Approved by
FA on
Last
Modifications by the FA Committee (on #20, #21 and #22):
Approved by
FA on
Sent to Dr.
Wagonheim on
She sent it
to Senate:
File:
acainte2.htm
51.0 III-1.00(??)
UMES STUDENT CODE OF ACADEMIC INTEGRITY
INTRODUCTION
The
University is an academic community. Its fundamental purpose is the pursuit of
knowledge. Like all other communities, the University can function properly
only if its members adhere to clearly established goals and values. Essential
to the fundamental purpose of the University is the commitment to the
principles of truth and academic honesty. Accordingly, The Code of Academic
Integrity is designed to ensure that the principle of academic honesty is
upheld. While all members of the University share this responsibility, The Code
of Academic Integrity is designed so that special responsibility for upholding
the principle of academic honesty lies
with the students.
DEFINITIONS
1. ACADEMIC
DISHONESTY: any of the following acts, when committed by a student, shall
constitute academic dishonesty:
(a).
CHEATING: intentionally using or attempting to use unauthorized materials,
information, or study aids in any academic exercise.
(b).
FABRICATION: intentional and unauthorized falsification or invention of any
information or citation in an academic exercise.
(c).
FACILITATING ACADEMIC DISHONESTY: intentionally or knowingly helping or
attempting to help another to violate any provision of this Code.
(d).
PLAGIARISM: intentionally or knowingly representing the words or ideas of
another as one's own in any academic exercise.
RESPONSIBILITY
TO REPORT ACADEMIC DISHONESTY
2. Academic
dishonesty is a corrosive force in the academic life of a university. It
jeopardizes the quality of education and depreciates the genuine achievements
of others. It is, without reservation, a responsibility of all members of the
campus community to actively deter it.
Apathy or
acquiescence in the presence of academic dishonesty is not a neutral act.
Histories of institutions demonstrate that a laissez-faire response will
reinforce, perpetuate, and enlarge the scope of such misconduct.
Institutional
reputations for academic dishonesty are regrettable aspects of modern
education. These reputations become self-fulfilling and grow, unless vigorously
challenged by students and faculty alike.
All members
of the University community--students, faculty, and staff--share the responsibility
and authority to challenge and make known acts of apparent academic dishonesty.
Faculty must
undertake a threshold responsibility for such traditional safeguards as
examination security and proctoring.
HONOR
STATEMENT
3. All applicants
for admission to undergraduate or graduate programs at the University of
Maryland Eastern Shore will be expected to sign an honor statement as a
condition of admission. Failure to sign the statement in no way relieves the
student from the responsibilities specified in this Code. The statement shall
also appear on appropriate registration materials. Wording of the statement
will be recommended by the Student Honor Council, for approval by the UMES
Senate.
PROCEDURES:
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY
4. Any
member of the University community who has witnessed an apparent act of
academic dishonesty, or has information that reasonably leads to the conclusion
that such an act has occurred or has been attempted, has the responsibility to
inform the Office of the Academic Affairs promptly. The Office of Academic
Affairs will then send a written report of the allegation to the Student Honor
Council, the accused student, and the instructor teaching the course.
5. Upon
receipt of a report of academic dishonesty, the Student Honor Council will
assign the matter to three of its members for preliminary inquiry. Members of
the Student Honor Council when acting
in this capacity shall be designated Review Officers. In the event the report
pertains to the conduct of a graduate student, then at least two Review
Officers will be graduate students.
6. The
Review Officers shall conduct a preliminary inquiry into the facts of the case
in order to determine if there is reasonable cause to believe that an act of
academic dishonesty has occurred, or has been attempted.
7.
University administrators and faculty members are expected to provide
reasonable assistance to the Review Officers, and to permit access to pertinent
student papers or examinations, as
determined by the Vice President for Academic Affairs. The Review
Officers shall be advised by the Vice President for Academic Affairs.
8. If, after
consultation with the Vice President for Academic Affairs:
(a). a
majority of Review Officers determine that an act of academic dishonesty did
not occur, or was not attempted, the council will inform the student and the
course instructor of its finding; or
(b). if a
majority of Review Officers determine that there is reasonable cause to believe
that an act of academic dishonesty did occur, or was attempted, they will
forward a written referral containing a statement of facts and their rationale
to the Student Honor Council.
9. Upon
receipt of a written referral from the Review Officers, the Student Honor Council
shall:
(a). convene
an Honor Board to resolve the matter through an Honor Review. The Board will be
selected in the manner described in Paragraph 13, below.
(b). Appoint
one of the Review Officers or the Campus Advocate to serve as the Presenter of
the case. The responsibilities of the Presenter are more fully described in
Paragraph 11, below.
10. The
meetings and deliberations of the Review Officers and of the Student Honor
Council shall be privileged and confidential.
11. The
principal responsibilities of the Presenter are:
(a). to
prepare a formal Charge of Academic Dishonesty, including the identity of the
complaining party, and deliver it to the student and the Honor Board. The
student will be deemed to have received such notice on the date of personal
delivery, or if certified mail is used, on the date of delivery at the most
recent address provided to the University by the student;
(b). to
inform the complaining party of the actions being taken;
(c). to
present the evidence and analysis upon which the Charge is based to the Honor
Board during the Honor Review;
(d). to
perform such other duties as may be requested by the Student Honor Council or
the Honor Board.
12. The
Charge of Academic Dishonesty serves to give a student a reasonable
understanding of the act and circumstances to be considered by the Honor Board,
thereby placing the student in a position to contribute in a meaningful way to
the inquiry. It also serves to provide initial focus to that inquiry. It is
not, however, a technical or legal document, and is not analogous to an
indictment or other form of process. The charge may be modified as the
discussion proceeds, as long as the accused student is accorded a reasonable
opportunity to prepare a response.
PROCEDURES:
RESOLUTION BY AN HONOR REVIEW
13. An Honor
Review is conducted by an Honor Board. The Board is convened by the Student
Honor Council acting for the Vice President for Academic Affairs. It must
consist of six persons, five of whom will be voting members. Determinations of
the Honor Board will be by a majority vote (three votes or more). Honor Boards
are selected as follows:
(a) Three
students selected by the Student Honor Council from among its members. In the
event the student accused of academic dishonesty is a graduate student, then at
least two of the student members shall be graduate students. No person who
served as a Review Officer may serve on a factually related Honor Board.
(b). Two
faculty members shall be selected by the Vice President for Academic Affairs
from a list of four faculty members elected by the Faculty Assembly. Faculty
Assembly will elect four faculty members from the three undergraduate Schools,
at least two of them must be Graduate Faculty and all undergraduate Schools
must be represented.
In the event
the student accused of academic dishonesty is a graduate student, then at least
one of the persons selected shall be a member of the Graduate Faculty.
(c). The
Honor Board shall have one non-voting member, who shall serve as the Presiding
Officer. The Presiding Officer may be a student, faculty, or staff member of
the University. The Presiding Officer will be selected by the Vice President for
Student Affairs.
14. If the
Vice President for Academic Affairs determines that the Student Honor Council
or a Student Honor Board cannot be convened within a reasonable period of time
after an accusation is made, the Vice President or a designee may review the
case. If there is reasonable cause to believe that an act of academic
dishonesty has occurred or has been attempted, the Vice President or designee
will convene an ad hoc Honor Board by selecting and appointing two students and
one faculty/staff member. Whenever possible, student members of ad hoc honor
boards shall be members of the Student Honor Council. A non-voting presiding
officer shall be appointed by the Vice President for Student Affairs. If Review
Officers cannot be appointed in accordance with Part Five of this Code, the
Campus Advocate or another person designated by the Vice President for Academic
Affairs will serve in that capacity.
15. The
purpose of an Honor Review is to explore and investigate the incident giving rise
to the appearance of academic dishonesty, to reach an informed conclusion as to
whether or not academic dishonesty occurred, and to make a recommendation to
the Dean. In keeping with the ultimate
premise and justification of academic life, the duty of all persons at
an Honor Review is to assist in a thorough and honest exposition of all related
facts. The basic tenets of scholarship--full and willing disclosure, accuracy
of statement, and intellectual integrity in hypothesis, in argument and in conclusion--must
always take precedence over the temptation to gain a particular resolution of
the case. An Honor Review is not in the character of a criminal or civil legal
proceeding. It is not modeled on these adversarial systems; nor does it serve
the same social functions. It is not a court or tribunal. Rather, it is an
academic process unique to the community of scholars that comprise a
university.
16. The role
of the Presiding Officer is to exercise impartial control over the Honor Review
in order to achieve an equitable, orderly, timely and efficient process. The
Presiding Officer is authorized to make all decisions and rulings as are
necessary and proper to achieve that end, including such decisions and rulings
as pertain to scheduling and to the admissibility of evidence. If in the
judgment of the Presiding Officer there is reasonable cause to question the
impartiality of a board member, the Presiding Officer will so inform the Honor
Council, which will reconstitute the board.
17. The
Presiding Officer will select the date, time and place for the Honor Review,
and notify the student in writing a minimum of ten (10) days prior to the
review.
18. The
sequence of an Honor Review is necessarily controlled by the nature of the
incident to be investigated and the character of the information to be
examined. It thus lies within the judgment of the Presiding Officer to fashion
the most reasonable approach. The following steps, however, have been found to
be efficient, and are generally recommended:
(a). The
Presenter, and then the student, summarizes the matter before the Honor Board,
including any relevant information or arguments.
(b). The
Presenter, and then the student, present and question persons having knowledge
of the incident, and offer documents or other materials bearing on the case.
The Presenter, the student, and all members of the Honor Board may question any
person giving testimony.
(c). The
members of the Honor Board may ask the Presenter or the student any relevant
questions. The members may also request any additional material or the
appearance of other persons they deem appropriate.
(d). The
Presenter, and then the student, should make brief closing statements.
(e). The
Honor Board meets privately to discuss the case, and reaches a finding by a
majority vote.
(f). The
Honor Board will not conclude that a student has attempted or engaged in an act
of academic dishonesty unless, after considering all the information before it,
a majority of members believe that such a conclusion is supported by clear and
convincing evidence. If this is not the case, the Honor Board will dismiss the
charge of academic dishonesty in favor of the student with a finding that an
attempt or act of academic dishonesty "did not occur," or that it was
"not proven," whichever more accurately describes the result of its
investigation. The student would then be notified in writing of the decision to
dismiss the charge.
(g). If the
Honor Board finds the student has engaged in an act of academic dishonesty,
both the Presenter and the student may recommend an appropriate penalty.
Pertinent documents and other material may be offered. The Honor Board then
meets privately to formulate a recommendation. The recommendation of the Honor
Board will be by a majority vote of its members.
(h). The
Presiding Officer will provide the appropriate Dean with a written report of
the Honor Board's findings and recommendations.
19. The
Presiding Officer will attempt to ensure the following rules and points of
order are observed:
(a). The
student may be assisted by an advisor, who may be an attorney. The role of an
advisor will be limited to:
I. Making brief opening and closing
statements, as well as comments on an appropriate sanction.
II. Suggesting relevant questions, which the
Presiding Officer may direct to a witness;
III.
Providing confidential advice to the student.
Even if
accompanied by an advisor, the student must take an active and constructive
role in the Honor Review. In particular, the student must fully cooperate with
the Honor Board and respond to its inquiries without undue intrusion or comment
by an advisor. In consideration of the limited role of an advisor and of the
compelling interest of the University to expeditiously conclude the matter, the
work of an Honor Board will not, as a general practice, be delayed due to the
unavailability of an advisor.
(b). A tape
recording of the Honor Review will be maintained.
(c).
Presence at an Honor Review lies within the judgment of the Presiding Officer.
An Honor Review is a confidential investigation. It requires a deliberative and
candid atmosphere, free from distraction. Accordingly, it is not open to the
public or other "interested" persons. However, at the student's
request, the Presiding Officer will permit a student's parents or spouse to
observe and may permit a limited number of additional observers. The Presiding
Officer may cause to be removed from the Honor Review any person, including the
student or an advisor, who disrupts or impedes the investigation, or who fails
to adhere to the rulings of the Presiding Officer. The Presiding officer may
direct that persons, other than the student and the Presenter, who are to be
called upon to provide information, be excluded from the Honor Review except
for that purpose. The members of the Honor Board may conduct private
deliberations at such times and places as they deem proper.
(d). It is
the responsibility of the person desiring the presence of a witness before an Honor
Board to ensure that the witness appears. If necessary, a subpoena may be
requested.
The
presiding officer of the board may subpoena witnesses upon the motion of any
board member or of either party and shall subpoena witnesses upon request of the
board advisor. Subpoenas must be approved by the Vice President for Academic
Affairs and shall be personally delivered or sent by certified mail, return
receipt requested. University students
and employees are expected to comply with subpoenas issued pursuant to this
procedure, unless compliance would result in significant and unavoidable
personal hardship or substantial interference with normal University
activities.
If the Vice
President for Academic Affairs or his or her designee determines that a fair
hearing cannot be held without the testimony of a particular witness, and,
after good faith attempts are made, the witness either fails or refuses to
appear, the disciplinary hearing will be postponed until the witness agrees to
appear or the charges will be dismissed.
Because
experience has demonstrated that the actual appearance of an individual is of
greater value than a written statement, the latter is discouraged and should
not be used unless the individual cannot or reasonably should not be expected
to appear. Any written statement must be dated, signed by the person making it,
and witnessed by a University employee. The work of an Honor Board will not, as
a general practice, be delayed due to the unavailability of a witness.
(e). An
Honor Review is not a trial. Formal rules of evidence commonly associated with
a civil or criminal trial may be counterproductive in an academic investigatory
proceeding, and shall not be applied. The Presiding Officer will accept for
consideration all matters, which reasonable persons would accept as having
probative value in the conduct of their affairs. Unduly repetitious,
irrelevant, or personally abusive material should be excluded.
20. If the
Honor Board finds that an attempt or act of academic dishonesty occurred, it
shall recommend an appropriate sanction. The normal sanction shall be a grade
of XF in the course, but the Honor Board may recommend a lesser or more severe
sanction. Generally, acts of academic dishonesty involving advance planning,
falsification of papers, collaboration with others, or some actual or potential
harm to other students will merit a severe sanction, i.e., suspension or
expulsion, even for a first offense. An attempt to commit an act of academic
dishonesty shall be punished to the same extent as a consummated act.
21. The
findings of the Honor Board will be final and not subject to review. If the
Dean would like to request modification of sanctions imposed by the Honor
Board, he or she must provide written reasons to the Board. While the Board
will give due consideration to the Dean's recommendations, the final decision
shall rest with the Board.
PROCEDURES:
ACTION BY THE DEAN, INSTRUCTOR, VICE PRESIDENT AND PRESIDENT
22. If the
Honor Board finds that an attempt or act of academic dishonesty occurred, the
Dean will provide the student a copy of the Board's findings and sanctions, by
personal delivery or certified mail. The student may submit a written appeal to
the Dean concerning the Honor Board's recommendation within ten (10) days after
the student receives the Board's findings and sanctions. The student will be
deemed to have received such findings and sanctions on the date of personal
delivery, or if certified mail is used, on the date of delivery at the last
address provided to the university by the student.
23. If the
Honor Board awards the student a grade, including the grade of "XF,"
or fashions an academic requirement, the decision constitutes the final and
conclusive action of the University.
If the Honor
Board determines to suspend or expel the student, then this will not be
implemented until reviewed by the President (or designee). If the Honor Board
determines to take an action not otherwise described above (e.g., a community
service assignment), then this will not be implemented until reviewed by the
Vice President Academic Affairs. In each instance, the review shall be limited
to ensuring the sanction is not grossly disproportionate to the findings of the
Honor Board.
THE GRADE OF
"XF"
24. The grade
of "XF" is intended to denote a failure to accept and exhibit the
fundamental value of academic honesty. The grade "XF" shall be
recorded on the student's transcript with the notation "failure due to
academic dishonesty." The grade "XF" shall be treated in the
same way as an "F" for the purposes of Grade Point Average, course
repeatability, and determination of academic standing.
25. No
student with an "XF" on the student's transcript shall be permitted
to represent the University in any extracurricular activity, or run for or hold
office in any student organization which is allowed to use University
facilities, or which receives University funds.
26. A
student may file a written petition to the Student Honor Council to have the
grade of "XF" removed and permanently replaced with the grade of
"F". The decision to remove the grade of "XF" and replace
it with an "F" shall rest in the discretion and judgment of a
majority of a quorum of the Council; provided that:
(a). at the
time the petition is received, at least twelve months shall have elapsed since
the grade of "XF" was imposed; and,
(b). at the
time the petition is received, the student shall have successfully completed a
non-credit seminar on academic integrity, as administered by the Office of the
Academic Affairs; or, for the person no longer enrolled at the University, an
equivalent activity as determined by the Office of Academic Affairs, and,
(c). the
Office of Academic Affairs certifies that to the best of its knowledge the
student has not been found responsible for any other act of academic dishonesty
or similar disciplinary offense at the University of Maryland Eastern Shore or
another institution.
27. Prior to
deciding a petition, the Honor Council will review the record of the case and
consult with the Vice President for Academic Affairs. Generally, the grade of
"XF" ought not to be removed if awarded for an act of academic
dishonesty requiring significant premeditation. The decision of the Honor
Council shall not be subject to subsequent Honor Council review for four years,
unless the Honor Council specifies an earlier date on which the petition may be
reconsidered. Honor Council determinations pertaining to the removal of the
"XF" grade penalty may be appealed to the Vice President for Academic
Affairs. If the Vice President removes the grade of "XF" from the
student's transcript, the Vice President shall provide written reasons to the
Honor Council.
If the
"XF" grade is removed, records of the incident may be voided by the
Vice President for Academic affairs for good cause, upon written petition of
student. Factors to be considered in review of such petition shall include:
(a). the present behavior of the student,
(b). the conduct of the student subsequent
to the violation,
(c). the severity of damage or harm
resulting from it.
THE STUDENT
HONOR COUNCIL
28. There
shall be a Student Honor Council. The Honor Council is composed of ten (10) full-time
students, normally selected in the Spring for the following academic year, and
who may each be reselected for additional one-year terms.
29. The
members of the Honor Council are selected in the following manner:
(a). The
Deans of the undergraduate Schools each appoint one undergraduate student.
(b). The
Dean of the Graduate School will appoint one graduate student.
(c). The
Student Government Association will elect four full time undergraduate students
and the Graduate Students Association will elect two graduate students.
(d). If a
dean wishes to reappoint a member of the Council, the dean shall seek the
recommendation of the executive committee of the Student Honor Council. The
Council shall recommend re-appointment only if the member has demonstrated a
level of service and commitment to the functions and ideals of the Council that
is exemplary.
30. A member
must be in high academic standing (a cumulative G.P.A. of at least 3.0) at the
University and have no history of disciplinary, academic, or criminal
misconduct.
31. All
council members are subject to the training and conduct requirements as
outlined below:
(a). Prior
to participating in board deliberations, new members will participate in one
orientation session offered at least once each academic year by the Academic or
Student Affairs Office.
(b). Student
members of the Honor Council who are charged with any violation of this Code or
with a criminal offense may be suspended from their judicial positions by the
Vice President for Academic Affairs during the pendency of the charges against
them. Students convicted for any such violation or offense may be disqualified
from any further participation in the Council by the Vice President for
Academic Affairs. Additional grounds and procedures for removal may also be set
forth in the bylaws of the Honor Council.
32. The
Student Honor Council has the following responsibilities and authority:
(a). To
develop bylaws subject to approval by the University for legal sufficiency and
consistency with the requirements of this Code, and the Code of Student Conduct
(if any).
(b). To
designate from its members students to serve as Review Officers, Presenters,
and members of Honor Boards as specified in this Code. Appointment to these
responsibilities will generally rotate in accordance with the bylaws of the
Honor Council.
(c). To
consider petitions for the removal of the grade of "XF" from
University records in accordance with Part 26 of this Code.
(d). To receive
complaints or reports of academic dishonesty from any source.
(e). To
assist in the design and teaching of the non-credit seminar on academic
integrity and moral development, as determined by the Vice President for
Student Affairs.
(f). To advise
and consult with faculty and administrative officers on matters pertaining to
academic integrity at the University.
(g). To
issue an annual report to the Campus Senate on academic integrity standards,
policies, and procedures, including recommendations for appropriate changes.
33. The
campus administration shall provide an appropriate facility, reserved for the
primary use of the Honor Council, and suitable for the conduct of hearings.
Clerical and secretarial assistance will also be provided.
FUTURE
SELF-GOVERNANCE
34. Insofar
as academic dishonesty is most immediately injurious to the student body, and
because the student body is in a unique position to challenge and deter it, it
is the intent of the University that ultimately this Code will evolve into one
the provisions of which are marked by complete student administration. The UMES
Senate shall review the operation of this Code during the 2004-05 academic year
based in part on the annual reports of the Student Honor Council for the first
three years of its operation. Consideration at that time should be given to
introducing additional enforcement responsibilities and privileges
characteristic of traditional honor systems at sister institutions, including
the provision that only student members of Honor Boards may vote. It is
expected that faculty participation on the Honor Boards will continue, since
the faculty has an important interest in academic integrity, and since faculty
members will have insights that should be considered in the resolution of
individual cases.
TERMS
AD HOC HONOR
BOARD: board consisting of two students and one faculty member appointed by the
Vice President for Academic Affairs, and a Presiding Officer appointed by the
Vice President for Student Affairs. (Part 14).
ACADEMIC
DISHONESTY: see Part 1 of this Code.
CHARGE OF
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY: a formal description of the case being considered by the
Honor Board. (Part 12).
HONOR BOARD:
body appointed by the Student Honor Council to hear and resolve a case of academic
dishonesty. The board consists of five voting members (three student members of
the Honor Council and two faculty members). (Part 13).
HONOR
REVIEW: the process leading to resolution of an academic dishonesty case. The
process is conducted by an Honor Board. (Parts 18-21).
PRESENTER:
officer responsible for preparing the charge of academic dishonesty and
presenting the case before the Honor Board. The presenter is appointed by the
Honor Board from among the Review Officers, or is the Campus Advocate. (Part
11).
PRESIDING
OFFICER: individual on the Honor Board responsible for directing proceedings
during the Honor Review. The presiding officer is a non-voting member of the Honor
Board selected by the Vice President for Student Affairs. (Part 16).
QUORUM:
two-thirds of the members of the Student Honor Council.
REVIEW
OFFICERS: three members of the Student Honor Council assigned to make a
preliminary inquiry into an allegation of academic dishonesty. (Part 5).
STUDENT
HONOR COUNCIL: body of 10 students selected by the various Deans of Schools, as
well as by the Student Government Association and the Graduate Students
Association.