CODE OF ACADEMIC INTEGRITY
What is the Code of Academic Integrity?
The Code of Academic Integrity is designed to ensure that the principle of academic honesty is upheld. While all members of the University share this responsibility, The Code of Academic Integrity is designed so that special responsibility for upholding the principle of academic honesty lies with the students.
The Code of Academic Integrity defines four major types of Academic Dishonesty, as described below.
- CHEATING: intentionally using or attempting to use unauthorized materials, information, or study aids in any academic exercise.
- FABRICATION: intentional and unauthorized falsification or invention of any information or citation in an academic exercise.
- FACILITATING ACADEMIC DISHONESTY: intentionally or knowingly helping or attempting to help another to violate any provision of this Code.
- PLAGIARISM: intentionally or knowingly representing the words or ideas of another as one's own in any academic exercise.
To view the entire Code of Academic Integrity, please visit this link:
http://www.studenthonorcouncil.umd.edu/code.html
The Honor Review Process:
Referral:
1. Any member of the University community who has witnessed an apparent act of academic dishonesty, or has information that reasonably leads to the conclusion that such an act has occurred or has been attempted, has the responsibility to inform the Honor Council promptly in writing.
2. If the Honor Council determines that a report of academic dishonesty is supported by reasonable cause, the case shall be referred to the Dean of the College where the incident occurred. The Dean or designee, (who must not be the referring faculty member), will inform the accused student in writing of the charges, and shall offer him/her an opportunity for an informal meeting to review the case. The faculty of the course may be included in the meeting. The Dean or designee shall also provide the accused student with a copy of this Code, and a statement of procedural rights approved by the Honor Council, which shall include the right of the student to request the presence of a member of the Honor Council at the informal meeting.
Informal Resolution
3. If the accused student has no prior record of academic dishonesty or serious disciplinary misconduct,the Dean or designee and the student may reach an agreement concerning how the case should be resolved. The standard "XF" grade penalty will normally be imposed if it is agreed by the student that he/she committed an act of academic dishonesty. Any other sanction agreed upon by the student and the Dean or designee will constitute a recommendation to the Honor Council, and must be supported by a written statement signed by the student and the dean or designee. The written statement will be reviewed by the Honor Council, which shall inform both the student and the Dean or designee of the sanction imposed.
Formal Resolution (Honor Board Review)
Cases not resolved in accordance with Part 10 of this Code shall result in an Honor Review. The Honor Board is convened by the Student Honor Council. It will normally consist of six persons, five of whom will be voting members.Determinations of the Honor Board will be by a majority vote (three votes or more). Honor Boards are made up of:
A)Three Student Honor Council members. If the accused student is a graduate student, then two of the Student Honor Council members shall be graduate students.
B)Two faculty members selected in accordance with the procedures established by the Vice President for Academic Affairs. If the accused student is a graduate student, then at least one of the faculty members shall be a regular member of the Graduate Faculty.
C)The Presiding Officer. The Presiding Officer may be a student, faculty, or staff member of the University. The Presiding Officer will be selected by the Director of Student Conduct.
Ad Hoc Honor Boards
If the Vice President for Academic Affairs determines that the Student Honor Council or an Honor Board cannot be convened within a reasonable period of time after an accusation is made, the Vice President or a designee may review the case. If there is reasonable cause to believe that an act of academic dishonesty has occurred or has been attempted, the Vice President or designee will convene an ad hoc Honor Board by selecting and appointing two students and one faculty/staff member. Whenever possible, student members of ad hoc Honor Boards shall be members of the Student Honor Council. A non-voting presiding officer shall be appointed by the Director of Student Conduct.
Complainant:
The Campus Advocate or a designee shall serve as the Complainant at an Honor Review. The principal responsibilities of the Complainant are:
a)to prepare a formal Charge of Academic Dishonesty, and deliver it to the student and the Honor Board. The student will be deemed to have received such notice on the date of personal delivery, or if certified mail is used, on the date of delivery at the most recent address provided to the University by the student;
b)to present the evidence and analysis upon which the Charge is based to the Honor Board during the Honor Review;
c)to perform such other duties as may be requested by the Student Honor Councilor the Honor Board.
Student Advocate:
The accused student may be assisted by an advocate, who must be a registered, degree-seeking student at the University. The role of the advocate will be limited to:
I. Making brief opening and closing statements, as well as comments on appropriate sanction.
II. Suggesting relevant questions which the Presiding Officer may direct to a witness.
III. Providing confidential advice to the student.
Purpose:
The purpose of an Honor Review is to explore and investigate the incident giving rise to the appearance of academic dishonesty, and to reach an informed conclusion as to whether or not academic dishonesty occurred. In keeping with the ultimate premise and justification of academic life, the duty of all persons at an Honor Review is to assist in a thorough and honest exposition of all related facts. The basic tenets of scholarship, full and willing disclosure, accuracy of statement, and intellectual integrity in hypothesis, in argument and in conclusion must always take precedence over the temptation to gain a particular resolution of the case. An Honor Review is not in the character of a criminal or civil legal proceeding. It is not modeled on these adversarial systems; nor does it serve the same social functions. It is not a court or tribunal. Rather, it is an academic process unique to the community of scholars that comprise a university.
Process of an Honor Board Review
1) Introduction by Presiding Officer (see the “Purpose” section above for an overview of the Honor Board Review)
2) Opening Statements: The Complainant, and then the student or the student's advocate, summarize the matter before the Honor Board, including any relevant information or arguments.
3) Testimony: The Complainant, and then the student, present and question persons having knowledge of the incident, and offer documents or other materials bearing on the case.
4) Questioning: The Complainant, the student and all members of the Honor Board may question any person giving testimony. The members of the Honor Board may ask the Complainant or the student any relevant questions. The members may also request any additional material or the appearance of other persons they deem appropriate.
5) Closing Statements: The Complainant, and then the student or the student's advocate, may make brief closing statements.
6) Deliberations: The Honor Board meets privately to discuss the case, and reaches a finding by a majority vote.
7) Decision: The Honor Board will not conclude that a student has attempted or engaged in an act of academic dishonesty unless, after considering all the information before it, a majority of members believe that such a conclusion is supported by clear and convincing evidence.
a) Dismissal of Charges (IF FOUND NOT RESPONSIBLE)
If a majority of the Honor Board cannot support a conclusion that the student is responsible for an act of academic dishonesty through clear and convincing evidence, the Honor Board will dismiss the charge of academic dishonesty.
b) Sanctioning (IF FOUND RESPONSIBLE)
If the Honor Board finds the student has engaged in an act of academic dishonesty,both the Complainant and the student or the student's advocate, may recommend an appropriate sanction. Pertinent documents and other material may be offered.The Honor Review will be adjourned at which point the Honor Board then meets privately to reach a decision, which must be by a majority vote of its members.The accused student will be informed of the sanction within approximately 1-2 weeks of the Honor Review.
8) The Presiding Officer will provide the Complainant and the student with a written report of the Honor Board's determination.