Responsibilities of Community Life: The Student Code

Appendix A: Academic Integrity in Undergraduate Education and Research

[Adopted March 2008]

The following policy on undergraduate academic integrity was originally formulated by the University of Connecticut Scholastic Standards Committee. It was adopted by the University Senate on March 31, 2008.

This appendix of The Student Code describes the types of acts that shall be considered academic misconduct by undergraduates, and it presents the process for imposing sanctions for such acts.

The procedures for investigating complaints and imposing sanctions for academic misconduct differ somewhat from those applied to other violations of The Student Code. However, a hearing on academic misconduct follows the general procedures set forth in Part IV of The Student Code.

In order to facilitate a clear understanding of this policy as well as providing for an easier reading certain parts have been reformatted.

Cheating - Student Academic Misconduct

Academic misconduct is dishonest or unethical academic behavior that includes, but is not limited, to misrepresenting mastery in an academic area (e.g., cheating), intentionally or knowingly failing to properly credit information, research or ideas to their rightful originators or representing such information, research or ideas as your own (e.g., plagiarism).

A. Instructor's Role

1. Instructors shall take reasonable steps to prevent academic misconduct in their courses and to inform students of course-specific requirements. Students’ responsibilities with respect to academic integrity are described in Responsibilities of Community Life: The Student Code (The Student Code).
2. When the instructor of record or designee (instructor) believes that an act of academic misconduct has occurred s/he is responsible for saving the evidence in its original form and need not return any of the original papers or other materials to the student. Copies of the student’s work and information about other evidence will be provided to the student upon request.
3. When an instructor believes there is sufficient information to demonstrate a case of academic misconduct, s/he shall notify the student in writing of the allegation of misconduct and the academic consequences that the instructor will impose. The appropriate academic consequence for serious offenses is generally considered to be failure in the course. For offenses regarding small portions of the course work, failure for that portion is suggested with the requirement that the student repeat the work for no credit. The written notification shall also inform the student whether the case has been referred to the Academic Misconduct Hearing Board (Board) for consideration of additional sanctions. The instructor shall send the written notification to the student with a copy to the Office of Community Standards (Community Standards) within 15 business days of having discovered the alleged misconduct. At the Regional Campuses, a copy shall be sent to the Office of Student Affairs (Regional Campus Student Affairs).
4. In certain cases, the dean of a school or college or designee may become aware of alleged academic misconduct and may bring a complaint forward to the Board.
5. The student has 15 business days from receipt of the written notice to respond to the instructor and/or to request a hearing (see “Academic Misconduct Board”). If the student does not respond within the allotted time the instructor’s sanctions shall be imposed. If the student requests a hearing the instructor shall forward the request to Community Standards or the Regional Campus Student Affairs. If the student and the instructor reach a mutually acceptable resolution of the case the instructor shall notify Community Standards (or Regional Campus Student Affairs) of the agreement. The instructor shall also notify Community Standards (or Regional Campus Student Affairs) if s/he withdraws the allegation of misconduct. A student who has been notified that s/he has been accused of academic misconduct may not withdraw from the course in which the alleged misconduct has occurred without the approval of the Board.
6. If a semester concludes before an academic misconduct matter is resolved, the student shall receive a temporary “I” (Incomplete) grade in the course until the instructor submits the appropriate grade.

B. The Academic Misconduct Hearing Board

1. The Academic Misconduct Hearing Board, which is administered by Community Standards, is comprised of two faculty members, two students, and a nonvoting chairperson, all of whom are appointed by the Director of Community Standards. At each Regional Campus, a designee working in conjunction with Community Standards is responsible for the organization and administration of their Academic Misconduct Hearing Board. Hearing procedures will be in accordance with the hearing procedures described in The Student Code (Part IV). Community Standards will ensure that appropriate Dean(s) and Faculty are kept informed of the status of misconduct cases in a timely fashion.
2. The accused student or the accusing instructor may refer a case of alleged academic misconduct to Community Standards for it to be adjudicated by the Board.

C. Hearing on Academic Misconduct

1. If the Board finds that the student is “Not Responsible” for the alleged misconduct the Board shall not impose any sanctions and the instructor must reevaluate the student’s course grade in light of the Board’s finding.
2. If the Board finds that the student is “Responsible”, the instructor’s grading sanction shall be imposed. The Board does not have the authority to change or influence the grading sanction imposed by the instructor.
3. Upon consideration of a student’s record of misconduct and/or the nature of the offense the Board may impose additional sanctions. The Board should apply these sanctions in proportion to the severity of the misconduct. These sanctions may include any sanction as described in The Student Code.

D. Hearing Appeal

1. The decision of the Board may be appealed to the Provost or his/her designee. An appeal is not a new hearing. It is a review of the record of the hearing.
2. An appeal may be sought on two grounds:
1. On a claim of error in the hearing procedure that substantially affected the decision.
2. On a claim of new evidence or information material to the case that was not known at the time of the hearing.
3. Appeals on such grounds may be presented, specifically described, in writing within five business days of the announcement of the Board’s decision.
4. The decision of the Provost or his/her designee is final. There will be no further right of appeal.
5. The Provost or his/her designee shall have the authority to dismiss an appeal not sought on proper grounds.
6. If an appeal is upheld, the Provost shall refer the case with procedural specifications back to the original Hearing Body who shall reconsider the case accordingly.