Academic Honesty Policy

University of Rochester School of Arts & Sciences and Hajim School of Engineering & Applied Sciences Academic Honesty Policy

Table of Contents

I. Introduction

II. Who is Covered under the Policy

III. Educating the SAS/Hajim Community about Academic Honesty and the Academic Honesty Policy

IV. Honor Pledge

V. Violations of the Academic Honesty Policy

VI. Addressing Academic Honesty in the Classroom

VII. Board on Academic Honesty

VIII. Reporting Cases of Suspected Policy Violations: General Guidelines

IX. Instructor Resolution Warning Letter: Undergraduate Students Only

X. Instructor Resolution with Penalty

XI. Board Resolution Process

XII. Sanctioning Guidelines

XIII. Confidentiality, Records, Internal and External Reporting, and Self-reporting by Students

I. Introduction

The students, faculty, and administrators of the School of Arts & Sciences and Hajim School of Engineering & Applied Sciences (hereafter “SAS/Hajim”) comprise a community of scholars who are committed to the pursuit of excellence in learning, teaching, creativity, and research. Academic honesty is the cornerstone upon which excellence in these endeavors is based, as it creates the necessary conditions of mutual trust and open communication that make intellectual inquiry and growth possible. The SAS/Hajim Academic Honesty Policy recognizes our shared obligation to promote honesty and the related principles of respect and responsibility among all members of our institution. It establishes high standards of academic conduct and requires that each individual meet those standards. All members of the SAS/Hajim community further understand that adherence to our shared expectations for integrity requires not only clear communication about those expectations, but the individual and collective courage to uphold them.

Academic honesty means acting with truthfulness and sincerity in carrying out all aspects of our individual and collaborative work, maintaining ownership over our work, and acknowledging our debt to the work of others.

Students can best meet their obligation to academic honesty by adhering to the Academic Honesty Policy in all academic matters. This includes completing their work through their own honest efforts and expecting and encouraging honesty among their peers.

Faculty members, course instructors, teaching assistants and staff have the responsibility to enforce the Academic Honesty Policy, model integrity in their own practices, and educate students about disciplinary standards.

Administrators have the obligation to model integrity through their leadership and to provide the resources necessary to promote best practices in teaching, learning, assessment, research, and citizenship.

The specific policy measures that follow have been designed to promote a just and trustworthy community, and to ensure equity, clarity, and consistency in our adjudication of all alleged “violations of this policy.

II. Who is Covered under the Policy

1. Undergraduate students in SAS/Hajim.
2. Graduate students SAS/Hajim. Graduate students are covered by this policy, with the exception that this policy does not apply to misconduct in sponsored research.
3. All students matriculated in courses offered by SAS/Hajim. If the student’s primary designation is not SAS/Hajim and the student is found responsible for a policy violation, the resolution will be communicated to the student’s primary designated school, which will have the right to adjust the resolution in accordance with its own academic integrity policy.

III. Educating the SAS/Hajim Community about Academic Honesty and the Academic Honesty Policy

1. Language expressing the central importance of academic honesty will be included in student recruitment and admissions materials, and in the SAS/Hajim offer of admission letter.
2. Pre-enrollment communications with all incoming undergraduate and graduate students will include the Academic Honesty Policy and require students to sign off on their acceptance of the policy prior to arrival on campus for orientation.
3. The orientation program for first year and transfer students at the undergraduate level will include a discussion of the Academic Honesty Policy.
4. Departments will provide their incoming graduate students with an orientation to the policy.
5. Course-specific materials such as syllabi and websites will refer to the Academic Honesty Policy and how it applies to the class.
6. All new instructors of SAS/Hajim undergraduate and graduate courses will receive an orientation to the Academic Honesty Policy through a combination of community-wide and departmental efforts.
7. SAS/Hajim will aim to provide regular updates on the Academic Honesty Policy to all applicable instructors and academic staff.
8. The Senior Vice Provost for Academic Excellence (hereafter “Provost”) shall appoint designated Academic Honesty Liaisons to provide confidential advising to students about the Academic Honesty Policy and to design and oversee the implementation of educational outreach measures described herein. Other means of engaging the SAS/Hajim community in awareness of academic honesty issues will be overseen by mechanisms established by the Provost.

IV. Honor Pledge

The following Honor Pledge will be copied and signed by all students on all examinations: “I affirm that I will not give or receive any unauthorized help on this exam, and that all work will be my own.”

It is recommended that course instructors also require the following wording as a sign-off for other graded assignments:

“I affirm that I have not given or received any unauthorized help on this assignment, and that this work is my own.”

Suggested for group projects, to be signed by each group member:

“I accept responsibility for my role in ensuring the integrity of the work submitted by the group in which I participated.”

Note: Students are responsible for upholding the Academic Honesty Policy whether or not they are instructed to write and sign a pledge.

V. Violations of the Academic Honesty Policy:

A. General Principles

In the academic work of students in the SAS/Hajim, “the ability to rely on the truth of someone or something is a fundamental pillar of academic pursuit and a necessary foundation of academic work. Members of the academic community must be able to trust that work is not falsified and that standards are applied equitably” (International Center for Academic Integrity, Fundamental Values 2021). Policy violations undermine the trust that is fundamental to academic enterprise—indeed, that is fundamental to how we build knowledge in and for society—and threatens the intellectual freedom upon which our community thrives. 

Intent—or lack thereof—should never be taken into account when deciding whether or not an action or set of actions violated the policy. However, fairness dictates that intent may be considered when proposing penalties (for individual instructors) or when applying sanctions (for Hearing Boards (defined below)).

Similarly, neither degrees of (in) experience nor extenuating circumstances should be taken into accoun when determining whether or no a student or students’ behavior amounted to policy violation(s). Once the question of responsibility has been addressed, either or both may be considered when deliberating on what outcome(s) are in order. Ignorance of the policy does not excuse actions that violate its requirements. Students who are concerned about possible violations are strongly encouraged to consult with the Academic Honesty Liaison as well as the Board on Academic Honesty (hereafter the “Board”) Chair (hereafter the “Chair”) for guidance.

Policy violations that are detected after the end of a course, or after a student graduates or otherwise leaves SAS/Hajim, is subject to being reported and adjudicated under the Academic Honesty Policy. Assigned grades and earned degrees may be affected as a result of the decision made in such a case.

B. Policy Violations

1. Receiving, Using or Having Access to Unauthorized Aid

Receiving, using, or having access to materials that violate this policy. Some examples include, but are not limited to:

• Using unauthorized notes or other study aids during an examination
• Using unauthorized technology during an examination.
• Improper storage of prohibited notes, course materials, and study aids during an exam such that they are accessible or possible to view.
• Looking at other students’ work during an exam or in an assignment where collaboration is not allowed.
• Attempting to communicate with other students in order to get help during an exam or in an assignment where collaboration is not allowed.
• Obtaining an examination prior to its administration.
• Altering graded work and submitting it for re-grading without the instructor’s permission.
• Allowing another person to do one’s work and submitting it as one’s own.
• Submitting work done in a class taken at the University of Rochester or at another school for credit in another class without the instructor’s permission.
• Submitting work done in a prior semester without the instructor’s permission when the student is retaking that course.
• Obstructing or interfering with another student’s academic work.

2. Giving Unauthorized Aid

Aiding another person in an act that violates this policy. Some examples include, but are not limited to:

• Allowing other students to look at one’s own work during an exam or in an assignment where collaboration is not allowed.
• Unauthorized editing or revising of another student’s work.
• Providing information, material, or assistance to another person in a form that one knows or reasonable should know is likely to be used in violation of course, departmental, or SAS/Hajim academic honesty policies.
• Failing to take reasonable measures to protect one’s work from copying by others.

3. Plagiarism

The representation of another’s work as one’s own. It is the student’s responsibility to ensure that their instructors and other audiences know, while reading or grading the student’s work, which words and idea(s) belong to that student and which originated from other people, sources, or technologies, including the student’s own previous work.

Some examples include, but are not limited to:

• Misrepresentation of source material used in a work for which the student claims authorship, as in (1) failing to signal the extent to which sources have influenced the overall organizational structure of a student’s work, or (2) starting from paragraphs and sentence patterns devised by another person or AI technology then making superficial, word-by-word line edits to incorporate synonyms selected by the student.
• Treating as common knowledge material that an instructor expects to be cited based on the class context. What counts as “common knowledge” may differ depending on context, but generally refers to what is reasonably considered commonly known by the relevant academic community (e.g., in an American history class, one can take as common knowledge that the Civil War occurred in the 1860s). Common knowledge does not include personal communication, information delivered in face-to-face or online lectures, or language from course material (assignment instructions, essay prompts, and so on).
• Usage of material generated by AI tools (Grammarly, ChatGPT, DALL-E, translation software, or similar) that is not allowed by the instructor.
• Submission of work such as laboratory reports, computer programs or coding, journals, reflections, or other types of papers, which have been copied from work done by other students, either in whole or in part, with or without these students’ knowledge or consent.
• Submission of work such as laboratory reports, computer programs or coding, journals, reflections, or other types of papers, which have been copied from comments made by instructors or instructor-created materials; as when a student includes parts of a group project or borrows from assignment instructions to create professional profiles via online platforms like Github, without having obtained written permission to do so in advance.
• Submission of work that duplicates or substantially borrows from assignments the student has turned in previously, earlier in the same semester or previous semesters, if an instructor clearly indicated original work was required in the course (known as double submission or “self-plagiarism,” this will vary in severity depending on the context of a course or assignment).
• Use of papers and projects that are purchased or otherwise bartered for, then turned in as the student’s own original work (known as “contract cheating,” this is always taken very seriously).

Students can avoid the suspicion of plagiarism in written papers, oral presentations, and other coursework by clearly and transparently indicating the source of any idea, wording, or visual reference they did not produce themselves, either in footnotes or within the paper, presentation, or other work. Indication may be given in a list of references (a works cited page or bibliography), or through some other form of attribution relevant to the genre, discipline, or professional setting, as expected/agreed upon by the instructor(s) who assign and assess the work. Credit to source material or source technologies (DALL-E, ChatGPT, or similar) must be given regardless of whether the idea, phrase or other material is quoted directly, or whether a student subsequently paraphrases or summarizes into their own words. In addition to any and all other citation information required (e.g., page numbers), verbatim quotes must always be clearly identified as such within the text.

4. Misconduct in Group Projects

Failure to carry out the work in a group in adherence with the academic honesty guidelines and expectations established by the course instructor. It is the responsibility of each group member to take reasonable steps (e.g. asking a fellow group member if the work was done properly) to understand the whole of the project and to uphold honesty and integrity across all aspects of the project.

5. Fabrication and Falsification

Inventing or manipulating information. Some examples include, but are not limited to:

• Falsifying or inventing any information, citation, text, or data.
• Using improper methods of collecting or generating data and presenting them as legitimate.
• Misrepresenting one’s qualifications or one’s status in the University, as in an application for a fellowship or employment on campus or externally.
• Forging signatures or falsifying information on official documents for the purpose of academic gain. Examples include drop/add forms, incomplete forms, petitions, letters of permission, applications for positions or awards in SAS/Hajim, course attendance sheets, email communications and physician’s notes.
• Undertaking any action that may be considered subterfuge.

6. Denying Others Access to Information or Material

Any act that hinders the use of or access to library or course materials. Some examples include, but are not limited to:

• Removal of pages from books or journals or reserve materials.
• Removal of books from libraries without formally checking out the items.
• Hiding of library materials.
• Refusal to return reserve readings to the library.

7. Unauthorized Recording, Distribution or Publication of Course‐Related Materials

Recording, distribution or publication of course-related materials. Some examples include, but are not limited to:

• Publishing, distributing, or selling--electronically or otherwise--any course materials that the instructor has developed in any course of instruction in the University (e.g., presentation slides, lecture aids, video or audio recordings of lectures, and exams) without the explicit permission of the instructor.
• Audio, video, or photo recording of class lectures or other classroom or laboratory activities without the explicit permission of the instructor.
• Disrespecting copyright protection for materials that are made available for instructional purposes.

8. Misuse of a Student’s Username and Password

Unauthorized use of username or password. Some examples include, but are not limited to:

• Sharing personal University account information such as URID, email, etc.
• Allowing unauthorized access to Blackboard and other password-protected sites.

9. Impeding the Investigation or Conduct of Any Board on Academic Honesty Matter

Interfering with Board’s processes. Some examples include, but are not limited to:

• Providing false information, including false alibis, to any member of the Board.
• Providing false testimony during a hearing.
• Causing or requesting another person to provide a false alibi or other false information in connection with a Board matter.

VI. Addressing Academic Honesty in the Classroom

A. Course-specific Academic Honesty Statement

Because academic honesty is of vital concern to SAS/Hajim, and because each discipline may have its own specific expectations and protocols, all course instructors should include an academic honesty statement on each course syllabus or on the course Blackboard page or website indicating any unique way in which the policy applies in the course. This may take several forms (e.g., an appended set of guidelines formulated by the instructor or by the department, the address of a website that contains this information, a course-specific statement linked to an “Academic Honesty” button on Blackboard, or simply a link to the policy).

During the first two weeks of class, the course instructor should call attention to this information during at least one class session.

B. Assignment-Specific Requirements

Course instructors should make a discipline-specific or otherwise unique expectations and guidelines for academic honesty clear for each assignment given. This assignment-specific orientation may be conveyed in written or oral form early in the semester, or it may occur throughout the semester as assignments are given. The academic procedures that vary from discipline to discipline, such as proper and improper forms of academic collaboration and citation, demand particular attention on a course-by-course basis.

VII. Board on Academic Honesty

A. Purpose

The Board exists to hear and adjudicate cases of alleged policy violations brought by any member of the SAS/Hajim teaching, administrative, or support staff against any student, matriculated or non-matriculated, who is or was enrolled in SAS/Hajim courses.

B. Composition and Selection of the Board

• The Board is ordinarily composed of a Chair, faculty members, undergraduate students, and graduate students.
• The Chair is a tenured faculty member selected by the Provost from among faculty members who have previously served on the Board or are current Board members. The length of the Chair’s term is four years and is renewable.
• Faculty members of the Board are selected and invited by the Provost from among full-time faculty (tenured, pre-tenure, and non-tenure track). The Provost may consult with the Chair, the Dean of Graduate Studies, department chairs, and others as appropriate. Members serve for four-year renewable terms, and terms will be staggered in order to achieve a balanced mix of new and experienced members each year. The faculty cohort on the Board will represent disciplines from across SAS/Hajim: humanities, social sciences, natural sciences, and engineering.
• The process for selecting undergraduate student representatives shall be determined and conducted by the Center for Student Conflict Management in collaboration with the All-Campus Judicial Council.
• Graduate students are selected by the Dean of Graduate Studies, who may consult with the President of the Graduate Students Association and others as appropriate. Graduate student members serve for staggered two-year renewable terms.

C. Training

All Board members will undergo uniform training on the policy, hearing procedures, and proper conduct of hearings. This training will take place on an annual basis.

D. Responsibilities of Chair and Board Members

1.  Responsibilities of the Chair:

• Participate in the selection of faculty members of the Board.
• Serve as a resource for faculty, staff, students and parents in Board matters.
• Oversee training of new and continuing Board members, as well as all aspects of the work of the Board.
• Supervise the work of the Board Secretary.
• Carry out other tasks specified in the Academic Honesty Policy.

2.  Responsibilities of All Board Members:

• Faculty and student members of the Board will share as equally as possible in service on Hearing Boards (defined below) that are scheduled throughout the year. Board members are expected to be available to participate in hearings on the days and times established by the Chair and the Board Secretary.

VIII. Reporting Cases of Suspected Policy Violations

All cases of suspected policy violations encountered by course instructors must be reported to the Board through one of the instructor resolution processes (Warning Letter or Instructor Resolution with Penalty) or a Board Resolution process. Course instructors may not come to a private agreement with a student in a case of suspected policy violation. Course instructors may not ask or allow a student to drop or withdraw from a course or impose a penalty of any kind on a student through any means that fall outside of the procedures for reporting cases outlined below. The one exception is when an instructor, after meeting with a student about a suspected violation, is convinced that no violation was committed. In this situation, the case no longer counts as a suspected violation and does not need to be reported.

When a course instructor becomes aware of a suspected policy violation in a course the instructor is teaching, the instructor should contact the Chair. Course instructors who have had experience with submitting similar cases in the past may proceed directly with an instructor or Board Resolution process. Any reporting person (RP always has the option of contacting the Board Secretary at college.honesty@ur.rochester.edu at any point in the process with questions or for assistance in understanding and complying with our procedures.

Exam proctors (students, course instructors, or staff members) who observe suspicious behavior during a quiz or exam and teaching assistants who detect evidence of policy violations in an assignment that they are grading must speak with the course instructor. They must provide a written report and all pertinent documentation to the instructor. The instructor must then follow established procedures for reporting the case. Originals of exams, lab reports, essays, or homework, as well as other written, electronic, recorded, or visual work, should be retained by the course instructor to submit with the case and should not be returned to the student or students in question. In the case of suspected misconduct during an oral presentation, the student’s electronic presentation and/or handouts should be retained by the instructor.

If a Board member suspects that a student is providing false information, that member should alert the Chair, who will write up and submit the case on behalf of the Board using the Board Resolution process.

With the exception of students who are serving as exam proctors or teaching assistants, students are not required to report, but they have several avenues for voluntarily reporting suspected policy violations:

• They may report an incident to the course instructor if the incident involves coursework.
• They should contact the Chair with information about an incident of suspected policy violation. RPs may request their names be kept private, but anonymous reports may not be able to be acted upon.

Administrative, academic, and support staff members in SAS/Hajim are strongly encouraged to report potential violations to the relevant course instructor(s) if they learn about an incident that involves coursework. They are required to report when they suspect a policy violation is practiced against them (e.g., their signature is falsified or their permission to add/drop a course is misrepresented) and must contact the Chair to report any such violations. As with faculty, staff can always contact the Chair for confidential advice in these kinds of situations.

Reported policy violations are resolved using one of three processes: a Warning Letter, an Instructor Resolution with Penalty, or a Board Resolution. Each type of process is outlined below. For all processes, notices of all kinds to students and/or RPs must be sent by email to the student’s University of Rochester email account. In the case of a student who is on suspension or is no longer enrolled in SAS/Hajim, the notification will be sent to the most current email address on file, if one is available, and if not, mailed in hard copy form to the most current permanent address that is on file with SAS/Hajim. 

IX. Instructor Resolution Warning Letter: Undergraduate Students Only

A. Purpose and Limitations

1. If improper academic conduct committed by an undergraduate student is judged to be minor and resulting from inexperience, the Warning Letter procedure may be followed at the instructor’s discretion. Consultation with the Chair of the Board prior to meeting with the student is strongly recommended.
2. The Warning Letter resolution may only be used in cases involving undergraduates to settle incidents that would fall into the category of “Minor Violations” as described in Section XII, “Sanctioning Guidelines,” if proven. The Warning Letter may not be used in cases involving graduate students. The Warning Letter option recognizes that the incident is best addressed as an educational opportunity. It is never required that a suspected incident be handled through the Warning Letter resolution. It is an available option to be used at the instructor’s discretion.
3. The Warning Letter on file will be considered when determining a sanction for a subsequent finding of responsibility for a policy violation and may result in a more severe penalty than is typical for a first offense in light of the educational measures that have been offered.

B. Process

1. The instructor becomes aware of evidence of a policy violation that would be considered a minor violation if true and determines if the allegation has merit. That instructor will consult with the Chair to review prior to contacting the student to set up a meeting. The instructor and student will meet in a confidential setting to discuss the allegation and review evidence. If multiple students are involved, each student will have a separate confidential meeting. The student(s) will have a chance to respond to the allegation by asking questions about the evidence and/or providing an explanation to demonstrate that they are not responsible for the alleged policy violation.
2. If the instructor is convinced that no policy violation occurred, no further action is required.
3. If the instructor is convinced that a policy violation was committed the instructor will log in to the Incident Report Portal (“Portal”) and prepare a Warning Letter following the instructions in the Portal. The instructor will be able to describe the case, attach evidence, propose educational measures, and select the length of time the student will have to respond. Once the instructor submits the form, the Board Secretary will determine whether the student has a prior infraction. If the student has a prior infraction, the Board Secretary will not approve the form, and the instructor will be notified that the case must be resolved with a Board Resolution. If the student does not have a prior infraction, the Board Secretary will request that a “C” hold (confidential hold) be placed on the student’s record (as transcripts/diplomas may not be sent out until the case is fully resolved) and will approve the form to be reviewed by the Chair. The Chair may either approve the form or ask for modifications. The instructor will be notified if modifications are required and respond to the Chair’s requests using the Portal. Once the Chair approves the form, the student will receive an email indicating how many days the student has to log in to the Portal to review the Warning Letter and indicate whether or not the student accepts responsibility.
4. If the student accepts responsibility, the student will complete the educational measure deemed appropriate by the instructor in consultation with the Chair (e.g., a rewrite of the work in question or an alternative equivalent assignment, which will not be for credit or a grade). Upon notification of approval of the Warning Letter, the instructor will assign a grade to the assignment as originally submitted, discounting the parts under question as appropriate. The student must complete a required academic honesty tutorial. The "C" hold will remain in place on the student's record until the Board Secretary has received confirmation that the student has completed the assigned tutorial. In the case of a Warning Letter that is not connected to a course, the "C" hold will remain in place until the Board Secretary has received confirmation that the student has completed the assigned tutorial.
5. A Warning Letter does not affect the student’s option to drop, withdraw or declare the S/F grading option as permitted under SAS/Hajim rules. If a student drops or withdraws from the course in question, the “C” hold will remain on the student’s record until the academic honesty tutorial has been completed.
6. If the student declines to sign the Warning Letter, the incident must be reported using the Board Resolution process Section XI.

X. Instructor Resolution with Penalty

A. Purpose and Limitations

1. The Instructor Resolution with Penalty process is appropriate for many cases involving undergraduate and graduate students. However, instructors using this process may not assign XE or XF grades (see Section XII),impose suspension or expulsion, or impose sanctions listed under Section XII.G.I, “Academic Disciplinary Probation.” These outcomes are reserved for Board actions based on a hearing. The RP —that is, the person who completes and submits the form—will most often be a course instructor but may also be a University staff member or administrator. The RP will never be a student. 

B. Instructor Resolution with Penalty Process

1. The RP becomes aware of evidence of misconduct and determines if the allegation merits further investigation. That person will consult either with the Chair before contacting the student to set up a meeting. For graduate students the person will consult with the Chair (who will check for prior violations) and the Dean of Graduate Education and Postdoctoral Affairs (who will help determine the appropriate penalty to offer in accordance with Section XII, “Sanctioning Guidelines”). Only first reports at graduate level are eligible for resolution through Instructor Resolution with Penalty—as with undergraduate students, al second and subsequent reports for graduate students must be resolved with a Board hearing.
2. The RP will meet with the student in a confidential setting to explain the allegation and show the evidence. If more than one student is involved, individual meetings are required. The student(s) will have the opportunity to respond to the allegation (for instance to explain their circumstances, provide evidence, etc.).
3. If the RP is convinced that no violation was committed, no further action is required, as stated above (Section VIII).
4. If the RP is convinced of a policy violation, they will log in to the Portal and prepare an Instructor Resolution with Penalty form following the instructions in the Portal. The instructor will be able to describe the case, attach evidence, propose a sanction, and select the length of time the student will have to respond. Once the instructor submits the form, the Board Secretary will check if the student has a prior infraction. If the student has a prior infraction, including a Warning Letter, the Board Secretary will not approve the form, and the instructor will be notified that the case must be resolved with a Board Resolution (Section XI). If the student does not have a prior infraction, the Board Secretary will request that a “C” hold (confidential hold) be placed on the student’s record (as transcripts/diplomas may not be sent out until the case is fully resolved) and will approve the form to be reviewed by the Chair. The Chair may either approve the form or ask for modifications. The instructor will be notified if modifications are required and respond to the Chair’s requests using the Portal. Once the Chair approves the form, the student will receive an email indicating how many days the student has to log in to the Portal to accept responsibility. 
5. Students may not drop, withdraw from, or choose the S/F grading option for the course during this process or when an Instructor Resolution with Penalty Form has been signed and filed. If the student drops or withdraws, the student will be reinstated in the course. The S/F option will be rescinded whether declared prior to or after the violation. If the student accepts responsibility, the student must complete a required academic honesty tutorial.
6. The "C" hold will remain in place on the student's record until two conditions are met: The student's semester grade has been submitted by the course instructor; and the Board Secretary has received confirmation that the student has completed the assigned tutorial. In the case of a violation that is not connected to a course, the "C" hold will remain in place until the Board Secretary has received confirmation that the student has completed the assigned tutorial.
7. If the student does not accept responsibility or declines to sign the form, the RP will submit the case via a Board Resolution Form (Section XI).

XI. Board Resolution Process

A. Purpose

1. The Board Resolution process is used to adjudicate cases under fiv circumstances:
   1. The course instructor chooses to refer the matter directly to the Board.
   2. The RP is not a course instructor.
   3. The student declines to accept responsibility and/or the offered penalty when the Warning Letter or Instructor Resolution with Penalty Form has been offered.
   4. A review of the Board database reveals a prior finding or responsibility for a policy violation.
   5. The case involves a graduate student and a potential policy violation in the moderate or major category under Section XII, “Sanctioning Guidelines.”
2. Under limited circumstances (e.g., only with first reports and only for those who were not offered a Warning Letter or an Instructor Resolution with Penalty), students who were initially reported via Board Resolution may request that their case be resolved via Chair’s resolution. For information about rights, responsibilities, and the Chair’s resolution process, refer to Section XI.E, “Preparing for the Hearin,” below.

B. Process: Submission of Form and Immediate Actions

1. The RP will log in to the Portal and prepare a Board Resolution Form following the instructions in the Portal. The RP should retain a copy of all materials submitted. The RP may notify the student that the RP has taken this action, though doing so is not required.
2. Receipt of a Board Resolution Form triggers several actions:
   1. For undergraduate students: The Board Secretary will request that a "C" hold (confidential hold) be placed on the student's records, as transcripts/diplomas may not be sent out until the case is fully resolved.
   2. For graduate students: A “C” hold is placed on the graduate student’s records by the Graduate Studies Office as transcripts/diplomas may not be sent out until the case is fully resolved.
   3. For all students: The "C" hold will remain in place until two conditions are met: The student's semester grade has been submitted by the course instructor; and the Board Secretary has received confirmation that the student has completed the assigned tutorial. In the case of a violation that is not connected to a course, the “C” hold will remain in place until the Board Secretary has received confirmation that the student has completed the assigned tutorial.
   4. The student (undergraduate or graduate) is notified of the receipt of the Form and the need for a hearing to resolve the case (as above,  section XI.B).
   5. With the notification, the student will be directed to review the Academic Honesty website and will be sent additional information regarding the upcoming hearing (e.g., hearing time and location, meeting with the Academic Honesty Liaison, reviewing the case file, etc.).
   6. Students may not drop, withdraw from, or choose the S/F grading option for the course during this process. If the student drops or withdraws, they will be reinstated in the course. The S/F option will be rescinded whether declared prior to or after the violation.
   7. The Chair will review the Board Resolution Form and the other materials submitted within one week of receipt and will contact the RP if any additional materials are required to complete the case file or if any clarification of the report or the evidence is needed.
   8. Once a RP has submitted a Board Resolution Form, the RP may submit additional evidence.

C. Retraction of forms

In undergraduate cases, the RP may not retract the form unless the Chair and the RP both approve the substitution of a signed Warning Letter or Instructor Resolution with Penalty Form. In undergraduate cases, only the Provost, upon the recommendation of the RP and the Chair, has the right to retract a Board Resolution Form without the substitution of a signed Warning Letter or Instructor Resolution with Penalty Form.

In graduate cases, the RP may not retract the form unless the Dean of Graduate Studies and the RP both approve the substitution of a signed Instructor Resolution with Penalty Form. In graduate cases, only the Provost, upon the recommendation of the RP and the Dean of Graduate Studies, has the right to retract a Board Resolution Form without the substitution of a signed Instructor Resolution with Penalty Form.

D. Scheduling Hearings

A hearing will generally be held within one month of the receipt of the Board Resolution Form, except when the number of cases to be heard makes it impossible to schedule a hearing within the one-month time frame or during recesses.

Hearings will be scheduled with knowledge of the student’s class schedule and will not be scheduled during class hours. A student’s employment or extracurricular activities schedule will not be taken into account.

The student will be notified of the hearing date, time, and location as specified above at least five business days in advance of the hearing.

E. Preparing for the Hearing

The student is permitted to review the case file and submit additional material in support of the student’s case. In order to protect the confidentiality of Board documents, the case file is maintained in a secure location. The student is not permitted to photocopy, photograph, or otherwise reproduce the documents contained in the file, although they may take notes on the contents of the file to assist in formulating a response to the allegation. The student may submit a written response to the allegation for distribution to the Board in advance of the hearing, but this is not required. The student should seek advice from the Academic Honesty Liaison in preparing a response.

Members of the Hearing Board (defined below) will have access to the case file in electronic form at least five business days in advance of the hearing.

The Presiding Officer of the Hearing Board (each defined below) will contact the RP once prior to the hearing.

Cases reported after students have left campus at the end of the Fall semester will be heard no later than in the first four weeks of the Spring term. Cases reported after students have left campus at the end of the Spring semester will be heard no later than in the first four weeks of the following Fall term.

Eligible students who wish to accept responsibility for the reported infraction(s) without going to a full Board hearing should indicate interest in filing a Chair’s Resolution with Penalty by contacting the Board Secretary at college.honesty@ur.rochester.edu. Students may indicate this interest before or after viewing their case file but must do so at least 48 hours before their hearing is set to take place.

Upon receiving this email, the Board Secretary will schedule the Chair’s Resolution meeting between the student and the Chair to discuss accepting responsibility for the alleged infraction(s) and to agree upon a penalty or penalties proposed in accordance with the Sanctioning Guidelines (Section XII).

Once penalties have been formally proposed, the student will have 48 hours to consider signing a Chair’s Resolution with Penalty form. As is also true of Instructor Resolution, this window may (but does not have to) be extended at the Chair’s discretion.

Signing a Chair’s Resolution indicates acceptance of responsibility as well as agreement with the proposed penalties. By signing the form, a student forfeits their right to appeal either the finding of responsibility or the penalties involved. As is also true of Instructor Resolution, students are encouraged to consult the Academic Honesty Liaison while considering whether to sign the Chair’s Resolution form.

F. Make-up of the Hearing Board and Attendance

The student who has been reported via a Board Resolution Form is expected to attend the hearing. If the student does no attend, the Hearing Board may proceed to deliberate, reach a determination of responsibility and assign a penalty, or decide to exonerate the student in the student’s absence.

The student has the right to bring one community member (University of Rochester faculty, administrator, student, or staff member) to the hearing for moral support during the hearing. This community member must not be acting as attorney for the student.

The hearing board will consist of two faculty members and two student members of the Board. If a scheduling conflict occurs with a faculty member, the Chair may substitute for one (1) of the designated faculty Board members or may select an appropriate proxy (e.g., a Deputy Chair of the Board) to serve instead. If a scheduling conflict occurs with a student Board member, hearings may proceed with two faculty members and one student as long as a reported student gives their consent; however, a reported student will always have the option to reschedule the hearing for a later date. At a hearing for an undergraduate student, the student Board members will be undergraduate students—unless scheduling conflicts that would cause unacceptable delays preclude an undergraduate board member from serving. Hearings may not proceed with fewer than two (2) faculty Board members; in general, three-member Hearing Boards should be the exception and not the rule.

The role of the Board Chair is to oversee the hearing process, being available to review process, and cast tie-breaking votes if needed.

One faculty member of the Hearing Board will be designated in advance to serve as the Presiding Officer with the role of reading the opening and closing statements, determining if a line of questioning is appropriate, moderating the post-hearing deliberations, counting ballots when votes are taken, and drafting the decision letter. The Presiding Officer will have a vote, but their vote shall not outweigh that of any other Hearing Board member; ties in voting will be broken by the Chair after a thorough review of case file/hearing records. If the Chair has substituted for one of the two faculty Board members due to scheduling conflicts, the Chair may designate an appropriate proxy to review the case and break the tie.

The RP for the case will not be present at the hearing, but the RP must be available by telephone to answer questions during the hearing except under circumstances pre-approved by the Chair.

G. Hearing Procedures

Hearing Board hearings will be held in a quiet, confidential setting, either in person or virtually.

All hearings will be recorded but not transcribed. The recording will be limited to the introductions of those attending the hearing, the opening statement made by the Presiding Officer, the student’s statement, the question period and the closing of the hearing. Any Hearing Board deliberations during the hearing when the student is excused from the room and the final deliberations of the Hearing Board will not be recorded. The recordings will be kept confidential and will be used only by the Hearing Board during deliberations, by the Chair or designated proxy in case of a tie-breaking vote, or by administrators with a need to know. Recordings will be maintained for a period of seven years after the date of the hearing, then they may be destroyed. The Board database will be kept permanently.

Every student who is suspected of a policy violation will be given an individual hearing; two or more students will never be heard together.

The following rules governing the hearing process are intended to provide consistency across hearings and are meant to permit the student and the Hearing Board to come to as clear and complete an understanding of evidence in the case as possible. Civil or criminal court procedures are not applicable.

The Presiding Officer will open the hearing by having all individuals present introduce themselves. Then the Presiding Officer will read an opening statement that outlines the hearing process.

Next, the student will be asked to make a statement addressing the allegation and the evidence contained in the case file. The student may read a prepared statement, speak extemporaneously, or present a combination of the two.

After the student has finished the statement, the Hearing Board will ask questions of the student. These questions may pertain not only to the case under consideration, but also to the student’s academic experience in other courses as it may be relevant to the alleged violation. The Presiding Officer may excuse the student from answering a question that the Presiding Officer considers too leading, irrelevant, or otherwise not pertinent to the proceeding.

If any member of the Hearing Board wishes to ask the RP a question, the member will communicate the question to the Presiding Officer, who will determine if it is advisable to contact the RP. If a Hearing Board member wishes to consult with other members about a more extensive matter than a single question for the RP, the Presiding Officer may excuse a reported student and the student’s person of support (if applicable) from the room (and/or the virtual hearing) during consultation. A call/virtual connection to the RP will be placed once the student has returned, such that all persons can hear the RP simultaneously. If the student wishes to ask a question of the RP, the student must address the question directly to the Presiding Officer, who will determine the question’s relevance. If the question is deemed relevant, the Presiding Officer will pose the question to the RP on behalf of the Hearing Board. The RP and the student should never engage in a direct exchange of questions or comments.

When the Hearing Board agrees by that they have no further questions to ask a RP, the connection will be terminated. Follow-up connections by the Hearing Board will be permitted, provided that the procedures in (d) above are followed.

When the question period is concluded, the student will be invited to make a final statement but is not required to do so. The Hearing Board will have an opportunity to respond to a student’s closing statement. When the student is finished speaking and Hearing Board responses are complete, the Presiding Officer will read a closing statement that outlines next steps and explains the confidentiality of our hearings and decisions. At that time, all except the Hearing Board members will be excused from the room.

H. Deliberations, Decision, and Sanction

The Hearing Board will deliberate on all of the evidence presented and may review the recording as needed. When Hearing Board members determine that their deliberations are complete, the Presiding Officer will conduct a vote using secret ballots to find the student responsible or not responsible for a violation of academic honesty. This decision will be reached by majority vote. In cases where initial voting results in a tie, at the Presiding Officer’s discretion, the Presiding Officer may exercise one of two options: request additional discussion and deliberation among the members of the Hearing Board or suspend proceedings so the Chair (or designated proxy) can review the case file/hearing recording and cast a tie-breaking vote. If the final vote is tied at the hearing for a graduate student, the GEPA Dean will be informed immediately, and they will cast the deciding vote after reviewing the case file and (as needed) the hearing recording. If a responsible finding is reached, the Hearing Board will reconvene to determine a sanction (with the option to include the GEPA Dean during deliberations as needed). As with undergraduate hearings, Board members may be asked to reconvene over email, via Zoom, or in person (at the Dean’s discretion).

The standard of proof is preponderance of evidence, that is, if it is more likely than not that a policy violation occurred.

If the student is found responsible, the Presiding Officer will open an envelope provided by the Board Secretary to see if the student has any prior violations or Warning Letters in the student’s confidential Board record. The current Hearing Board will have the opportunity to review the file from any prior case(s) for selecting appropriate sanction(s) in the current case. The Hearing Board will determine a sanction, consulting with the Chair as needed regarding fair interpretation of Sanctioning Guidelines as well as consistency with Board precedent.

While Board members should have substantial input in the process, both individually and collectively, it is ultimately up to the Chair’s discretion to approve sanctions (because it is the Chair’s duty to oversee fair and consistent application of policy). If the Chair has substituted for one of the two faculty Hearing Board members and voted as to responsibility, it is recommended (not formally required) for the Chair to seek the advice of an outside proxy, such as the Deputy Chair of the Board in selecting appropriate sanction(s).

I. Decision Letter

The Presiding Officer will draft a decision letter stating either exoneration or a finding of responsibility and send it electronically to the other Hearing Board members for discussion, revision, and approval.

For cases involving undergraduate students, the decision letter will be forwarded by the Presiding Officer to the Chair. The Chair will review it to ensure that the exoneration or the finding of responsibility and the sanction conform to established guidelines and precedents, and the wording of the letter is consistent with the Academic Honesty Policy and with SAS/Hajim rules.

The Chair may contact the Presiding Officer to discuss the decision and the sanction if the Chair has questions or finds any discrepancy with the Academic Honesty Policy. The Presiding Officer will communicate with the other members of the Hearing Board and respond to the Chair’s questions. The Chair, at the Chair’s discretion, and after listening to the hearing recording, may reconvene the Hearing Board to discuss and reconsider the finding.

Once finalized, the Presiding Officer will send the letter to the Board Secretary, who will put the letter on official letterhead to be approved by the Chair and send out the letter to the student and simultaneously to the RP.

For cases involving graduate students, the Hearing Board letter will be sent to the GEPA Dean, who will assume the role of the Chair described in Section XI.H above.

J. Appeals

Appeals must be submitted in writing electronically to the Board Secretary at college.honesty@ur.rochester.edu within seven (7) calendar days of the date of the decision letter. The Associate Dean of Academic Affairs for the School of Arts & Sciences (hereafter “Associate Dean”) will consider the appeals for undergraduate students, the Dean of Hajim School of Engineering and Applied Sciences or the Dean of the School of Arts & Sciences will consider the appeals for graduate students. The decision of the Associate Dean, or the Dean of Hajim School of Engineering and Applied Sciences and the Dean of the School of Arts & Sciences, will be final. The letter answering the appeal should be sent to the student and the Chair (undergraduate appeals) or to the student, the Chair, and the GEPA Dean (graduate appeals). If and only if some modification to the finding and/or sanction is granted, the appeal response letter will also be sent electronically to the RP.

Acceptable bases for appeal are:

• Procedural error (if the error is substantive enough to alter the decision).
• Excessive or inappropriate sanction.
• New information exists that was not available at the time of the hearing (if this information is sufficient to alter the decision).

If new information is provided to the Associate Dean or designee that was not available at the time of the hearing and is sufficient for a reconsideration of the case, the case will be referred back to its original Hearing Board for a further meeting with the student and (re)determination of a finding. If the Associate Dean or designee believes referring the case back to its original Hearing Board would cause an undue delay in the resolution of a case or is inadvisable for any other reason, Associate Dean or designee will reconsider the case in consultation with one member of the Hearing Board jointly identified by either the Associate Dean and the Chair (cases involving undergraduates), or the Dean of Hajim School of Engineering and Applied Sciences and the Dean of the School of Arts & Sciences and the GEPA Dean (cases involving graduate students).

In the event that a student’s appeal contains suspicion of another violation of the policy (e.g. the student provides false information in the appeal letter), the Board will treat that act as a possible additional violation. The student will be scheduled for a hearing with a new Hearing Board. The Hearing Board members for the additional hearing will be aware of the prior case.

K. New Evidence and Reconsideration of Previously Resolved Cases

If new evidence comes to light after a final decision that would likely alter the decision and such evidence was not available at the time of the hearing through no fault or negligence of the discovering party, a case may be reopened. A reopened case will be adjudicated through the Hearing Board process.  

When a case is reopened and the file from a previously resolved case still exists (within 30 days for an exoneration or within seven years for a responsible finding), the original case file will be considered in any additional deliberations. If the file does not exist (i.e., it is beyond the 30-day or seven-year window and has been destroyed), the RP must resubmit all evidence that the RP wishes the Board to consider.

XII. Sanctioning Guidelines

A. Purpose

The free exchange of ideas is the foundation of our academic community and rests upon the integrity of all members of the University and on our trust in that integrity. Violating that integrity and trust undermines our core purpose by deeply damaging academic endeavors. For this reason, violations of the Academic Honesty Policy are considered serious breaches of our accepted codes of conduct; the related sanctions reflect the seriousness with which these breaches of conduct are viewed by the University.

Sanctions are based on the following principles:

• The Academic Honesty Policy is founded on the conviction that all students in the School of Arts and Sciences and the Hajim School of Engineering, undergraduate and graduate alike, must accept responsibility for understanding and upholding its provisions. Ignorance and/or failure to verify policy expectations ahead of time will not be grounds for exoneration or avoiding responsibility.
• Repeat offenses require sanctions that are graduated in severity and in their impact on a student’s academic career.
• Sanctions for similar offenses among students should generally be consistent. The Chair has the responsibility to ensure the fairness and the consistency of sanctions.

B. Three Categories of Violations

Refer to Section V for more complete descriptions of the violations categorized below. 

1. Minor Violations:

Minor violations are quantitatively and/or qualitatively the least serious type of violations of the Academic Honesty Policy. Examples include:

• Submitting work that misrepresents or does not fully or fairly acknowledge the contributions of others due primarily to inexperience, where inexperience is a determination made by individual instructors and/or Hearing Boards, under the guidance of the Chair, and in consideration of such factors as students’ previous training, clarity of assignment instructions, and overall judgment of how much responsibility students demonstrated and/or how much initiative they took for knowing, clarifying, and following rules set by the policy and applied within individual courses or assignments.
• Unauthorized collaboration on assignments when the identical work constitutes a small portion of the work submitted.
• Other behavior not directly linked to coursework that is judged by the Chair to be minor and having an academic implication.

2. Moderate Violations:

Moderate violations are quantitatively and/or qualitatively more serious than minor violations, such as:

• Submitting work that misrepresents or does not fully or fairly acknowledge all contributions of others. A moderate level violation typically shows an attempt to credit most of the language or ideas that influenced the work in question. Although the form of acknowledgment may be inconsistent and not all source(s) of other contributions may be properly acknowledged, at least some of the work satisfies the expectation of full and fair acknowledgment of the language or ideas that influenced that work. These behaviors’ failure to meet expectations is more severe than those described above under “Minor Violations,” but fall somewhat short of the whole-scale intentional cheating and/or transgressive borrowing represented in Section XII.B.3 (Major violations).
• Submission of work done for another course, or work done in a previous attempt of a repeated course without instructor permission.
• Providing a fraudulent excuse for missed coursework or when requesting an extension on an assignment or a rescheduled exam.
• Facilitating or permitting copying of one’s own work by another student.
• Falsifying a signature on any official university document (e.g., drop/add form, UHS form, attendance sign-in sheet).
• Misuse of University-issued username and password.

3. Major violations:

When a minor or moderate offense involves pre-planning or conspiracy with other students or with individuals outside the University, is accompanied by payment to a conspirator, occurs on a major assessment, or otherwise violates policy in an egregious way (not an exhaustive list), those factors may increase the severity to the level of a major violation. Examples include:

• Plagiarism (any instance beyond that described in sections XII.B.1 or in XII.B.2). Submitting work that does not fully or fairly acknowledge the contributions of others, because there is specific and demonstrable intent to deceive or because the quality or quantity of mis- or unattributed work are so great as to make other explanations implausible.
• Receiving unauthorized assistance on major assignments, such as exams, final papers, or major projects.
• Receiving unauthorized assistance on all or nearly all of an assignment.
• Deliberately denying others access to library or course materials.
• Providing assistance to another student on major assignments, such as exams, final papers, or major projects.
• Submitting an altered exam for re-grading.
• Fabrication or falsification of data, information, citations, etc.
• Unauthorized distribution or publication of course-related materials.
• Impeding the investigation or conduct of any Hearing Board matter.
• Obtaining an examination prior to its administration.

C. Sanctioning Guidelines for Undergraduate Students

The following provisions apply to all offenses:

1. All first-time offenders must complete a designated academic honesty tutorial.
2. Any failing grade of E or XE that results from a finding of responsibility for a policy violation will be indicated on the student’s transcript. If the student repeats the course subject to the SAS/Hajim repeat policy, the new grade will count towards the student’s GPA. Both grades (XE or E, and the new grade) will be indicated on the transcript.
3. Any semester grade that results from a finding of responsibility for a policy violation, reached through either the Instructor Resolution with Penalty process or the Board Resolution process, will be indicated on the student’s transcript. If the student repeats the course subject to the SAS/Hajim repeat policy, the new grade will count towards the student’s GPA, however some graduate schools may calculate the GPA taking both grades into account. Both grades (the original course grade and the new grade) will be indicated on the transcript.
4. With the exception of the XE and XF grade, grades recorded as a result of a Hearing Board decision will not be marked as such on the transcript. The following are the most typical penalties assigned, which may also be considered by individual instructors in proposing penalties through the Instructor Resolution with Penalty process. These are guidelines, not mandates, and sanctions are not limited to these actions, although fairness requires that precedent be taken into account in determining what constitutes an appropriate sanction. The penalties that affect a student’s grade or that involve time away from the University are listed in ascending order of severity for first and second offenses.
5. Additional sanctions that do not affect the student’s grade are listed in Section G.I, “Academic Disciplinary Probation.” A combination of both types of sanctions may be assigned.
6. The sanction will take into account the seriousness of all violations on record with the Board when determining a penalty. Fairness dictates applying less severe penalties for an offense classified as minor, particularly when it is a first offense.
7. Moderate and major violations will be sanctioned at more severe levels. Planning or pre-meditation to commit a violation, involvement of another student in a violation, compromising the integrity of the work of another individual or an entire class when committing a violation, contract cheating, lying during the Hearing Board process and/or knowingly impeding the process—known as “aggravating factors”—may increase the severity of the act.

D. First Violation

1. For Warning Letters, the requirement to redo the assignment (or equivalent task) so that it meets expectations, with zero and/or reduced credit on the assignment, without further penalty. For policy violations, zero on the assignment (with or without opportunity to redo) plus further reduction in the semester grade of 1/3, 2/3, or one full grade level, based on the severity of the infraction. Any penalty applied should be independent of the value of the work in question (relative to the student’s grade, or to the student’s academic progress if the work is not directly graded/course-based).
2. Any provision listed below for Academic Disciplinary Probation.
3. Assigned failing grade of E or F (“F” in the case of a course offered for all students on the P/F basis).
4. XF or XE grade. Note: The XF and XE grades are indicated on the student’s transcript as resulting from a violation of the academic honesty policy. The XE or XF grade is not generally used for a first offense, except when the offense is moderate or major and aggravating factors—one or more of the behaviors described above—exist. (Note: As described below, the XE or XF grade is not required but may be more commonly applied in first-time offenses for graduate students.)
5. Suspension for one semester—or in more extreme cases, up to three semesters. Credits earned at another institution during the period of suspension may not be transferred back to the University of Rochester. Suspension of any length of time is not generally applied for first offense except when the offense is moderate or major, and aggravating factors exist.
6. Expulsion from the University, only in egregious cases of a major violation. 

E. Second Violation

1. One sanction that must be considered but will not be automatically imposed for second offenses is the XF or XE grade and a suspension of one or more semesters. If both violations were minor, or one was minor and one was moderate, the XE/XF grade will not typically be imposed without aggravating circumstances.
2. Assigned failing grade of E or F (“F” in the case of a course that is offered for all students on the P/F basis), when both violations were minor.
3. Any provision listed below for Academic Disciplinary Probation.
4. XF or XE grade.
5. XF or XE grade and up to four semesters of suspension. Credits earned at another institution during the period of suspension may not be transferred back to the University of Rochester.
6. Expulsion from the University, only to be considered when the first violation was moderate or major and the second violation is major.

F. Third Violation

1. Expulsion from the University.

G. Additional measures

1. Academic Disciplinary Probation:

The following may be used for course-related violations, or when a policy violation is not associated directly with coursework. The purposes of academic disciplinary probation sanctions, which are applied at the discretion of the Chair and will depend on the nature of the violation(s) committed, are both punitive (meant to reflect the seriousness of students’ behavior) as well as educative in nature (meant to help shape students’ decision-making so they can avoid similar behaviors in the future).

Sanctions described below are not expected to replace any sanctions that affect a student’s course grade when the offense involves coursework but may be assigned as additional measures in any cases. A student’s failure to comply with the requirements of probation may result in further charges.

Conditions of Academic Disciplinary Probation are in effect for up to two semesters and may include:

• Prohibition from course overloads.
• Exclusion from extracurricular activities, including athletics and Student Association.
• Requirement to meet with the Academic Honesty Liaisons or other designated University resource during the period of probation.
• Higher likelihood of suspension or permanent separation, based on the severity of the violation, for any subsequent finding of responsibility during the period of probation.

2. Restorative Course on Academic Honesty and Integrity:

For first violations that are minor or moderate, students are given the option to complete a restorative in-person course in which they have opportunities to develop and demonstrate foundational ethical frameworks and concrete skills they can use to support honest, independent, ethical completion of academic work. Upon successful completion of the course, the violation is reduced to the status of a warning letter in the student’s academic honesty file. Completion of the course will have no bearing on the grade sanction. 

3. Sanctioning Guidelines for Graduate Students:

Graduate students may be in violation of the Academic Honesty Policy in their coursework or for any other infraction defined in Section V. These violations, with the exception of misconduct in research, are handled through the Board procedures, and they may range in seriousness as described in the preceding paragraphs. Violations raise immediate concerns about the student’s ability to conduct original scholarship as required for graduate degrees. They also undermine the trust that a mentor, dissertation committee, or an academic department must have for a graduate student in the pursuit of new knowledge.

Such breaches of trust must therefore be subject to a range of sanctions that reflect the gravity of these concerns and may result in expulsion from the University.

All first-time offenders must complete a designated academic honesty tutorial.

Depending on the student’s prior experience and educational background, first-time violations by graduate students that are considered minor may present important opportunities for education. In collaboration with the GEPA Dean, the Hearing Board should take into account different grading options for graduate students in SAS/Hajim.

Students found responsible for violating the policy may also be subject to additional sanctions from their home/sponsoring department(s) or from the Hearing Board itself. Such sanctions may include, but are not limited to, ineligibility for supplemental stipends or teaching awards for a period of time designated in the decision letter.

Sanctions for first-time violations by graduate students that are considered moderate or major must be approved in writing by the GEPA Dean before being offered to a student. First-time moderate violations should generally result in the recommendation of an XE grade. Sanctions for first-time major violations must include the recommendation of an XE grade, at minimum, and may result in the recommendation of expulsion from the graduate program.

Second-time or subsequent violations at any level of severity must go to a hearing of the Board as described above. A responsible finding normally results in the recommendation of expulsion from the graduate program. Following consultation with the department’s director of graduate studies and the GEPA Dean, a subsequent responsible finding may result in an XE grade and additional department sanctions rather than expulsion; however, exceptional mitigating factors would have to be documented as present, and this should be the exception rather than the rule.

Graduate students who engage in policy violations in the pursuit of sponsored research, also known as “misconduct in research,” will not be subject to the Academic Honesty Policy presided over by the Board. Such violations are in conflict with federal statutes that bind funding agencies and must therefore be dealt with by department procedures that are approved by the GEPA Dean. Disciplinary actions following from such procedures range from expulsion to revocation of advanced degrees.

XIII. Confidentiality, Records, Internal and External Reporting, and Self-reporting by Students

A. Confidentiality

RPs and Board members must refrain from sharing the names of students involved in reported cases with any other individual or organization except under the conditions described below. Instructors who are jointly overseeing academic work, such as co-instructors of a course or dissertation committee members, may confer with each other about suspected or reported violations in the work over which they have joint oversight. 

B. Records

The Board database will be kept permanently.

XF or XE grades will indicate a policy violation.

Expulsion will be noted permanently on the transcript as due to a policy violation.

C. Internal and External Reporting, and Self-reporting by Students

1. Internal Reporting:

Within the University, applications for on-campus employment, Students’ Association positions, membership on the Board, study abroad, fellowships, scholarships, or other awards for undergraduate or graduate students may include a waiver for the student to sign giving permission for the person in charge of the process to request information about the student’s academic honesty history.

Findings of responsibility will be reported, with the following exception: when a Warning Letter is the only report on file, it will not be reported.

Students will need to submit waiver requests to the Office of the University Registrar via email (registrar@rochester.edu). Without the request being submitted to the Registrar, no information will be released internally for the purposes described in Section 1.

Any record created pursuant to this policy may be disclosed with or without a waiver if required by law (e.g., subpoena, court order or valid discovery request in pending litigation) or to another school official with a need to know

2. External Reporting:

Academic honesty records will be reported upon request to external entities when a student submits a request for disclosure directly to the Office of the University Registrar via email (registrar@rochester.edu), as when applying to transfer to another school or for admission to graduate school, or for employment.

A Warning Letter will not be reported externally unless it is one of multiple findings of responsibility.

Any record created pursuant to this policy may be disclosed with or without a waiver if required by law (e.g., subpoena, court order or valid discovery request in pending litigation).

3. Self-reporting by Students:

The Warning Letter process is an educational intervention for matters that do not rise to the level of a reportable violation subject to institutional disciplinary action. Therefore, Warning Letters should not need to be self-reported as a violation of the Academic Honesty Policy. Therefore, definitive guidance on how to answer all such questions cannot be given. If a student is at all in doubt about whether to disclose the existence of a Warning Letter in response to a particular question, being honest and forthright is the recommended approach. A student may fairly describe the Warning Letter as an educational tool that is not considered by the University of Rochester as a policy violation.

Questions about academic disciplinary history, whether on internal or external applications for graduate school, employment, licensure, security clearance, fellowships, scholarships, and awards, for example, will vary.

Findings of responsibility for a policy violation, arrived at through the Instructor Resolution with Penalty or Board Resolution processes, are properly considered to be reportable violations under the Academic Honesty Policy.