Department of Civil Engineering, Construction Management and Environmental Engineering
CECMEE Policy on Academic Integrity
Approved, 10-29-2013 faculty meeting, 13 yes, 0 no, 0 abstain
The faculty of the CECMEE Department have a commitment to uphold the highest ethical
standards in the academic setting. These standards are defined by a variety of documents, most
importantly the NAU Student Handbook that defines all forms of academic dishonesty and
describes the procedures used in dealing with violations of academic integrity policies. The
other documents where ethical standards are set are found within the broad suite of professional
organizations such as the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)
(http://www.asce.org/Leadership-and-Management/Ethics/Code-of-Ethics/), the National Society
of Professional Engineers (NSPE) (http://www.nspe.org/Ethics/CodeofEthics/index.html), and
the American Institute of Constructors
(http://www.professionalconstructor.org/aboutaic/codeofethics/). It is our belief that the ethical
standards and professional obligations set forth by these organizations extend to those studying
the professions, and, as educators, it is our role to inform students of these responsibilities early
in their academic careers.
This departmental policy pertains only to academic integrity/dishonesty as defined by the NAU
Student Handbook, and does not deal with matters relating to conduct, discrimination,
harassment, assault or classroom conduct. NAU has policies on each of these associated matters
and the most current copies can be found in the Student Handbook (http://nau.edu/StudentLife/Student-Handbook/).
It is the premise of this policy that maintaining academic standards at the university is the
responsibility of both faculty and students as per the following:
 Both faculty and students must be aware of what constitutes an act of academic
dishonesty;
 both faculty and students must be aware of the correct policies and procedures that are to
be taken in the event of a violation of academic integrity; and
 both faculty and students must be aware of appropriate actions that should be taken to
eliminate/reduce incidences of academic dishonesty.
This document details department policy regarding the above responsibilities of faculty and
CECMEE students and is consistent with NAU policy as found in the Student Handbook
(reference above). Appendix G (Academic Dishonesty) is attached to this document for
immediate reference.
I.
Responsibilities of Faculty
Faculty will assure that all syllabi reference the NAU policy as well as the CECMEE policy on
academic integrity. Faculty should discuss these policies on the first day of class.
1
Bero 6/24/13
Faculty will clearly state both on all syllabi and announce in class what is an acceptable level of
“ teaming” for both individual and group work deliverables.
Faculty are encouraged to provide added instruction to students (especially lower division)
students on the matter of academic dishonesty (such as a quiz or signed document). These data
should be maintained for the duration of the course.
Faculty will be aware of techniques that minimize incidences of academic dishonesty and will
implement these techniques during exams:
1. Students are not allowed to leave the room without permission. (Remind students to
go to the bathroom prior to the start of the exam.)
2. Students will be required to turn off all cell phones during an exam and secure them
in a location where they are not visible.
3. The wearing of headphones is not permitted during an exam.
4. When possible, students should spread out with as much space between them as
possible.
5. All materials unrelated to the exam should be kept off the table where the student is
taking the exam.
6. In large classes where separation of the students is not possible, multiple exams
should be given so that no student is taking the exact same exam as the next.
7. Taking photos of tests and quizzes is not permitted.
8. Students should be reminded not to look at their neighbor’s exam, and, if a faculty
member or proctor sees a student looking around during an exam, they should point
out to the student to stop that behavior. If they continue to do so, they should be
moved to another seat in the classroom or removed from the exam and the incident
handled as academic dishonesty.
Faculty will be aware of definitions of academic dishonesty and the policies for dealing with
violations as defined in the Student Handbook Appendix G, and are responsible for acting on all
cases.
Faculty will instruct graders on how to identify possible cases of academic dishonesty and
inform the grader that they should immediately contact the professor if an incidence raises
question. One common source for plagiarism checking is lookitup.com that is quick and easy to
use. Faculty are responsible, however, for making all allegations.
In processes used for checking for academic integrity violations, all students must be given the
same consideration (i.e., “spot checking” or selecting certain students for review is not
acceptable).
The procedure a faculty member will follow in the case of academic dishonesty (excerpted from
Student Handbook, Appendix G):
2
Bero 6/24/13
1. Within 5 days of discovery of the allegation, inform the Chair in writing, detailing the
situation, including indication as to whether the offense is a standard or egregious
offense. A penalty is not assigned until the Chair indicates as to whether this is a first
offense or other.
2. Within the same 5 days, inform the student in writing of the allegation with evidence,
a copy of the policy, a proposed sanction, and an opportunity to meet to discuss
(Skype is possible). The student must respond within 5 days of the student’s receipt
of the communication. If the student does not respond, the penalty is imposed. If a
meeting is to happen, it must be scheduled within 15 days.
3. The meeting is between the faculty member and the student only; for security
purposes, it is recommended that a silent unbiased observer (such as the MEP
director) be present to witness the communication. Refer to the Student Handbook
for further details.
4. An appeal process exists if the student wishes to appeal the decision of the faculty
member.
It is recognized that while cases such as these create a stressful and additional burden on a
faculty member, all faculty recognize the importance of a consistent message across the
department and are committed to enforcing academic standards. Faculty should report such
efforts in their annual review to provide supporting evidence that they are indeed enforcing this
policy.
II.
Responsibilities of Students
All incoming students are responsible for reading the policy in the Student Handbook (Appendix
G). Incoming students will be presented with the same information in a presentation by the
Department Chair in their CENE 180 and CM 130 courses during the first week of classes.
Students are also responsible for reading their course syllabi which reference this policy and may
be required to complete an assignment relating to academic integrity or sign a document
affirming that they understand what academic dishonesty is and will not engage is such behavior.
Students are responsible for asking the instructor what is permissible / appropriate behavior
when any question or confusion arises regarding teaming or working together. Not knowing is
never an excuse.
Students will truthfully answer a faculty member investigating a charge of academic dishonesty.
Students will report any knowledge of violations of academic dishonesty, recognizing that not
reporting a known violation constitutes a violation.
III.
CECMEE Penalties for Violations
3
Bero 6/24/13
Section C of Appendix G lists example penalties for cases of academic dishonesty. These
penalties range broadly in severity and, while they do allow flexibility for many possible diverse
situations, the large suite of choices can result in inconsistency / unfairness in penalty for similar
events as faculty may view a violation differently. It is the intent of this document to create a
consistent penalty structure for violations in CECMEE courses. This penalty structure is based
upon recognition of the following:
 All measures to minimize the opportunity for academic dishonesty have been taken;
because students have been provided with adequate knowledge of and warnings in
regards to such violations, a more severe penalty is appropriate.
 Some actions are more egregious than others and therefore warrant a more severe
penalty.
 Upper division (300- and 400-level) students are expected to be very knowledgeable
regarding ethical standards and therefore warrant a more severe penalty.
 Second- and third-offenses will incur more severe penalties.
Table 1 lists penalties and associated definitions as needed. The CECMEE Department Chair
keeps a record of all offenses but it is recognized that some offenses can occur in non-CENE or
CM courses and that the Vice Provost’s Office must be contacted before a penalty is assigned to
ascertain whether the offense is first or multiple.
Table 1. Penalties for Academic Dishonesty - CECMEE
1st offense
2nd offense
3rd offense
Standard offense
0 or negative points
Failing grade issued
Dismissal from
on assignment; memo in course
program; student
to faculty member on
unable to change
definition of
major to any other
academic dishonesty
CECMEE major
and how their offense
was a violation
Egregious offense* Failing grade issued
Dismissal from
in course
program; student
unable to change
major to any other
CECMEE major
Upper division
Failing grade issued
Dismissal from
student**
in course
program; student
unable to change
major to any other
CECMEE major
*An egregious offense is defined as an action that involves behavior such as accessing a
fellow student’s or faculty member’s computer or office, the organization of buying/selling of
materials or large group violations, the hiring of another to do one’s work, refusing to
cooperate in an investigation, denying an allegation in the face of convincing evidence and
later changing one’s story.
4
Bero 6/24/13
**Optional penalty, faculty member discretion.
Students can appeal such decisions via the appeal process as defined in the Student Handbook
Appendix G. Penalty can be changed upon appeal to any penalty deemed appropriate as defined
in the Student Handbook Appendix G by the reviewing authority.
5
Bero 6/24/13
Student Handbook
APPENDIX G - ACADEMIC DISHONESTY
A. INTRODUCTION
It is the responsibility of any student, faculty member, or academic administrator who observes, or
has knowledge of, apparent instances of academic dishonesty to report the activity to the appropriate
faculty member or Chair/Director. All students have the right to due process under this policy if
charged with academic dishonesty. This policy is not intended to address differences of opinion
regarding grades issued by a faculty member who is exercising good faith and professional judgment
regarding a student’s work. The procedures set forth herein are designed to encourage a fair and
appropriate response to allegations of academic dishonesty; they may be modified in individual
cases, so long as the student is provided with an opportunity to respond to the allegations within a
reasonable time after the allegations have been made.
Academic integrity is demonstrated when students and faculty jointly agree to adhere to codes of
conduct appropriate to the mutually trusting relationship that must exist between student and teacher.
It is the expectation at NAU that all students will conduct themselves in a truthful, straightforward
and honest fashion at all times. All NAU students are expected to be familiar with the definitions of
academic dishonesty. Not knowing that certain activities qualify as academic dishonesty is not a
defense to a charge of academic dishonesty.
Faculty are also required to uphold the standards of academic integrity; faculty are governed by the
policies and procedures outlined in the NAU Faculty Handbook. Faculty can contribute to the
maintenance of academic integrity through simple and non-intrusive tactics in their classroom
settings and in their assignments. Faculty members are encouraged to include within the course
syllabus a statement on academic dishonesty that reflects the principles of this policy and that
includes the penalties imposed for engaging in such activities. Furthermore, academic integrity is
supported when the faculty consistently report incidents of academic dishonesty in accordance with
the process described in this document.
Academic dishonesty is a form of academic misconduct that violates the university’s academic
standards and is subject to disciplinary action under the Student Code of Conduct and using this
policy. Academic dishonesty includes, but is not limited to, the following infractions: cheating,
collusion, fabrication, obtaining an unfair advantage, and plagiarism. Violations of the Student Code
of Conduct which exclusively involve issues of academic dishonesty, but where no university-level
sanctions are considered or imposed, are dealt with by the affected faculty in accordance with this
policy.
B. EXAMPLES OF ACADEMIC DISHONESTY
Cheating is the intentional use of, or attempted use of, unauthorized materials, information, study
aids, or previously prepared solutions in any academic exercise, exam, paper or other assignment.
Cheating includes, but is not limited to:



Copying another student’s work.
Sharing answers for either a take-home or in-class examination.
Using notes, books or web materials on an exam when such aids are forbidden.
6
Bero 6/24/13





Taking an examination in another student’s name or having another person take one for a student.
Changing the answers on an examination after it has been graded in order to gain more credit
than deserved.
Using a “cheat-sheet” or other prohibited assistance (calculator, cell phone, text messaging, etc.)
during an examination.
Working on an examination outside the specified time limits, such as beginning before the
faculty member directs students to begin, or continuing to work after the faculty member has
declared an end to the examination period.
Using a commercial service or engaging another person (whether paid or unpaid) to prepare
assigned work. Unless prohibited by the faculty member for educational reasons, editing and/or
proof-reading by another person is not considered cheating.
Collusion occurs when two or more students work together to produce individually submitted work
without the permission of the faculty member. Collusion also occurs when one student produces
work and knowingly allows another student to copy it and submit that copy for assessment. In such a
case, both students will be considered to have colluded. Similarly, any student who helps another
student to commit any type of academic dishonesty is considered to have colluded. Because of the
wide use of teams and study groups, faculty members are encouraged to define acceptable team or
study group behaviors and inappropriate collusion in the course syllabus.
Fabrication/Fraud is the unauthorized falsification or invention of any information, data, or citation
in an academic exercise. It also includes, but is not limited to, the presentation of information or data
not collected in accordance with standard applicable ethical guidelines; the failure to include an
accurate account of the method by which the data were gathered or collected; or any attempt to
deceive a faculty member or administrative officer of the university regarding academic work.
Obtaining an unfair advantage includes activities that directly or indirectly compromise fair
assessment or grading or constrain other students’ abilities to successfully complete their
assignments. These activities include, but are not limited to:



Stealing, reproducing, circulating or otherwise gaining access to examination materials prior to
the time authorized by the faculty member.
Stealing, destroying, defacing or concealing library or other reference materials with the result
that others are deprived of their use or that the faculty member cannot check students’ work.
Possessing, using, or circulating previously administered examinations, unless authorized by the
faculty member.
Plagiarism is representing the words, expressions, productions or creative works of another as one’s
own in any academic exercise. Examples of plagiarism include, but are not limited to:



Complete plagiarism occurs when an essay or other work has been copied word for word from
another source or sources (e.g. purchase or copying of an online paper) without citation and/or
without any original contribution by the student.
Partial plagiarism occurs when another work has been used by a student as part of an
assessment or project without proper acknowledgement of the original source. Because of the
accessibility of the internet, partial plagiarism can easily occur if students cut and paste from web
pages.
Improper paraphrasing occurs when a student changes one or two words in order to make the
7
Bero 6/24/13


copied work look like original work instead of properly paraphrasing and citing the material.
Insufficient citation occurs when a student cites a source one time and not again for subsequent
uses of the source.
Self-plagiarism occurs when a student reuses his or her own work or data without permission of
the faculty member. Even when using one’s own material, it must be cited properly. Also, using
the same work for different courses without permission of the faculty members is self-plagiarism.
C. PROCEDURES AND PENALTIES
This section describes the procedures to be followed in order to address allegations of academic
dishonesty. All incidents of academic dishonesty, with the associated penalties, shall be recorded in
either the undergraduate or graduate Academic Dishonesty Databases.
These procedures do not preclude the faculty member and student from having an informal meeting
that may be conducted to communicate concerns, clarify issues, assess the situation, etc., nor do they
require this meeting prior to the initiation of these formal procedures.
The faculty member may impose penalties for academic dishonesty in accordance with the course
syllabus, program policy, and in direct relation to the nature of the infraction and the degree to which
the involved academic work affects the course grade, as well as pursuant to the specific procedures
set forth herein. Examples of possible faculty member-imposed penalties include, but are not limited
to:

Educational assignments such as completion of an academic dishonesty tutorial or a learning
module1
1 See e-Learning (http://www.nau.edu/~d-elearn/support/tutorials/academicintegrity/index.php)
for tutorials and course
shell modules on academic integrity.





Reducing the grade on the assignment or examination
Awarding a grade of zero or “F” on the assignment or examination
Reducing the grade in the course by one letter grade
Awarding a failing grade in the course
Warning the student in writing about the incident
Other faculty member-imposed penalties may be deemed appropriate in accordance with the nature
of the offense and related information that is set forth in the course syllabus and after consultation
with the faculty member’s Chair/Director.
Additional penalties may be considered by the university for students with any history of academic
dishonesty or for incidents considered extremely serious. Those additional penalties include:



Placement on university probation
Suspension or permanent removal of the student from his or her program
Suspension or expulsion of the student from the university 2
2 http://www.azregents.edu/policymanual/default.aspx.
In accordance with ABOR Policy 5-308(G), expulsion is the permanent separation of the
student from the university; suspension is the temporary separation of the student from the university for a specified period of time. Other
conditions as set forth in ABOR Policy may also apply.

The marking of the student’s academic transcript with language indicating the reason for
suspension or expulsion
8
Bero 6/24/13

Revocation of a degree, if a degree had already been awarded
If the faculty member believes that the academic dishonesty is severe enough to recommend
probation, an administrative hold, program dismissal, suspension, or expulsion, the faculty member
should reference Section D of this document. Throughout these procedures, all references to any
number of “days” refer to business days (not weekends or holidays). If the faculty member is
required to participate in the process, then “days” refers to business days (not weekends, holidays or
scheduled breaks when faculty are not expected to be available) in which the faculty member is on
contract with the university.
1. Initiation of Process
a. As soon as is practical, but in any event within five (5) days after the discovery of the
alleged academic dishonesty, the faculty member informs his or her Chair/Director of the
situation in writing,3 detailing the evidence of the allegations, the basis for the faculty
member’s academic judgment, and the rules which may have been violated.
b. At the same time, the faculty member informs the Dean or the Dean’s designee about the
alleged academic dishonesty. The Dean or his or her designee checks the appropriate
Academic Dishonesty Database4 to determine whether the alleged incident is a first or
subsequent offense. If a record of two prior offenses exists or if the suspected offense is
severe, all parties should refer to Section D of this document.
3 Throughout this document, written communications and letters can be conducted by NAU email or through regular hard mail delivery services
such as the US Postal Service, etc. If the student already has in place a disability-related accommodation related to written communications, that
accommodation will be used to communicate with the student.
4 For undergraduate students, consult with the designated officer of the Office of the Provost. For graduate students, consult with the Associate
Dean of the Graduate College.
9
Bero 6/24/13
2. Review and Decision
a. Within five (5) days of the discovery of the alleged academic dishonesty, the faculty
member communicates in writing the allegation of academic dishonesty to the student. The
communication must include the allegation, a sufficiently detailed description, or copy, of the
evidence and other relevant information collected, a reference to the specific rules or policies
which may have been violated, the proposed sanction to be imposed upon the student, a copy
of this policy and a specific reference to the student’s right to appeal decisions made in
accordance with this policy, and a request that the student schedule a meeting with the faculty
member in person, via telephone, or by other meeting assistive technologies (such as Skype).
The communication must also state that if the student fails to respond to this request for a
meeting or does not schedule a meeting in accordance with this policy, or fails to attend the
scheduled meeting, the student has voluntarily given up his or her right to any additional due
process (except if the sanction is a university-level sanction) and the student acknowledges
that the sanctions proposed by the faculty member will be imposed upon the student. Within
five (5) days from the receipt of the faculty member’s communication, the student is required
to reply to the faculty member regarding the scheduling of the future meeting.
b. Should the student fail to schedule an appointment or fail to attend the scheduled meeting,
the faculty member may proceed to impose the proposed sanction against the student, without
additional student input.
c. If the student schedules a meeting, the faculty member and the student should meet as soon
as practical, but in any event no later than fifteen (15) days from the student’s request for the
meeting. In the meeting, the faculty member and student should discuss the allegation of
academic dishonesty and the evidence. The student must have an opportunity to speak in his
or her own defense. The student may present additional information or evidence, including
written statements from witnesses, for the faculty member’s consideration. This additional
information becomes part of the record. The faculty member must listen to the student, must
carefully weigh the presented evidence, and must decide the matter based only upon evidence
presented at the meeting and/or to the student prior to the meeting.
i. The faculty member must then notify the student of his/her decision in writing
within five (5) days of the meeting.
ii. If the allegation stands, the notification to the student must include the decision
and the penalty that will be imposed. The sanction imposed should be appropriate
for the specific violation and consistent with this policy and the statements in the
syllabus for the course. The written notification must also include a statement that
the decision will be recorded to the appropriate Academic Dishonesty Database. It
should also inform the student that he or she may appeal the determination in
accordance with the procedures herein. A copy of the notification must be sent to
the Dean of the College or the Dean's designee and the faculty member's
Chair/Director.
iii. Once the penalty has been determined, the faculty member must complete the
academic dishonesty form that is reviewed by the faculty member’s Chair/Director
10
Bero 6/24/13
and the Dean or Dean’s designee prior to its submittal to the appropriate Academic
Dishonesty Database. This report is required for any sanction given.
3. Student Options: After the penalty has been determined, the student has two options.
a. The student may accept the faculty member-assessed penalty and the recording of the
incident made to the Academic Dishonesty Database (in which case the student need take no
action); or
b. The student may contest the allegation and penalty by notifying the faculty member and
the faculty member’s Chair/Director in writing of such an appeal within ten (10) days of
receipt of the notification of penalty. Such an appeal shall follow the procedures as outlined
in Section E. If the student fails to provide such written notification of an appeal, the student
is deemed to have waived any objections to the penalty being imposed.
D. ADDITIONAL PROCEDURES AND PENALTIES WHEN PROGRAM, DEPARTMENT,
COLLEGE OR UNIVERSITY PENALTIES ARE RECOMMENDED
This section describes the additional procedures to be followed in case of academic dishonesty when:

The student has an existing record of academic dishonesty in the university’s Academic
Dishonesty Databases5 and the current allegation causes the student to be considered a “repeat
offender”; or
5 The reported incident(s) may exist in either, or in combination of, the undergraduate or graduate Databases.

The faculty member believes that the academic dishonesty is severe enough to recommend a
sanction beyond course failure for a single incident. The type of academic dishonesty incidents
that may qualify as “severe” include, but are not limited to, those involving theft of the faculty
member's or another student's materials; destroying or damaging the academic materials of
another; sabotaging of instructional technologies or classroom/laboratory equipment and devices;
depriving others from conducting, or participating in, academic activities; forgery of official
documentation; or misrepresenting oneself as someone else. This list is not exhaustive; other
incidents may qualify as well.
1. Initiation; Review and Recommendation at the Departmental Level:
The process set forth in section C (1-2) above shall be first be followed, with the addition that the
student may bring a silent witness to the meeting with the faculty member, so long as the faculty
member is notified of this at least two (2) days prior to the meeting. Additionally, once the faculty
member makes a decision, he or she must not only notify the student (in accordance with section
(C)(2)(c)(i) above), but must also simultaneously forward that decision to the faculty member’s
Chair/Director for additional review.
The Chair/Director must review the materials considered by the faculty member, including the
materials presented by the student at the meeting with the faculty member. The student and the
faculty member must also be provided with the opportunity to provide additional information to the
Chair/Director as part of his or her review. The Chair/Director , in turn, must carefully weigh the
11
Bero 6/24/13
presented evidence before making a decision regarding whether to uphold the faculty member’s
decision/recommendation. The Chair/Director must notify the student of his or her decision in
writing within five (5) days of the meeting. The proposed sanction should be appropriate for the
specific violation and consistent with this policy. If the Chair/Director determines to affirm the
decision/recommendation of the faculty member, the written communication to the student must
include the finding of academic dishonesty, the recommended sanction, and a description of the next
steps. A copy of the written communication, along with the presented evidence, must simultaneously
be sent to the Dean of the College or the Dean's designee.
2. Review and Decision by the College
Upon receipt of the materials from the Chair/Director, the Dean or Dean's designee (e.g. Associate
Dean, another Department Chair, or Program Director) reviews and makes a determination whether
to accept the decision and recommendation of the department. The Dean's designee may elect to
investigate the situation beyond the department-level determination, if the conditions warrant that
course of action to enable a sound decision. The investigation may include meetings with the
instructor, instructor's Chair/Director, and the student. If the Dean's designee is unable to complete
this additional investigation within the fifteen (15) day time period, the designee must inform, in
writing, the student, instructor, and instructor's Chair/Director about the delay in the decision due to
the investigative process. The communication must also set forth an expectation about when the
investigation will be completed and the decision will be made. Once the Dean has made a
determination, it shall be communicated in writing to the student. The communication must inform
the student of his or her rights and options and the related procedures, and should include a copy of
this policy. A copy of the communication shall be sent to the designated officer of the Office of the
Provost, the Registrar, the faculty member, and the faculty member's Chair/Director. If the sanction
is a university-level sanction, the student must be informed of his or her right to request a hearing
before the University Hearing Board, and a copy of the communication must also be sent to the Dean
of Students.
3. Student Options:
If the Dean or the Dean’s designee upholds the recommended penalty, and the penalty is not a
university-level one (e.g. expulsion, suspension or degree revocation), the student may:
a. Accept the penalty and the recording of the incident made to the Academic Dishonesty
Database (in which case the student need take no action); or
b. Contest the allegation and penalty by providing written notification of such an appeal
within ten (10) days of receipt of the notification of penalty–to the faculty member, the
faculty member’s Chair/Director, and the Dean's office. Such an appeal shall follow the
procedures as outlined in Section E.
If the Dean or the Dean’s designee upholds the recommended penalty, and the sanction to be
imposed is either suspension or expulsion from the university or is degree revocation, the student has
the right to: (1) appeal in accordance with Section E, and (2) also request a hearing before the
University Hearing Board in accordance with Section F, if the sanction still stands after the Section E
appeal.
E. STUDENT APPEAL PROCESS
12
Bero 6/24/13
The only bases for an appeal of an academic dishonesty finding made in accordance with the above
procedures are:




Falsity of the allegation;
Attempt by the faculty member to impose more severe consequences than those stated in the
class syllabus.
Failure by the faculty member, department or college to follow the above applicable procedures;
or
Allegations of malice, bias, or conflict of interest on the part of the individual(s) who made the
determination of academic dishonesty.
1. In accordance with section C.3.b or D.3. b, the student must provide written notification of his or
her intent to contest the decision of academic dishonesty. This notification must be provided within
ten (10) days of receipt of the notification of penalty. The notification must include a description of
the charges of academic dishonesty, a description of the sanction imposed and a statement that the
student is appealing the charge. The recipients of this notification shall be the faculty member and
faculty member's Chair/Director. The Dean’s office shall receive notice of the intent to appeal if the
penalties recommended require Section D procedures. If the instructor of the course is a Department
Chair or the administrator of the academic unit, the steps of the process are conducted by a Deandesignated administrator within the College.
2. If the hearings below resulted in a recommendation of program dismissal, university suspension or
university expulsion, the student is allowed to remain enrolled in classes during the appeal process. If
a student appeals a charge of academic dishonesty near the end of a term when it is not possible to
complete the appeals process, the faculty member will record a grade for that student reflecting the
sanction imposed (an F in the course or a final grade incorporating an F on an assignment for
example). If the student prevails on the appeal, the grade will be changed through universityestablished procedures.
3. Upon receiving such a request, the meeting convener shall schedule a meeting as soon as is
practical for all parties, but in any event no later than fifteen (15) days. The meeting convener shall
be the faculty member's Chair/Director unless department, program, college or university sanctions
are recommended (see Section D) in which case the convener shall be the Dean's designee.
Proceedings of the meeting shall be recorded (either via a tape recording or via note-taking by an
impartial party appointed by the meeting convener). The student may present additional information
and may bring a silent observer to this meeting, provided the meeting convener is notified of this in
writing no less than two (2) days prior to the meeting.
The meeting attendees shall include the student, the faculty member, the faculty member's
Chair/Director, and an impartial arbitrator (e.g. the Associate Dean or another Department Chair)
who has been designated by the Dean. If the sanctions recommended include program, department,
college or university sanctions (see Section D), then an impartial arbitrator designated by the Office
of the Provost (e.g. Associate Vice Provost, Registrar, or Vice Provost).
4. At the meeting, both the student and the department (faculty member, if Section C; faculty
member and Chair/Director, if Section D) will be given the opportunity to succinctly present their
case with evidence. If this is a Section C incident, the department's case is presented by the faculty
13
Bero 6/24/13
member. If this is a Section D incident, the department's case is presented by the faculty member's
Chair/Director. The arbitrator may ask questions of both parties. At the conclusion of this meeting,
the arbitrator shall determine the outcome of the appeal and send a letter within fifteen (15) days of
the meeting to the meeting attendees documenting the meeting and setting forth the decision that was
made. The arbitrator may affirm, modify, or dismiss the charge of academic dishonesty. The
arbitrator’s decision is final, if the sanction is NOT a university-level sanction (i.e., suspension,
expulsion, or degree revocation).
F. HEARING PROCESSES ASSOCIATED WITH UNIVERSITY-LEVEL SANCTIONS
1. Upon completion of a Section E appeal and if the sanction is suspension, expulsion, or degree
revocation, the student will be informed of his or her right to request a hearing before a University
Hearing Board. This request must be made by the student in writing to the Dean of Students (in the
Office of Student Life) no later than twenty (20) days following the date of the notification from step
E.3. A copy of this request shall also be sent by the student to the Dean or Dean's designee. The
student may request a hearing to appeal the determination that a violation occurred, or to appeal the
sanctions, or both issues. The Office of Student Life’s role is to convene the board and to facilitate
the hearing.
2. University Hearing Board:
Should an academic misconduct matter be referred to the University Hearing Board, the procedures
set forth in ABOR Policy 403(D & E) apply, except that the Hearing Board in the matter is advisory
to the Provost, instead of the Vice President of Student Affairs. Accordingly, it is the Provost who
reviews the recommendation and renders a decision that affirms, denies, or modifies the
recommendation made by the University Hearing Board, in accordance with the procedures set forth
in ABOR Policy 5-403(F). The Provost shall consider mitigating and aggravating factors in
determining to affirm, deny or modify the recommendation.
Approved by: AADR 11/3/2011 and ASC: 10/28/2011
Reviewed by: ACC: 10/26/2011, Legal: 10/26/2011, PALC: 11/2/2011
Approved by the Provost:
14
Bero 6/24/13