For Undergraduate Students
Official University Policy
on Academic Integrity for Undergraduate Students
The following principles and procedures by which justice will be administered
in the instance of an undergraduate or graduate student accused of academic
misconduct have been accepted by the UCSC Senate's Committee on Educational
Policy and became effective on September 1, 1999. The full text of this
document is included in the campus Rule Book, The Navigator
and the Faculty Handbook. Graduate student cases should be reported
to the Graduate Dean, who will invoke the appropriate grievance procedure
(outlined in section 16.3 of the Student Appeal of UCSC Senate Manual).
I. Principles
- Academic misconduct includes but is not limited to cheating, fabrication,
plagiarism, or facilitating academic dishonesty or as further specified
in campus regulations.
- Instructors (1) shall make a reasonable effort to
explain to students at the outset of a course the behavior expected
of them when taking examinations or preparing and submitting other course
work.
- 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 (2).
- 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 so desired by the student, the chair will
maintain the student's identity in strict personal confidence, even
at the expense of dropping the case.
- The instructor of record is responsible for recommending the academic
sanctions to be imposed. Academic sanctions may include reduced scores
on assignments(s), a reduced grade in the course or failure of the course.
- 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.
- The decision of the Academic Tribunal is final. Appeals to the chancellor
will be considered only for alleged violation of due process.
- In a case of academic misconduct involving more than one student,
provosts will coordinate their decisions to ensure that disciplinary
sanctions are applied fairly.
- 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 narrative evaluation) imposed by the instructor,
through the Narrative
Evaluation Student Grievance Committee (UC Santa Cruz Academic Senate
bylaw 13.17.8.)
- In serious cases in which academic misconduct has been determined
to occur, a notation of misconduct shall be entered for a specified
period on a student’s transcript, including all external copies.
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.
The instructor initiates the process by making 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 refuses to
meet with the instructor, that refusal shall be reported to the student’s
provost, and shall be taken as prima facie evidence of 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.
No report of the incident will be issued (A.1).
B. The student admits violation and accepts academic sanctions
(B.1),
and then the faculty member must make a formal report of the incident
by completing a standardized form (available
on the UCSC Academic Integrity website and at departmental and college
offices), which 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 charges letter
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 and an explanation of why specific
sanctions will be imposed
The completed form and copies of any physical evidence are sent to
the provost (3) of the student’s college, who
then determines what disciplinary sanctions may be appropriate (B.3)
. The provost will summarize the charges and the academic
and disciplinary sanctions to be imposed and notify in writing:
- The originator of the charges, the student, and the chair(s) of
the student’s academic department (if one is declared) (B.3b.i).
Only after receiving the formal report on the final dispensation of
the case will the instructor submit the final grade and narrative
evaluation for the student (B.3b.ii)
.
- The campus judiciary officer (B.3a.i),
who will notify the registrar and request specific actions as appropriate;
- The vice provost and dean of undergraduate education (VPDUE) (B.3ci).
C. The student does not admit violation or does not accept the
academic sanctions imposed (C.1).
The instructor must send a completed form to the student’s provost
summarizing the charges and academic sanctions proposed, together with
a summary of the specifics of the disagreement by the student (C.2).
Both the instructor and student must sign the completed form. This completed
form should be submitted within 3 working days of the initial meeting
between the student and the instructor.
Once the form is received, the student’s provost 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.
After meeting with the provost, the student may agree to the charges
and accept the academic sanctions recommended by the instructor (C.4a).
In this case, the provost will then determine disciplinary sanctions
(B.2) and formally
report the decision to the appropriate parties (B.3a-c)
.
If the student does not admit violation (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 Academic Tribunal will hear the originator and student’s case
(4), decide upon disciplinary sanctions, and report
their decision to the student’s provost, who informs all other
parties (B.3a-c) and the originator
of the charge. The instructor may then impose the academic sanctions
first proposed or may modify these sanctions based on the findings of
the Academic Tribunal.
Four standing provosts will be appointed by the VPDUE to serve on this
Tribunal, each for a two-year term. Any case will be adjudicated by
three of the four members, to enable a provost with a conflict of interest
(e.g., he or she is the provost of the accused student’s college)
to be excused from the proceeding. Provosts’ terms will be staggered
to provide continuity between different academic years.
Procedural Appeal Process: The decision
of the Academic Tribunal with respect to verdict and sanctions will
be final. The student may appeal the academic sanction (grade notation
or narrative evaluation) imposed by the instructor through the Narrative
Evaluation Student Grievance Committee. (B.3biii)
Appeals 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:
- Whether there is substantial evidence to support the finding(s)
of violation of university policies or campus regulations for which
the discipline was imposed;
- Whether there is evidence, which could not be adduced at the time
of the original hearing and which is likely to change the result;
- Whether there was procedural unfairness at the conduct of the hearing;
- 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 and the student’s provost, who will formally inform all
other parties involved in the case (B3a-c).
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 student’s provost.
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 provosts.
The VPDUE’s office is responsible for monitoring
consistency between colleges, instructing instructors, graduate teaching
assistants, departmental chairs and provosts on all procedures regarding
academic integrity and for 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.
Chronology of development:
Initial call for reconsideration of UCSC Academic Integrity Procedures
was made on the floor of the Senate during the February 1997 meeting.
CEP considered this during the spring quarter of 1997. 10/3/97 letter
suggested recording procedures: 4/20/98 CEP subcommittee of G. Brown,
J. Isbister, and P.Kolaitis, drafted more extensive changes. Document
from CEP was modified by L. Goff 7/1/98. Discussions among G. Brown, L.
Goff, D. Birnbaum and J. Yellin resulted in changes in a 8/13/98 redraft
by J. Yellin; this was reviewed and revised by D. Birnbaum and L. Goff
8/27/98; final revisions by Goff, 10/1/98 and 11/1/98. Submitted to CEP
for reconsideration on 11/1/98. VPDUE Goff redrafted version after considerable
discussion campus-wide and incorporating input of CEP from 4/21/99 meeting.
Both CEP and the Council of Provosts approved the final version of this
proposal in June, 1999. Final version reviewed on 6/29/99 by George Brown,
Lynda Goff and Richard Hughey.
Footnotes:
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 student's 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
if agreed in advance by the hearing of the Academic Tribunal.
|
