As members of an academic community, faculty members and students are responsible for maintaining academic integrity. All of us are members of a community whose fundamental principles include a respect for the work of others and the expectation that such work represents an authentic contribution. These standards apply to scholarly research as well as to student work in courses. Cheating in courses undermines the integrity of the entire academy.

This document outlines the policies and the procedures that are to be followed at UCSC in cases in which the integrity of student work is suspected. Cheating is both an academic and non-academic, administrative issue.

The following principles and procedures by which justice will be administered in the instance of an undergraduate student accused of academic misconduct have been accepted by the UCSC Senate's Committee on Educational Policy and will take effect on September 1, 1999. Graduate student cases should be reported to the dean, Graduate Studies (see Appendix O, Student Policies and Regulations handbook).

The Academic Integrity home page may be accessed at http://www.ucsc.edu/academics/academic_integrity/. The home page contains the Student Guide, Faculty Guide, Faculty Reporting Form, Flow Chart of the disciplinary process, resources and definitions.

I. Principles

1. Academic misconduct includes but is not limited to cheating, fabrication, plagiarism, or facilitating academic dishonesty or as further specified in campus regulations (see Section 102.01 of the Student Policies and Regulations Handbook).

3. In the event that academic misconduct is suspected, due process shall be respected. The procedures described below shall be invoked to determine the facts of a case and to decide upon both academic and disciplinary sanctions where appropriate. All steps need to be carefully documented in writing and should be completed in a timely fashion.

4. All members of the university community who suspect academic dishonesty should report it to the instructor of record. If the instructor of record is unavailable, or the case is outside the scope of the course, it should be reported to the chair of the department sponsoring the course. If the report is made by a student who wishes to maintain his/her anonymity, the student’s identity should be kept in strict confidence, even at the expense of dropping the case.

5. A student found in violation of academic misconduct is subject to both academic sanctions and disciplinary sanctions. Disciplinary sanctions are determined by the provost of the student's college or, if the case reaches the Academic Tribunal, by the Tribunal. Academic sanctions are determined by the instructor of record. In cases in which the student maintains his/her innocence of the charges, the instructor must await the final decision of the provost or Tribunal before imposing academic sanctions, but the sanctions themselves are ultimately at the discretion of the instructor. Academic sanctions, like course grades or evaluations, can be appealed only through the Narrative Evaluation Student Grievance Committee.

6. In the initial report of academic misconduct, the instructor of record is responsible for indicating the academic sanctions to be imposed. Academic sanctions may include, but are not limited to, reduced scores on assignments(s), a reduced grade in the course or failure of the course (see Section 105.16 of the Student Policies and Regulations Handbook). The instructor may also decide to report the academic misconduct in the Narrative Evaluation for the course.

7. Disciplinary sanctions are determined by the provost of the student's college, or, if the student’s case goes to a hearing, by the Academic Tribunal. Disciplinary sanctions may include, but are not limited to, warning, disciplinary probation, suspension, and dismissal (see Section 105.00 of the Student Policies and Regulations Handbook).

8. The decision of the Academic Tribunal is final. Appeals to the chancellor will be considered only for alleged violation of due process.

9. In a case of academic misconduct involving more than one student, college provosts will coordinate their decisions to ensure that disciplinary sanctions are applied fairly.

10. No grade notation or narrative evaluation will be issued until the process outlined is completed and a final decision is made on the charges and the sanctions to be imposed. The student may appeal the academic sanctions (grade or performance evaluation) imposed by the instructor only through the Narrative Evaluation Student Grievance Committee (UC Santa Cruz Academic Senate bylaw 13.17.8) on the grounds indicated in Senate Regulations Appendix C.

11. In serious cases in which academic misconduct has been determined to occur and suspension or dismissal are the resulting sanctions, a notation of the misconduct must be entered on a student’s transcript

II. Process for dispensation of academic dishonesty cases (See attached procedural outline)

An instructor who has evidence of student academic misconduct has discretion to decide whether that misconduct is sufficiently serious to warrant formal action. To initiate formal action, the instructor makes a formal request for a meeting with the student to discuss the charges, evidence of misconduct, and the academic sanctions to be imposed. If the student fails to meet with the instructor, that failure shall be reported to the provost of the student’s college, and shall be considered evidence of a violation.

There can be one of three outcomes to the meeting of the instructor and the student:

A. The instructor and student mutually agree that there is no violation (A.1). No report of the incident will be issued.

B. The student acknowledges rules violation(s) (B.1) The instructor must make a formal report (B.2) of the incident by completing the Academic Integrity Report Form (available on the UCSC Academic Integrity web site), that summarizes the charges and the academic sanctions to be imposed. This form requires the signature of both the instructor and student and should be completed and submitted within 3 working days of the initial meeting between student and instructor. The form must include:

• The date of the offense.

• The nature of the offense.

• The instructor’s analysis.

• Any physical evidence such as tests or assignment papers.

• Academic sanctions to be imposed.

1. The originator of the charges, the student, the instructor in the course in which the misconduct occurred, the chair of the department in which the misconduct occurred, the chair(s) of the student’s academic department (if a major is declared), and the college administrative officer of the student's college.

2. The vice provost and dean of undergraduate education (VPDUE).

Only after receiving the formal report on the final dispensation of the case will the course instructor submit the final grade and narrative evaluation for the student.

C. The student does not admit to a rules violation (C.1) The instructor makes a formal report of the incident by completing the Academic Integrity Report Form (available on the UCSC Academic Integrity web site) that summarizes the charges and the academic sanctions to be imposed. The student completes the designated sections of this form, indicating his/her guilt or innocence of the alleged violation. Both the instructor and student must sign the completed form. (C.2). This form should be submitted within 3 working days of the initial meeting between the student and the instructor. Both the faculty member and the student have an obligation to respond to these requests in a timely manner (within three days).

Once the form is received, the provost of the student’s college will schedule a meeting with the student to begin the formal hearing process (C.3). At this meeting the provost serves as a procedural advisor to the student, advising the student of his or her options, the consequences of various options, and the procedures that are open to the student.

The provost of the student’s college:

§ Refers both the instructor and student to University policies regarding academic misconduct cases (available on-line in the Student Policies and Regulations handbook).

§ Requests any additional materials that might be relevant to the allegations. These materials might include the course syllabus or other instructions issued by the instructor and materials presented by the student in completion of the assignment or examination in question. The provost may pose additional questions for written response from the student, the instructor, or both.

§ Meets with the student and, if necessary, confers separately with the instructor.

After meeting with the provost, the student may agree to the charges (C.4a). In this case, the provost will then determine disciplinary sanctions (B.3) and formally report the decision to the appropriate parties (B.3a-c).

If the student does not admit to the alleged rules violation(s) (C.4b), the case is referred to a formal hearing by the Academic Tribunal (C.5). The provost of the student’s college will schedule this hearing to occur in as timely a manner as possible. Every effort will be made to schedule this hearing within one month of the initial charge.

In cases involving multiple accused students, it will be up to the discretion of the Tribunal whether to hear the cases separately or jointly.

The Tribunal will meet on a regular basis. Faculty and students involved in tribunal cases are expected to rearrange their schedules in order to attend.

All written evidence must be submitted to the college provost for distribution to the Tribunal at least five days before the Tribunal hearing — EG. a written account of the facts, a copy of the syllabus, a list of witnesses (if appropriate).

All discussion of the case must take place in session when both the instructor and student are present. If either fails to attend after being provided notice to appear, the Tribunal may choose to go forward and hear the case without the benefit of that individual’s input.

All sanctions are to be measured against degree of violation (i.e., a first time offense involving the plagiarism of a paragraph in a paper might warrant a letter of warning; theft of a final examination might warrant suspension).

If the Tribunal finds the student in violation of university rules concerning academic misconduct, they write a letter to this effect to the college provost. The Tribunal also recommends disciplinary sanctions, which may be imposed or modified by the college provost.

In the absence of sufficient evidence of guilt, the Tribunal writes a letter to the college provost either finding the student innocent of the charges or indicating that there was no finding.

The college provost reports the final decisions to the appropriate parties (B.3a-c).

Four standing college provosts will be appointed by the VPDUE to serve on this Tribunal, each for a 2-year term. Any case will be adjudicated by three of the four members, to enable a college provost with a conflict of interest (e.g., they are the provost of the accused student's college) to be excused from the proceeding. College provosts’ terms will be staggered to provide continuity between different academic years.

If the work of the Academic Tribunal is not completed by the end of the academic quarter immediately following the quarter in which the Report of Academic Misconduct is signed by both the professor and student involved, this is a violation of the student's right to due process. If such a violation occurs, no notation of the case will be made in the student's records. Exceptions to this procedure can be made only by unanimous vote of the Academic Tribunal. However, the academic sanctions (which may include an account of the incident in the narrative evaluation) may nonetheless be enforced at the discretion of the instructor of record.

If a case is dismissed for this reason, a brief report shall be written and filed with the VPDUE documenting the reasons why the case was not completed in a timely way.

Appeals pertaining to the findings of fact and disciplinary sanctions to the chancellor or to the chancellor’s designee (C.6) will be considered only for alleged "use of improper criteria" as well as for procedural violations. Appeals shall be limited to the following:

1. Whether there is substantial evidence to support the finding(s) of violation of university policies or campus regulations for which the discipline was imposed.

2. Whether there is evidence, which could not be adduced at the time of the original hearing and which is likely to change the result.

3. Whether there was procedural unfairness at the conduct of the hearing.

4. Whether the sanctions imposed were too harsh given the findings of fact.

Any appeal to the chancellor must be made in writing and received by the chancellor’s office within 5 days after the student receives the decision of the Academic Tribunal. The decision of the chancellor or chancellor’s designee is final and shall be conveyed to the student, the provost of the student’s college, who will formally inform all other parties involved in the case (B.3a-c), including the college administrative officer of the student's college.


III. Assignment of grade and submission of narrative evaluation

Until a final decision is made regarding the case and sanctions to be imposed, the instructor will not assign the grade (or when the option becomes available from the registrar, the instructor will
assign the notation DG for deferred grade.) Assignment of a final grade and submission of a narrative evaluation shall not occur until the case is finalized and the instructor has received a
written summary of the case’s outcome from the provost of the student’s college.

IV. Annual Report and Procedural Instruction

The VPDUE shall compile an annual public summary (omitting names and other material that would identify the concerned parties) of the disposition of cases that have been reported to that office. This report shall contain the VPDUE’s summary and assessment of the effectiveness of the procedure. In particular, cases of multiple offenses shall be noted. Copies of the report will be sent to the Committee on Educational Policy (CEP), the Committee on Teaching (COT) and to all deans and college provosts. The text of the report shall be included in the annual report to the senate by CEP.

The VPDUE’s office is responsible for monitoring consistency between colleges, instructing instructors, graduate teaching assistants, departmental chairs and college provosts on all procedures regarding academic integrity and in providing web-based and paper copy information to the campus community.

V. Sunset Provision

These procedures shall be assessed by CEP after being in effect for 5 years and a report of the assessment shall be made to the senate. At the end of the third year, the VPDUE shall prepare an addendum to the annual report to the Academic Senate with recommendations for any modifications to these procedures.

Endnotes:

1. The term instructor refers to the "instructor of record" of the course.

2. All attempts should be made to complete cases within the academic quarter in which the incident occurred, or within the quarter or summer, immediately following the incident.

3. When more than one student is accused of cheating, the instructor will notify the provosts of each of the students' colleges.

4. The procedures of the formal academic tribunal will provide for both the instructor and the student to be present and present their cases. Both parties will be allowed to bring appropriate witnesses and procedural advisors if agreed in advance of the hearing by the Academic Tribunal.

ADDENDUM
Formal resolution of academic dishonesty charges for graduate students will follow the Official UCSC Policy on Academic Integrity for Graduate Students that can be found in Appendix O of the Student Policies and Regulations Handbook, in the Graduate Student Handbook (Appendix D), and on the Graduate Division's website at http://www.graddiv.ucsc.edu/