic Standards”) that specifies the nature
of possible administrative sanctions, as is distinguished from academic sanctions.
In addition John Mahaffy served as the liaison to the Regents Undergraduate Advisor
Award Committee; Gwen Hullman as the liaison to the Core Curriculum Committee; and
Banmali Rawat as the liaison to the Academic Advising Advisory Board.
Each sub-committee met regularly to complete its work. The committee as a whole met
four times over the year.
In this report we will present our recommendations for each charge.
1. Honor Code
Last December we concluded that it would be best to empower the ASUN to draft the
academic honor code. We presented this report to the Faculty Senate.
Resolution on the development of a University of Nevada Honor Code
The Academic Standards Committee has unanimously supported (at its meeting
on December 7, 2006 and by email following that meeting) the following
resolution:
The Academic Standards Committee proposes to ask the UNR student
government to develop an Honor Code statement that describes the state
of personal and social integrity to which students should aspire, and asks
Faculty Senate approval to do so.
In researching our charge to develop an honor code, it became clear to us that the
Honor Code should complement the existing Student Code of Conduct as an
overall statement of values, as contrasted with the specific rules, punishments, and
procedures in the Student Code of Conduct. The purpose of a broad statement of
Academic Standards Committee Year End Report
Spring 2007
3
that kind is to challenge students to aspire to high standards of personal integrity
and of citizenship in the University community. The Academic Standards
Committee feels that the Code will be more meaningful and have a greater chance
of positive impact if the process of arriving at the Honor Code is isomorphic with
its ultimate purpose. Thus, in our view, students themselves should be supported
by faculty in examining this issue and arriving at a formal Honor Code.
Other campuses that have taken this student-focused approach have found it to be
very successful and they emphasize the importance of this process of
development. Examples include the University of Colorado, which has the
following student-generated statement in every classroom on a plaque:
On my honor as a University of Colorado at Boulder student I have neither given
nor received unauthorized assistance on this work
and Valparaiso University, which requires that every student write out the follow
Honor Code in full and sign it for all work submitted for academic credit:
I have neither given or received, nor have I tolerated others' use of unauthorized
aid.
We recognize that student government would have the right to proceed
independently on this matter and to make recommendations directly to the
administration, but we feel that the students will recognize the importance of
faculty endorsement as part of this process. It is our suggestion that Academic
Standards offer to the students to have a faculty member from the committee
serve as a liaison to help them in their work. By having a liaison work with the
students we would hope to maximize the likelihood that the product would be one
that we as a committee could fully support. We propose that any language
developed by the students be considered by the Academic Standards Committee
and our recommendations be forwarded along with the student proposal to the full
Faculty Senate for consideration.
This resolution was approved by the Faculty Senate and in fact the ASUM has taken up
the charge. Since then we have met several times with the ASUM as they have worked
through drafts of an honor code. It is our understanding that they hope to have a draft
approved by the end of the year. We have been impressed by the thoughtful way in which
the student government has approached the issue and look forward to seeing the fruits of
their labors. It would be our expectation that when they have concluded their work that
the Faculty Senate may wish to choose to support it, or not, when the language and
approach is known.
Academic Standards Committee Year End Report
Spring 2007
4
Academic and Disciplinary Sanctions
There has been a general view on campus that academic dishonesty issues require much
more forceful and effective action on the part of the faculty, students, and administration.
Last year we documented that UNR is experiencing a significant amount of academic
dishonesty. We conducted a survey of 332 UNR faculty and found that the UNR faculty
who responded reported dealing with more than 1,000 instances of academic dishonesty
over the last three years. As a result, last year we proposed and the Faculty Senate
adopted a long list of recommendations (which we present after this year’s
recommendations).
This year we are proposing to complete our work in this area by specifying language for
the University Code of Conduct that will distinguish academic and disciplinary sanctions,
serve as a guide for minimum normally expected academic and disciplinary sanctions,
and provide guidance about the factors that can lead to more several sanctions.
Recommendation 1: Establishment of Expected Academic and Disciplinary
Sanctions
We recommend that the University Code of Conduct and Policies (section IV,
“Academic Standards”; Subsection B "Sanctions for Violations of Academic
Standards") should a) state an expected minimum academic and disciplinary
penalty for academic dishonesty and b) describe the issues that would lead to
more severe academic and disciplinary sanctions.
We suggest the following language be added to the end of that section. Note that
the language regarding a Q grade would be applicable only after the approved
recommendations from last year were implemented. Note also that last year we
recommended a modification of Subsection B "Sanctions for Violations of
Academic Standards" to add addition possible sanctions to the current list -- those
recommendations are not repeated in this year's report. Our new recommended
language is as follows:
Expected Sanctions for Academic Dishonesty
There are two types of sanctions for academic dishonesty: academic sanctions that
are determined primarily by the instructor, and disciplinary sanctions that result
from a university administrative process. Both are relevant for most cases of
academic dishonesty.
Academic sanctions
In an academic course, normally a minimum academic penalty for academic
dishonesty is a grade of “F” on the graded work, without the possibility of
Academic Standards Committee Year End Report
Spring 2007
5
retaking or re-doing the work. In cases in which the violation is egregious,
involves extensive premeditation, involves a conspiracy, or victimizes other
students, more severe sanctions would be expected, up to a permanent grade of
“F” in the course.
Disciplinary sanctions
In addition to these academic sanctions, disciplinary sanctions would typically
also be imposed upon a student who has engaged in academic dishonesty, in
accordance with the Regents Code, Title Two, Chapter 6.
 Normally a minimum disciplinary sanction for academic
dishonesty is a letter of reprimand that is shared with the student's
home department and advisor and assignment of a "Q" grade
(computed in the student's GPA as an F). The Q grade will be
removed and replaced with the earned grade (including any
academic penalty assigned) when the student completes a noncredit academic integrity course
 Egregious first offenses, and ones victimizing other students, or
ones involving conspiracy or extensive premeditation might result
in a non-removable Q grade, suspension, expulsion, or revocation
of degree.
 Any repeated offense of academic dishonesty should normally
result in at least disciplinary action of suspension for one semester.
 A third offense involving academic dishonesty should normally
result in expulsion, and be noted on the student’s transcript.
Guidance from Instructors
In doing our work this year it also became clear to us that we should encourage
instructors to state their approach to academic dishonesty more clearly in academic
syllabi. Thus we are making this final recommendation:
Recommendation 2: Syllabus Guidance regarding Academic Dishonesty
We recommend that instructors be asked by the Provost or President, at the
request of the Faculty Senate, to include information regarding academic
dishonesty in their syllabus for each class. The section should state their approach
to academic dishonesty, acknowledge the university-wide obligation to report
violations, note that both academic and disciplinary sanctions could result from
academic dishonesty, and orient the student to available information and
resources regarding the nature of academic dishonesty, their rights, and possible
sanctions. An example is offered below, not as a standard but as an example of
the kinds of statements that would comport with the recommendation:
Academic Standards Committee Year End Report
Spring 2007
6
Academic Conduct. All rights and regulations concerning academic dishonesty
and plagiarism, as they appear in the current University catalog, will be upheld
in this course. At a minimum any academic dishonesty will result in a grade of
zero on the assignment, without the opportunity to resubmit it. In cases in which
the violation is egregious, premeditated, involves a conspiracy, or victimizes
other students, normally an “F” in the course would result. In addition, academic
dishonestly will be reported to the Office of Student Judicial Affairs and may
result in additional disciplinary sanctions.
For context in understanding this year’s work here are the recommendations adopted last
year.
ADOPTED 2005 – 2006 RECOMMENDATIONS
Discouragement of Academic Dishonesty
Visibility

The President and/or Provost should make clear to the University
community the importance of the issue of academic dishonesty to the
integrity of the University.
Education and Resources

A faculty workshop designed to help discourage academic dishonesty
should be created and made available to faculty on a voluntary basis. The
procedures to be followed in such cases should be included in this
training. Faculty should learn about proactive strategies to prevent
academic dishonesty (e.g., creating multiple tests, Turnitin.com), not just
the methods to address it once it has occurred.

Faculty and student Web sites on academic dishonesty issues, resources,
and an online tutorial defining plagiarism and how to avoid it, should be
established.

New faculty orientation should thoroughly address these issues.

Students should be made aware of the University policies on academic
dishonesty and the resources available to understand and avoid it in a
pamphlet to be handed out at new-student orientation.

Faculty should be made aware of the current University policies on
academic dishonesty (e.g., the need to report cases of dishonesty to SJA).
Academic Standards Committee Year End Report
Spring 2007
7

The university should make available standard language for course syllabi
concerning the definition of academic dishonesty/plagiarism and the
academic and disciplinary sanctions that will be imposed should it occur.
We suggest that SJA be tasked with generating that language.

Additional resources should be provided to SJA and other units tasked
with the additional prevention, training and enforcement activities
envisioned in this report in order to enable practical application of the
increased campus importance being placed on dealing effectively with
academic dishonesty.
Detection

The campus should buy a license to Turnitin.com adequate to cover
faculty wishing to use it. The nature and of this software program will be
described in more detail in the main body of the report, but in brief it
allows faculty to require that papers submitted for courses be submitted to
a web portal and screened for possible plagiarism.
Methods for Addressing Academic Dishonesty
Reporting

A streamlined, web-based reporting system should be put into place that
would allow instructors to inform the Office of Student Judicial Affairs
easily of cases of academic dishonesty.

The time frame for faculty to report on incident of academic dishonesty
should be extended to 15 working days
Sanctions

The campus should adopt a policy successful pioneered at the State
University of New York – Stony Brook: Students should receive a “Q” for
courses in which there has been significant academic dishonesty indicating
that this has occurred. For purposes of the student’s grade point average, a
Q is treated as an F. Upon successful completion of a non-credit course on
academic dishonesty, its social costs, and methods for avoiding it, the Q
would be changed to the grade determined by the original instructor, for a
non-egregious first time offender. These sanctions are in addition to any
other disciplinary and academic sanctions provided through normal
processes. In the case of egregious offences or in the case of a repeat
offences the potential for deletion of the Q grade from a student’s record
would not normally be possible.
Academic Standards Committee Year End Report
Spring 2007
8

If a student retakes a course with an existing poor grade received due to
academic dishonesty, the original grade should not be removed from the
transcript.

While the limit of an academic sanction assigned by the instructor is an F
in the course, as part of judicial review, instructors themselves should
have the right to request additional sanctions as part of the judicial process
of determining additional administrative sanctions (such as the right to
refuse re-admission to the course section taught by them).

A mechanism should be developed for noting on the student’s transcript
actions taken regarding academic dishonesty that do not involve a specific
course (e.g., research projects; TA work; etc). The permanence of this
notation should be treated the same as the Q grade for in class dishonesty.

A student’s home department should be informed of incidents of academic
dishonesty, so that advisors and other key parties will be informed of the
student’s situation

UNR should develop sanctioning guidelines and case studies to guide
faculty in the academic sanction area. Normally, the minimum penalty
should be at least a grade of “F” on the assignment; in many cases, a grade
of “F” in the course should be the appropriate penalty. We recommended
offering a 1 or 2 step grade reduction for the entire course in addition to
the current choices. It should be a very exceptional situation in which
students would be permitted to rewrite plagiarized essays, retake exams on
which cheating has occurred, or withdraw without penalty from courses in
which an accusation of academic dishonesty has been made.
Policy Clarity and Future Directions

We recommend that the University Code of Conduct and Policies (section
IV, “Academic Standards”) should in separate sections lay out explicitly
the nature of possible academic and administrative sanctions, and
distinguish these two types of sanctions clearly.

Beyond our specific recommendations in this area, a more comprehensive
and consistent set of guidelines for disciplinary action in both the
academic and administrative sanction area should continue to be
developed and implemented. These should involve progressively more
severe disciplinary actions based on the degree of academic dishonesty. In
the administrative sanction area, repeated instances should be treated very
seriously.
Academic Standards Committee Year End Report
Spring 2007
9

We recommend that a future committee draft an honor code for the
University