Part VI: Academic Integrity in Undergraduate Education and Research

The following policy on undergraduate academic integrity was originally formulated by the University of Connecticut Scholastic Standards Committee. It was revised and adopted by the University Senate on April 10, 2000.

This part 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.

1. Academic Integrity
   A fundamental tenet of all educational institutions is academic honesty; academic work depends upon respect for and acknowledgement of the research and ideas of others. Misrepresenting someone else’s work as one’s own is a serious offense in any academic setting and it will not be condoned.
   
   Academic misconduct includes, but is not limited to, providing or receiving assistance in a manner not authorized by the instructor in the creation of work to be submitted for academic evaluation (e.g. papers, projects, and examinations); any attempt to influence improperly (e.g. bribery, threats) any member of the faculty, staff, or administration of the University in any matter pertaining to academics or research; presenting, as one’s own, the ideas or words of another for academic evaluation; doing unauthorized academic work for which another person will receive credit or be evaluated; and presenting the same or substantially the same papers or projects in two or more courses without the explicit permission of the instructors involved.
   
   A student who knowingly assists another student in committing an act of academic misconduct shall be equally accountable for the violation, and shall be subject to the sanctions and other remedies described in The Student Code.


2. Instructor’s Role
1. Instructors shall take all reasonable steps to prevent academic misconduct by students in their courses.
1. During the course of an examination, an instructor or proctor who observes suspicious behavior should warn the individuals involved regarding the appearance of their actions and request them to cease the suspicious actions immediately. Continuation of such behavior may be considered evidence of academic misconduct.
2. A remarkable similarity between or among two or more supposedly independent works submitted for individual evaluation also may be considered evidence of academic misconduct.
2. When an instructor believes there is sufficient information to demonstrate a clear case of academic misconduct, the instructor shall notify the accused student in writing (and orally if possible) that unless the student requests a hearing to contest the instructor’s belief, the instructor shall impose the appropriate academic consequences warranted by the circumstances. Normally, written notification shall occur with in thirty (30) days of the discovery of the alleged misconduct. A copy of this notice is sent to the dean of the college or a designee and to the department head.
1. The appropriate academic consequence for serious offenses is generally considered to be failure in the course. For less serious 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.
2. The faculty member is responsible for saving the information of academic misconduct in its original form and need not return any of the papers or other materials to the student. Copies of the student’s work and information about other evidence shall be provided to the student upon request.
3. 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 school or college’s hearing body.
4. Normally, the student shall be given five (5) business days from the instructor’s first written notice to respond.
1. If the student admits responsibility or does not respond, the academic consequences shall be imposed and a report will be submitted to the dean of the instructor’s school as well as to the Director of Judicial Affairs.
2. If a student chooses to contest the instructor’s belief of academic misconduct, the student may submit a written request for a hearing to the instructor and send copies of the request to the dean of the college and the department head.
3. Hearing on Academic Misconduct
1. A hearing on academic misconduct shall be held as soon as possible by a hearing body authorized by the school or college wherein the alleged misconduct occurred. Please refer to Part IV, D.2 (“a” through “k”) and D.3 for understanding of the hearing process.
2. The sole purpose of the hearing shall be to determine whether or not the student is responsible for the alleged violation of academic misconduct.
3. If the student is found “Responsible”, the instructor’s original sanction shall be implemented. If the student is found “Not Responsible”, no sanction shall be imposed.
4. The accused student and the instructor shall be notified in writing of the hearing body’s decision.
4. Appellate Review
1. The student may appeal the hearing body’s decision to the Provost according to the appellate process described in Part IV of The Student Code. The appeal must be in writing and be received by the Provost or designee within five (5) business days of notification of the hearing body’s decision.
2. The decision of the Provost is final. There will be no further right of appeal.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Consideration of Additional Sanctions
   The final outcome of each charge of academic misconduct along with supporting documents shall be forwarded to the Director of Judicial Affairs by the instructor and/or the hearing body in order to ensure accuracy and consistency within the University judicial system.
1. In light of a student’s record of misconduct or in response to especially egregious circumstances surrounding a particular incident of academic misconduct, the Director of Judicial Affairs may initiate a review of the student’s academic transcript and judicial record that could result in the imposition of a more severe sanction.
2. Following an initial review of a student’s record, the Director of Judicial Affairs may forward the record to the Provost or designee who shall determine whether additional sanctions are warranted.
1. This review is neither a new hearing nor an appeal. Rather, it is a consideration of the severity of the student’s recent academic misconduct in conjunction with the student’s record.
2. Should the Provost or designee choose to interview the student as part of the review, a support person may accompany the student to the meeting.
3. Upon completing the review, the Provost or designee may impose one or more sanctions in addition to the sanction determined by the instructor.